Hey, if I was the dictator of the United States, he’d be standing trial for treason right about now, but I’m not.
Hey, if I was the dictator of the United States, he’d be standing trial for treason right about now, but I’m not.
It’s not really like they were evil about it though. Google attracted customers through its huge (at the time) 1 GB email storage space, which at the time, was unbelievably generous and also impressive in that it was offered for free. Outlook (Hotmail at the time) also drew in customers by offering the service for free, anywhere in the world, without needing to sign up for Internet service. Remember, at the time, e-mail was a service that was bundled with your Internet service provider.
Into the mid-2000s and 2010s, the way that Gmail and Outlook kept customers was through bundle deals for enterprise customers and improvements to their webmail offerings. Gmail had (and arguably, still has) one of the best webmail clients available anywhere. Outlook was not far behind, and it was also usually bundled with enterprise Microsoft Office subscriptions, so most companies just decided, “eh, why not”. The price (free) and simplicity is difficult to beat. It was at that point that Microsoft Outlook (the mail client, not the e-mail service) was the “gold standard” for desktop mail clients, at least according to middle-aged office workers who barely knew anything about e-mail to begin with. Today, the G-Suite, as it is called, is one of the most popular enterprise software suites, perhaps second only to Microsoft Office. Most people learned how to use e-mail and the Internet in the 2000s and 2010s through school or work.
You have to compare the offerings of Google and Microsoft with their competitors. AOL mail was popular but the Internet service provided by the same company was not. When people quit AOL Internet service, many switched e-mail providers as well, thinking that if they did not maintain their AOL subscription, they would lose access to their mailbox as well.
Google and Microsoft didn’t “kill” the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square by offering a superior product. If you’re trying to pick an e-mail service today, Gmail and Outlook are still by far the best options in terms of ease of use, free storage, and the quality of their webmail clients. I would even go so far as to say that the Gmail web client was so good that it single-handedly killed the desktop mail client for casual users. I think that today, there are really only three legitimate players left if you’re a rational consumer who is self-interested in picking the best e-mail service for yourself: Proton Mail if you care a lot about privacy, and Gmail or Outlook if you don’t.
Elon Musk doesn’t represent the United States. He’s just some rich fuck with his fingers in too many pies.
Baking soda is sodium bicarbonate. Dissolving it in water will increase its pH. I’m not sure if that works for killing bacteria.
Yeah, so It turns out fewer people care about and really want those things than you think…
Because the “US Government” is not a monolithic entity but rather, a large and complex democratic organisation that citizens can influence the composition of through political participation.
“Woke” originally meant “aware of and well-informed about systemic social issues affecting everyday people”. Conservatives have co-opted this word and use it to describe anything associated with leftism or social liberalism. It is intended to be negative in that context.
“DEI” stands for “diversity, equity, and inclusion”. It refers to policies that intentionally include people of diverse or minority backgrounds in the context of employment or political appointment. Conservatives use it to describe (in their view) hiring practices that select less-qualified candidates of these backgrounds against the favour of those who may be more qualified. In that usage, a “DEI hire” or “diversity hire” is a person hired or appointed solely on the basis of their race, gender, or some other status as a minority even though they are not qualified for the role.
If that’s what’s needed, I can say with some certainty that adoption isn’t going to be picking up any time this decade.
I still have no idea how to use passkeys. It doesn’t seem obvious to the average user.
I tried adding a passkey to an account, and all it does is cause a Firefox notification that says “touch your security key to continue with [website URL]”. It is not clear what to do next.
“[The] main reasons that motivate editors to add AI-generated content: self-promotion, deliberate hoaxing, and being misinformed into thinking that the generated content is accurate and constructive,” Lebleu said.
No, which is why I said it’s not a monopoly. It’s a different form of anti-consumerism.
I don’t think Apple’s business model fits the definition of “monopoly”, but they are a different kind of anti-competitive, in my opinion. Forcing users to use your own ecosystem by forcing competitors to be shittier or nonexistent through technical means is still anti-competitive.
It seems you’re right. I did not know that.
That’s true. Mullvad will even let you send cash by post to them which is definitely not something you can do with other services.
However, in terms of private payment options, you can always use BTC’s Lightning Network with the other options if that concerns you.
The VPNs you characterise as “shitty” aren’t necessarily a bad choice; they’re cheaper than the legitimate privacy VPNs. Mullvad is famously 5€ per month, Proton is 4.49€ per month, but NordVPN is 3.09€, Surfshark is 2.19€, and PIA is 1.79€ per month.
If you’re really just here to pretend you’re in another country (rather than privatemaxing) or hide your torrenting activity from your ISP, the cheaper options can be a perfectly legitimate choice.
Pretty sure humans are not the most co-operative animals alive.
Bees and ants exist, you know
Uh oh. You should not have said that. Run for cover.
I know it’s a copypasta, but I correctly differentiated GNU and Linux in my comment.
Maybe so, but children don’t always adopt the ideology of their parents. They usually do, but not always.
An LLM (large language model, a.k.a. an AI whose output is natural language text based on a natural language text prompt) is useful for the tasks when you’re okay with 90% accuracy generated at 10% of the cost and 1,000% faster. And where the output will solely be used in-house by yourself and not served to other people. For example, if your goal is to generate an abstract for a paper you’ve written, AI might be the way to go since it turns a writing problem into a proofreading problem.
The Google Search LLM which summarises search results is good enough for most purposes. I wouldn’t rely on it for in-depth research but like I said, it’s 90% accurate and 1,000% faster. You just have to be mindful of this limitation.
I don’t personally like interacting with customer service LLMs because they can only serve up help articles from the company’s help pages, but they are still remarkably good at that task. I don’t need help pages because the reason I’m contacting customer service to begin with is because I couldn’t find the solution using the help pages. It doesn’t help me, but it will no doubt help plenty of other people whose first instinct is not to read the f***ing manual. Of course, I’m not going to pretend customer service LLMs are perfect. In fact, the most common problem with them seems to be that they go “off the script” and hallucinate solutions that obviously don’t work, or pretend that they’ve scheduled a callback with a human when you request it, but they actually haven’t. This is a really common problem with any sort of LLM.
At the same time, if you try to serve content generated by an LLM and then present it as anything of higher quality than it actually is, customers immediately detest it. Most LLM writing is of pretty low quality anyway and sounds formulaic, because to an extent, it was generated by a formula.
Consumers don’t like being tricked, and especially when it comes to creative content, I think that most people appreciate the human effort that goes into creating it. In that sense, serving AI content is synonymous with a lack of effort and laziness on the part of whoever decided to put that AI there.
But yeah, for a specific subset of limited use cases, LLMs can indeed be a good tool. They aren’t good enough to replace humans, but they can certainly help humans and reduce the amount of human workload needed.