BananaTrifleViolin

All browser companies monetise you to some extent. Even Firefox does this a bit (Paid deals make Google is the default search, and Amazon search is also paid to be included as a link for example).

However the big difference is the private companies like Vivaldi, Brave etc monetise your data more and less transparently, plus the entire Chromium ecosystem is basically under Google’s control. Manifest 3 will not be restricted to Chrome, it is being built into the Chromium project and will end up in Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Vivaldi, Brave etc. Chromium is a trojan horse project, used to push Google’s priorities and objectives across the web, not end users.

The only viable alternative is Firefox based browsers. I use Firefox itself (aware of it’s compromises and using a whole host of extensions), but there are also forks and projects that strip even Firefox’s compromises back - LibreWolf in particular. For all the flaws of the Mozilla foundation, it is transparent on what it does to keep the project going, and the independence of the project compared to chromium is hugely important. Note Firefox is also going to support Manifest V3 (so that extensions can continue to be cross-browser) BUT it is also keeping support for the key APIs that Google is removing (i.e. the ability for extensions to use the block webRequest API which is foundational to current Ad and privacy protection extensions).

Vivaldi is no different to other Chromium based broswers; it uses the exact same Google controlled code base, plus it is doing everything it can to monetise you. You are the product; all these companies are stealing and financially exploiting your data and we’re all just handing it to them on a platter for free and thanking them for fucking us over.

The BBC article that this article is a bizarre summary of is far better (the Gizmodo article even links directly to the BBC article). It give a far better overview of the issues; the main crux is they cost most than anticipated through both theft and cost of the machines themselves. The consumer’s disliking it is a less point and more naunced essentially “customer’s want the technology to work but it isn’t” which is also what you’ve said.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240111-it-hasnt-delivered-the-spectacular-failure-of-self-checkout-technology

Personally I preferred the self checkouts because I don’t want to interact with someone, but th they fail so much (because of the weighing which is to stop me being a supposed thieving scumbag, not to benefit me) and you end up standing around waving at a random stranger to come and fix the machine awkwardly while a massive queue waits impatiently for a machine. I’ve recently switched back to the manned checkouts for bigger shopping trips.

Self Driving Cars - were getting used to the idea because of the half baked stuff that’s already here but it’s realistic this will make it mainstream in the coming years

“Cure” for cancer - the rapid progress in immunotherapy drugs is making more and more cancers realistically treatable. Cancers.are still terrible conditions but it does feel realistic that we are moving towards a “cure”. After that it’ll be a focus on preventing and reducing the horrible side effects of treating cancers.

Regrowing organs - this also seems increasingly realistic. We’re already routinely regrowing people’s immune systems for some conditions (autologus ransplants - where the donor is also the recipient). We’re also increasingly growing different types of tissues and organs in lab experoments. It’s looking plausible although hard to say when it’ll become mainstream.

AI - I’m not convinced this one is on its way. What I mean is true General AI. What is labelled AI now is nowhere near General AI; it’s sophisticated and impressive but also limited and deeply flawed. We’re in an era of hype to drive up share prices but the actual technology is error strewn and is essentially a remix engine for human generated creativity. I’m not convinced true General AI is on its way because at the moment they don’t understand how the current AI systems work. It’s unlikely you can proceed from what we have to full general AI stumbling around in the dark or by shear luck. Not impossible, but unlikely. I think the current methods will more likely hit a brick wall in prpgress - they are useful tools but may be an illusion when it comes to full AI.

I deleted my account.

You can use PowerPoint in a web browser with office 365. Really don’t need windows to run it anymore.

I’ve started seeing US pick up trucks here in the UK in a city and they really are rediculous. Really large (comically so) and the truck bit is open to the elements although I have never ever seen anyone using the truck bit for anything whatsoever. Rediculous waste of space and I’m surprised they’re ever legal here.

In fairness to Apple that is good design. Computers including phones should be intuitive and easy to use, but also accessible to more experienced users.

The keeping up with Jones stuff with apple though is really bad. Like kids going off the university getting premium Mac books when they could save money and get a generic windows lap top. Or the seemingly ubiquitous purchase of earpods - an expensive way to purchase earphones when there are so many cheaper alternatives, not least the dirt cheap 3.5mm wired earphones that phone manufacturers are trying to obliterate.

This is an interesting concept but doesn’t seem like it has long term legs.

It depends on what you mean by open source and also even eBook reader (I’m assuming eInk), but if people want open source e-readers I would say flashing existing reader hardware with open source operating systems would be the way to go. However I’m not sure if there is much motivation to do that.

There are Android based eink ereaders available with more freedom than Kindle devices (Boox is an example) and you can side load free or open source reader software onto Kobo (maybe not Android Kindles though?), and you can load free books onto e-readers via software like Calibre. So you can read books in privacy outside the vendors ecosystem - it kinda reduces the imputus to build an open source ereader (hardware or OS).

I’d love to see a truly open source Eink device - particularly software wise. But I doubt the demand is enough. And this Open Source hardware solution seems a bit too cut back to fit the bill.

Not strictly correct. Spotify pays out from its net revenues (revenues when billing costs and tax are removed) and it pays to the various industry rights holders who then distribute the money. There are lots of complex deals in place and big rights holders are likely to have better deals than ad hoc users, plus it’s different in different countries.

