someotherperson

It's not just that. It's that they propped up a hapless, ineffectual competitor so that it can point free software enthusiasts to when they bring up browsers.

Every conversation about free browsers results in Firefox, which is trash. And community efforts are almost singularly focused on supporting this thing that is 90% of the way there, but never actually getting there, while Mozilla is able to sit back and do nothing but still get paid. It's the resource curse applied to tech, with the lazy teammate being the one people are hoping will one day wake up and do the work.

It really is time for a reset.

Mozilla will be studied in the future. It's actually a masterful act from Google on how to stifle the competition and protect your bottomline.

Really, really wish that Mozilla just shuts down, so that the FOSS community can turn their attention to an actual, intentionally competitive alternative. Would love to see Canonical or similar lead the way here.

There's other reasons to avoid LG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToP9xfLDSME

Get some hybrid mini-scleral lenses fitted and your life will improve significantly :)

The time difference between today and Hackers is the same as when the film was released and the year 1964. That's the year films like Dr. Strangelove, Goldfinger and A Fistful of Dollars was released.

You (we) are old :)

Worth mentioning that Oracle has been hosting US TikTok data since 2022.

Oh wow. I did the same thing a couple of weeks ago. The server hadn't been updated since ~2015, running a blog on Ghost from that time with node 0.10 installed.

I was a bit rougher though: I just took a backup, then let my Hermes agent (Gemini 3.1 Pro) loose on it. It upgraded everything that needed to be upgraded, patched what needed to be patched, then proceeded to migrate everything to it's most recent equivalents. After that, a fair bit of server hardening was carried out followed by debloating of unused services. Likely would have continued to procrastinate doing this if it wasn't for AI support.

Italy, Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Norway, Portugal. Which have I missed?

Even Germany is a dumb one, really. The only reason why they didn't participate is because they legally weren't allowed to. What they did do, however, is deploy huge numbers to various US bases around the world so that the US can have a larger deployment.

The only absurdity here is the idea that the European retconning is believable.

The only ones that didn’t are France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Greece. The rest all did. This cohort changed its mind with Libya and Syria not too long after though.

> The US famously renamed French fries in protest.

The same French who very famously made Israel the nuclear-capable pariah state that it is today.

> Lots of odd assumptions there.

No assumptions, it's all fact.

> I was out on the streets protesting the 2003 GWB Iraq invasion war

You mean the war that all the European countries participated in? How about Libya? Syria? or the various conflicts in Israel? Surely you also opposed what's happening in Yemen right?

> And you seem to have this way of boiling literally everything down to some sort of unspecified racism

Suggesting 'we are trustworthy to have nuclear capabilities, but those other people are not' is racist, yeah. Considering the most crackpot nations responsible for most of the global instability and suffering over the last few centuries are also the ones who seem to think they can decide who can and can't utilize energy sources. Let me know when you show similar concern about Israel.

"Foreigners like me care more about global stability" yes so continue to rain bombs on the middle east, accept their poorest as refugees, and continue to support Israeli expansion. All of this leads to global stability. It's definitely not the reason behind global instability.

European takes are usually the funniest. It's literal racism (as in, one race is better than the other) but it's packaged in such a ridiculous way that you somehow suggest that it's doing others a favor.

> Most of the investment is from private capital, not banks

It's just banks investing in private equity firms. So it's still banks, just by proxy, due to 2008 regulation.

I wrote my post myself.

The medium and small players are literally just distilling the larger models.

It's not the smaller players spending billions on training data.

Competition is bad? Who cares - let the big players subsidize and compete between each other. That's what we want. We want strong models at a low price, and we'll hype up whoever is doing it.

Simultaneously, we also hype up the open models that are catching up. That are significantly more discounted, that also put pressure on the big players and keep them in check.

People aren't falling for PR; people are encouraging the PR to put pressure on the competition. It's not that hard.

Yes, and also pushed for by the Israeli and US governments. Tech investment is part of the Abraham Accords - i.e this is part of the prerequisites for normalization of ties with Israel.

No, batteries do not exist. Just like solar technology wasn't developed to a point where it was barely useful until relatively recently, battery technology is no where near what is required for any national grid. That's why there is a fundamental dependence on fossil fuels, and why there isn't a single country who can depend on wind or solar. Because there is no way to store that energy.

