Shut up, or they’ll notice their mistake!

Perhaps the reason he has that kind of money is because the people that give it to him know that he doesn’t have principles to begin with.

There’s no single individual that made it happen, but no doubt that Linus and RMS were the two biggest. Bear in mind that there were lots of additional contributors to the kernel and GNU as well.

I also think Red Hat was also one of the biggest contributors to Linux’s success. So many of the most important technologies that we use today came out of RH. I don’t have a lot of love for them today, but their contributions in the '90s and '00s was immense.

I actually think that a large part of the reason why PCs are much better open platforms than mobiles is because there is no Red Hat of the mobile ecosystem. Google started it out with AOSP, but then closed it up when they monopolized the market. Makes you wonder if RH would have done the same if they had the same kind of success.

Sounds like an opportunist. Someone who just says what he needs to get his way, but has no guiding principles.

I can see how a message like this would sound coming from someone like Bernie Sanders, ie. high prices are squeezing regular people while oil companies bag the profit. Even if it’s good for people to drive less from a climate perspective, it has to be done in a way that doesn’t harm real people. But this guy just sounds like he’s angling for political points with no concern for real issues. Would make a terrible president, so I guess he has high chances to become the Democratic nominee.

And they say AI doesn’t cause brainrot… “Sorry you can’t get AI to work for you. Keep trying!” sounds like the kind of thing you would expect from someone who only outputs the highest quality of work, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying all AI users are like this, and there are many smart developers that do use it effectively (like Torvalds), but there is definitely a loud group of AI cheerleaders that extremely careless and overconfident, while lacking any sense of self-criticism or oversight of what they say or do.

And by the way, you definitely can build simple web-apps in a day without AI. I was doing that in 2015 by just following the Django tutorial. It took me longer than a day because I tried to read the documentation and understand it. But if I put the same amount of effort that these low-effort AI users do, I could have easily just copy-pasted shit from the finished tutorial and been done in an hour with the same level of understanding (or lack thereof) that AI users have.

That’s the difference between good and bad engineers - you have the tools in front of you, but can you make yourself a better engineer while you use them?

Speaking of which, you know what these AI tools do? They just go to github and copy off some project that already does what you want it to do. Anyone could do that before AI existed. Sure, it’s definitely impressive that they can understand what you want to do and find the right result (usually), but you could do that ever since search engines were invented. AI is just the “I’m feeling lucky” button from Google from back when people had enough sense to be a little critical of the results they were looking at before they clicked it.

The best way to stop far-right parties is for non-far-right parties to get off their asses and start fixing the problems our society is facing. To be specific, prioritizing financial security and stability for regular people above all else - even the “economy”.

Or to put it in simpler terms: we’re fucked.

Article is light on details. I’m curious how they define what is “algorithm”-generated content and what isn’t.

Ad personalization is hard to verify because it’s all happening on the backend. What you see in a feed is much more visible, so maybe that will make it harder to work around. I haven’t read much about how the legislation works and how it defines algorithms, but if it’s something like, “only show me people I’ve subscribed to”, then it would be pretty easy to verify whether they are showing that or not.

But in general, I agree. Big tech companies always find a way to work around this legislation. Enforcement is the issue, not the laws themselves.

Wait, isn’t he supposed to be on the team that’s trying to stop climate change?

Or does he think it’s safe to let his backroom deal persona out into the public now?

The problem is, Android is not your OS, it’s Google’s OS. They decide how it works, not you, damn peasant!

(Ditto for Ios and Apple, probably)

Mullvad recommended Quad9 when they announced the shutdown. They said it’s because they think Quad9 is doing a better job of it than they can, so it’s a pretty serious recommendation.

Worth a read, it’s not too long: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/shutting-down-our-public-encrypted-dns-servers-and-sponsoring-quad9-instead

Lemmy is like that to some extent. The fact that users have to pick an instance is, for a lot of people, too much overload and drives them away. But I see it as a filter. You have to have some absolute minimum baseline level of understanding and proficiency of the platform you’re using. That’s why the massive number of people on Facebook, etc. are oblivious to how they’re being exploited by the platform, because they don’t understand what it is or how it works.

s/gift/bribe/

Holy shit, can’t believe someone actually added this pattern to the coffeestains package!!

Smartphones ruined the internet.

When you needed to sit at a computer, use a keyboard, and spend a bit of time to write out thoughtful content, the quality of the discussion and community on the internet was so much higher. With smartphones, they had to dumb down the UI, consolidate content and reactions into likes and emojis, and generally just had to deal with smaller, more unsubstantive and rage-baity comments.

Plus, there’s just the undeniable fact that computer users are more tech-savvy than people who only know how to use a smartphone. Making the internet smartphone friendly opened the floodgates up to a sea of low-quality engagement.

Before smartphones, we would go outside, live our lives, then come home and see what happened on the internet that day. When the internet started following us around in our pockets on crippled devices that are designed for consumption and cheap-ass engagement, that’s really when the internet went to shit.

Internet tech companies have perfected the art of enshittifying a service. Internet services these days practically follow a playbook of, 1.) hook users, 2.) build a walled garden, 3.) exploit users. Basically the EEE of the user-driven web. Pretty much every company at this point, both old and new (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Reddit, TikTok, Discord, Twitter, Netflix) follow this exact pattern.

Modern UI design, dark patterns, deprecating services while raising prices, “install our app!”, etc. We didn’t have this in the days of IRC, Usenet, all that other good stuff before corporate web came around.

Remember when Microsoft was forced to give a “select your web browser” prompt when setting up a Windows computer?

Quaint times, those were…

Fair, he was due to retire.

But at the very least, there’s a good chance that Apple will start trying to shoehorn integrate AI in a lot of places. How much and where remains to be seen. Especially as a new CEO, there will be a lot of pressure to respond to all the criticism they’ve been receiving about their approach to AI.

That’s probably about to change with their new CEO too:

“It’s becoming clear that AI is not a fad, is not something that will go away in the next two or three years,” said Jeronimo. “It’s something that will dictate the future of most tech companies and indeed all companies.”

He reckons AI could be “the most consequential technology” for Apple because it could either help it maintain its lofty position or create a set of daunting challenges.

https://www.dw.com/en/can-new-apple-ceo-john-ternus-fix-the-tech-giants-ai-woes/a-78575898

It’s pretty likely that AI was the reason why Apple is changing CEOs in the first place, because they have been getting criticized for not being as hopelessly stupid about it as other tech companies are.

The magic damage meta is so much more interesting that right-click damage. Every fight, you’re on the edge of your seat wondering if they’re going to be able to burst down the main hero, or are they going to run out of mana/spells/cooldowns. Teams have to coordinate their spells and abilities which just makes for much more interesting analysis. It’s just much cooler than watching HP bars steadily tick down from right clicks.

You’re definitely right about all the saves in the game making heroes like Jugg unviable. The game has evolved a lot over the years with a lot more itemization, and the game continues to get better and better, but it’s also made many of the original heroes feel pretty unloved. A lot of the new mechanics in the game haven’t been backported to them. Look at Muerta for example - a viable carry because her ultimate goes through ghost scepter (right?) and she has a better built-in farming mechanic too. So yeah, Jugg does need a little more in his kit, but you could probably say the same about a lot of the old heroes too (especially carry ones).