My guess is the combination of sort of sped-up audio and video plus lighting that is too even and "perfect", and the random blinks that don't seem to correspond to a regular human's average intervals (seriously, go look at it consciously, it's very weird) combine to land it straight in the uncanny valley.
Framing the Gender Recognition Act as making it easier for "teenagers to choose their gender" is a particularly misleading spin. Most of this article is just a very erudite spin on very classical and frankly kind of boring right-wing talking points. It's one thing for someone to post their political views, and another for them to refuse to be honest about what they're doing and bury them in so many layers of philosophy as to make it unclear what actual points they're trying to make. Luckily this slip-up, driven by the modern conservative's Achilles Heel (trans people having agency), makes it particularly easy to unravel the rest of this given it gives you a good understanding of its motivations.
Until and unless Microsoft Office products are on Linux natively and are supported by Microsoft, Linux will never be a mainstream operating system. And that's never going to happen.
Oh no! The Internet is more easily accessible providing more knowledge and access to millions worldwide! It's not limited to our extremely exclusive clique of 1337 hackers who also all happen to be white, college-educated American men!
So that the ads are more personalized. I know this sounds weird, but if I'm going to get ads anyway, I'd like them to potentially be products I'm going to maybe have a use for and might make my life easier.
I get the privacy implications, but asking "why would anyone agree to this" is kind of narrow-minded.
They challenged the validity of the election, and they failed. Yet they continue to insist on fighting a losing battle and possibly refusing to leave the White House.
That's called a coup attempt. A pathetic one, sure. But a coup attempt nonetheless.
It isn't really surprising when those foreign powers are actively hostile not only to your country, but to fundamental moral principles you hold dear.
To be clear, it's definitely not at all better in any meaningful sense for Google/the US government to have your data. But sometimes it's about the principle of the thing.
I find it interesting that your example for "benefit of hindsight" is TypeScript. TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript, so it's literally "just add good stuff to the bad and live with it". Am I misunderstanding something?
The condescending tone of this article does not help it whatsoever.
Not to mention the huge gaps in logic that cause it to jump from merely a misguided attempt to rail against well established conventions for interfaces to an active argument for those interfaces still being good.
This article has a catchy title, but is absolutely terrible. Curated human recommendations and/or "YouTube staffers should think like journalists" are both two of the worst ideas for the internet I've heard in quite a long time. They don't reduce bias by any significant amount consistently (and I suspect the authors know this), and thinking of a platform where millions of seperate people upload ungodly amounts of content per second as a platform to be curated just like a news site is just fundamentally misunderstanding the scale and nature of Cyberspace.
Frankly, this comment is simply rude and ineffectual. It completely unnecessarily disrespects the good people in the OpenAI team. No one doesn't qualify as "real people".
This special value that people place on touching and seeing is completely arbitrary. Your condescending attitude on this doesn't help you make your case in any way.
And these policies are only being egged on by people in the West who favor censoring hate speech, ostensibly to protect or defend minorities, instead of confronting dangerous ideologies head-on. It's a sad thing to happen to the Internet for sure.
Sure, it may be a bad-faith question, but I think the point still stands. IRC, as an open communications protocol, will always, always, always be better than private companies with the potential to be controlled by anything. Richard Stallman would be rolling in his grave.
We need regulation, but not in the authoritarian way you propose. We need to prevent any one person or organization from having too big a loudspeaker, and that means maintaining a free-expression attitude and creating regulation that ensures that no one can interfere with that. Your statement is highly ironic because all it does is hand the fucking loudspeaker to the government instead, which as you yourself said, can be any sort of government, including authoritarian ones. You haven't thought this through, and there are people who have done so for a lot longer than you have. Your arrogance in this matter will be your undoing.
The goal is not to convince people "China's economy is collapsing 25 question marks". The goal varies from article to article. This article is only trying to convince people that some companies are moving away from China for various reasons and trying to explain the reasons why. Whether you think it's correct is a different story.
Brain drain is a thing that exists, but I argue it's not really a problem. I'm not going to address the other aspects of your comment for now at least.
I live in India, where complaints of brain drain are the main topic of discussion among adults here, and the main thing politicians love to blame when looking for excuses. There are no feasible ways to ""solve"" brain drain without either a) taking away people's choices - North Korea has no brain drain, or b) Making your country's incentives better so the problem becomes irrelevant. If you want b, then the term "brain drain" is bad because it is almost always seen as an attack on the choice of people moving out. Use a different, more specific, and more understandable term.
It's almost as if every piece of technology is a double edged sword. Anything that can be used to disseminate information can also be used to disseminate disinformation. It's the nature of things like this.