Clockface12

AI? They are quoting Wikipedia articles in those little pop-ups.

Well said. :D

The older you are when you smoke, the worse it is for you. Smoking in your twenties is far less harmful in terms of its likelihood to cause cancer than smoking in your forties, fifties, or sixties. The damage gets worse with every decade of your life.

Just stop. In five years' time, you'll wonder why you didn't stop sooner.

It's professinalized American-style fundraising. It's an accepted part of US culture. The whole system of US politics works like that. People in the rest of the world often don't understand that.

https://campaignsandelections.com/industry-news/how-american...

Might as well search in Wikimedia Commons directly ... at least you know that you can use whatever you find there (even if attribution may be required in some cases) ...

The title sounds hopeful, and nature's resilience is indeed amazing, but the article also explains how the plastic debris enables coastal dwellers to cross oceans and become invasive species at the other end of the earth, while also competing against existing open-ocean rafters.

Basically, plastic is bad news. It's amazing that things have gotten so far and there is still, as far as I know, no sign of the plastic pollution trend reversing.

The endowment is $100 million the other $200 million is foundation assets – including (these are last years June 2020 figures)

$71 million cash

$95 million short term investments

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWi...

Yeah. Absolutely infuriating if you specifically use quotes and you get all sorts of dross not containing what you're looking for. Clearly they have figured out in some way that giving the end user what they want does not maximise income.

Google News too has become flaky. Often does not find stuff you know is there, or finds it one day, but not another. Hrmph.

This is like Gresham's law, only for information: bad info driving out good.

The same applies to Wikipedia sometimes, which, being free, achieves a degree of visibility and ubiquity (across search engines and voice assistants) it doesn't always deserve.

The Twitter account in question is https://twitter.com/yassifybot -- pictures generated thru multiple applications of FaceApp "beauty filters". AI photoediting in practice.

The art forgery case discussed in that blog post was covered last month in the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/nyregion/raymond-pettibon...

The New York Times writer was of course unaware of how this played out on Wikipedia.

You're right about people simply acting in a way they think will serve their personal interests, and it's a nice distinction. Thank you. Another aspect of legacy holding companies back.

Exactly. It's surely significant that Tesla has overtaken all the incumbents and now has the greatest market share in plug-in electric vehicles (i.e. plug-in hybrids and battery-electric vehicles combined):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/541390/global-sales-of-p...

Not long ago, the incumbents ridiculed Tesla and did their best to publicise various teething problems at Tesla .. production delays, fit-and-finish issues, etc.

That's a human reaction from people who've invested their whole careers into building IC engines. But it's precisely indicative of foot dragging: rather than focusing on leveraging their greater manufacturing expertise in the fight for EV market share, they underestimated the challenge coming their way.

"DuckDuckGo says its analysis of popular free Android apps shows more than 96 percent of them contain trackers. Blocking these trackers means Facebook and Google, whose trackers are some of the most prominent, can’t send data back to the mothership—neither will the dozens of advertising networks you’ve never heard of." Sounds good.

One of the quoted experts opines that while some of the big established car manufacturers will survive, most “are running an uphill race with a parachute behind them while EV-first firms are sledding downhill.”

I think they have a point – existing manufacturers will have to spend a lot of time and energy divesting themselves of all the plants and workforce that will become useless, and/or converting and retooling facilities and retraining staff as they abandon the manufacturing of internal combustion engines and navigate the transition.

All of that necessarily involves looking backwards and takes mental energy away from future-forward product development. Companies that don't have to invest a significant part of their management resources in dealing with legacy have a potential advantage.