The 70% figure is a PR thing Spotify pushes about as part of its constant battles with rights holders on exactly how much it will pay them. It’s trying to claim most of the money goes to artists but it’s opaque how much goes where.

This may also be about trying to take control of OpenAI. Despite owning 49% of OpenAI, the company is seemingly set up so the 5 board members have control and they’re seemingly not under the control of investors.

Could this actually be about Altman and his allies trying to take the company fully for-profit so they could benefit? It also seems Altman is very close to Microsoft, so rather than product roadmap this might actually about trying to take control of the company.

Microsoft hiring the staff and forming an AI unit is a boon to them if it happens, but OpenAI still own and controls everything they’ve worked on up to date, and it seems the Investors don’t control that judging by the boards independance.

Meanwhile Altman is tweeting very concillatory OpenAI but pro Microsoft position. This may be a battle for the whole company, not just a personality thing.

It’s not immovable, it’s just locked so you don’t accidentally move it by clicking and dragging. Try right locking on the bar in a blank area lower down - the right click menu should have an option for moving it.

True although I think most relationships are unstable and have drama particularly when young, which is why people can move through so many. Most people have multiple relationships in their lives until they find someone that works (or keep going). That’s seen as normal.

I think there is a bias when people look at poly relationships as they seem novel and if they fail it’s easy to say it was because it was poly. But if a 2 partner relationship fails it’s “normal” and we accept all the reasons like “I didntnlove them anymore” or “we grew apart” etc.

It sounds like the person you were with would have been better off in an open relationship with someone.rather than labelling it as polyamory or want to pursue polyamory?

I’ve not been in a ployamerous relationship myself but I’d imagine the hardest part is the time and effort needed to maintain your relationship with each partner?

I could see 2 partners being doable but hard work, but once you go beyond that, then it must get very difficult? Especially if you don’t all live together as juggling full time work around making the time and space to maintain very close personal relationships must be very hard.

And my mind boggles when you get to pplyamorpus “networks” where 2 partners may have relationships with other people rather than a shared 3rd partner. I think it would take a lot of honesty and maturity to make that work long term. I don’t think I’d be capable of that.

Polygamy does mean marriages but has been missed because people didn’t have better alternative words. “Menage a trois” is another term not needing marriage but has connotations to some of being mostly sexual and also only cover 3 people.

Polyamory as a word wasn’t really widely used until the 90s and it’s only really become mainstream in the last maybe 10 years?

Polyamory is much more precise and correct than polygamy.for describing relationships outside marriage. Polygamy is also a legal term very specifically related to marriage laws.

While it’s a factor it probably isn’t the root of the problem. The problem is car manufacturers are building the cars faster than the market is growing and at high price points than consumers want in a time of economic difficulty and inflation.

We’re still seeing build out of electric infrastructure, expensive cars vs petrol cars, and a relatively small second hand market (which also drives infrastructure expansion). It also doesn’t help that countries are pushing back promises to ban non-EV car sales. Dealership monopolies certainly exacerbate all those problems.

This story headline is nonsense though. EVs are working and are growing. The story is actually that car companies have made expensive attempts at grabbing market share which haven’t worked and are now counting the costs. They’re delaying the rate of growth in production, not reducing production - significant difference.

Mozilla needs funding. By taking money from Google and DuckDuckGo specifically for search it allows Firefox to remain independent and the software it produces is underpins lots of other even more independent privacy respecting software.

The eco system around Firefox needs Firefox to survive. Unless a better funding source comes along Firefox would be in jeopardy. Having. Said that Thunderbird has been successfully turned around due to a well run community pursuing donations and volunteers.

It would also be good if countries stumped up some of the funding Mozilla and other crucial open source projects like Linux need, to maintain a strong software ecosystem. Similar to how many European countries fund national broadcasters to maintain media diversity.

No it depends on how you interpret it. Apple may have legitimate reasons for technical differences between the different versions of Safari. The issue would be if Apple is claiming they are more different than they really are to say they don’t count as one when calculating market share.to.determine whether regulation applies.

Mozilla Forefpx has different versions for Android, and Desktop. So does Chrome. But in terms of marketshare generally people class them as one browser.

Out of interest what part of the UI don’t you like? You can drag and drop pretty much any button and component where ever you want and you can use the Firefox colours website to apply any colour scheme you want. This is all core browser features so no performance affects.

What is it that a theme is then adding?

It’s good users are now aware that Brave includes redundant features that you have to pay extra for to activate. Users browser will update everytime the browser or the VPN software needs an update.

For example Firefox VPN from Mozilla is separate software. They don’t force millions of users to download it even if they don’t want it.

This is yet another example why people should not be using Brave and should be skeptical of its intentions.

They made a mistake in removing SMS support - that was a good way to become useful to people with the current paradigm and encourage them over to the new. Sometimes Signals decisions are self destructive.

I still have signal but I use it much less since it stopped SMS support; I just open it less and so when starting conversations default to WhatsApp. For a while signal was growing amongst my friends and colleagues but it appears to have stalled.

Google are now doing the same pushing their RCS in the default SMS app in Android.