The only countries with a successful secondary fallback are those who use geothermal or hydro, with the latter being opposed by the same environmentalists who oppose nuclear. Not every country has geothermal energy, nor do most countries have hydro, and most of the countries with either of those don't have enough to power their grid. The only ones that do have no real manufacturing. The issue is front and center: the ones that need it the most are the ones who are unable to utilize it.

In the interim, until meaningful storage exists, it's the 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear crowd who have plunged the world into chaos and contributed to endless destruction of the planet. The world is still using fossil fuels because the world has no alternative other than nuclear.

There needs to be a stepping stone - and that stepping stone is nuclear. Until then, the stepping stone is oil, coal and gas. Which means Middle Eastern wars, environmental destruction and fracking. Dealing with whatever fallout that comes from nuclear, with room for those who can't support nuclear to use fossil fuels, while the rest of the world figures out a real way forward on how to collect and store solar and wind is the only path forward.

Ya it’s insulting to provide a single success case.

> The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price.

Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. The point is that the price isn't worth it.

> There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste.

This is a non-argument, just like it was last year.

> And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants.

2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above.

> Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from?

There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it.

> BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave

The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.

Ah yes, the sun shines at night and wind comes from trees. If you can name a country using solar and wind that isn't dependent on fossil fuels I'd love to hear about it.

> Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward

You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement.

Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? Plenty of things cost a lot - healthcare, social spending, roads, all of it. Those war machines that exist to prop up the fossil fuel industry cost a pretty penny as well. It's only when we get to nuclear that the talking point becomes cost. If governments don't even want to provide energy independence then perhaps they should end the slavery they call income tax.

The icons in the menu bars are rough, the spacing isn’t great and the inconsistent window borders aren’t great.

I’m not that opinionated though - I don’t really care that much. But the part that sucked was installing it on a 2020 intel MacBook Pro. It basically made it unusable to the point of being ready to throw it out. Going back from Tahoe breathed so much life into it that it was fairly upsetting to see Apple release it. It reminded me of early iPhone updates that would basically brick older devices due to the performance impact.

Given that the 'tide pod challenge' was before TikTok's time and took place on wholly US-owned platforms like YouTube, we can safely assume it's all in your head. Most of the other stuff you're sharing sounds like a reflection of what you find out in the streets of any major US city. Perhaps you should question if your government is the one that is attacking you.

They're already throwing cloudflare in front of it

At a very high level, think fruit sorting[0] where the conveyor belt doesn't stop rolling and you need to rapidly respond, and all the way through to monitoring for things like defects in silicon wafers and root causing it. Some of these issues aren't problematic on their own, but you can aggregate data over time to see if a particular machine, material or process within a factory is degrading over time. This might not be throughout the entire factory but isolated to a particular batch of material or a particular subsection within it. This is not a hypothetical example: this is an active use case.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxff_CnvPek

It won't. This article misses the almost certain reality that the support of the Gulf states for this conflict (and the others that passed, and those that will follow) came from incentives like having infra investments on their soil.

Divesting away from the Gulf after something as trivial as this would be a complete rug-pull. And it would end the Abraham Accords.

Don't get me wrong: it will happen at some point. But not now. Not until the Abraham Accords have served their purpose.

Iraqis also see themselves as a continuation of Mesopotamian people, that was quite literally what Iraqi Baathist thought was centered around and used as the successful unification strategy. That's quite literally the justification the Baathists used to try 'reclaim' both Khuzestan and Kuwait. You quite literally couldn't be more wrong in how you categorize Baathist Iraq.

Iran has a much worse relationship with its minorities, where if you are of the wrong faith then you literally face state-sanctioned laws preventing you studying or working. In fact, things in Iraq became much worse for minorities after the overthrowal due to the adoption of Iranian cultural practices like Abrahamic elitism.

The cherry on top of all of this is that you probably don't realize that Persians in Iran only make up 60% of the country. You have Iranians who wholly reject Persian ancestry (Azeris, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds...) but you don't even account for them, despite Iran having, what, three? entirely separate ethnic-based separatist insurgencies active across the country LOL

Except none of that ever happened. That's an exaggerated, racist attempt to hand-wave away the realities behind several distinct countries.

There's only one country that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors and has decided to occupy and seize land from two of them while actively calling for and carrying out strikes in many others all in the last two years.

It ain't Iran.

So should the US defend North Korea in case of a conflict with South Korea?