That’s fine. I will either continue to use adblockers, pay, or stop using the internet outside of what is required to function in society. I already refuse to use anything that has decided to go ad supported without the ability to block ads and has a price I’m not willing to pay.

If small (or large) businesses require the mass collection of personal information by malicious advertisers to exist, then they don’t derserve to exist.

Yes, OP said all advertising. You mentioned the main problems with ditching all advertising. I added to the conversation with a poasible middle ground that addressed the worst parts.

Targeted advertising, which requires collecting personal information without people’s knowledge, is what makes online advertising the absolute worst kind of advertising. That could be addressed on a way that could allow other less malicious forms to exist.

Any change just for the sake of change will be detrimental to the functionality. Constant change means there is never a point in time where the overall functionality can be reviewed for stability.

A swiping motion and muscle memory for tapping are two different things. It took a while to get fast with my thumbs even though I type fairly fast on a keyboard.

No

but then in the recommended section it does not show someone who actually knows shit about fitness and steroids etc how would they know.

It is kind of funny that you think the recommendations would be informative instead of some shill peddling the same “you can do it with 5000 calories and exercise” bullshit. A rabbit hole is going further down the same hole.

It isn’t about people better than you. It is about idealized and generally unrealistic body standards.

The new guidelines, now introduced in the UK and around the world, apply to content that: idealises some physical features over others, such as beauty routines to make your nose look slimmer; idealises fitness or body weights, such as exercise routines that encourage pursuing a certain look; or encourages social aggression, such as physical intimidation.

These are not videos about getting to a healthy weight and exercise routine. “Certain look” is a crappilly phrased way of saying unrealistic body standards, but that is what it means.

The headline does describe the article. The article has more detail about the motivations and nuance of why certain weight and fitness videos are being promoted less to children.

The platform will still allow 13- to 17-year-olds to view the videos, but its algorithms will not push young users down related content “rabbit holes” afterwards.

If they included rabbit hole in the title, it would still be necessary for a lot of people unaware of the term to read the article to find out what that phrase means.

But a better system would for paying creators would be one of attribution and reward, where everyone can read whatever they want or stream whatever they want, and artists would be paid based on their number of views.

Which would be enforced through copyright…

It was fine when the limited duration was a reasonable number of years. Anything over 30 years max before being in the public domain is too long.

Oh that sucks.

In addition to Brother, you can check out Samsung laser printers to see if they are still easy to use and don’t have crappy software. I have one that is like 10 years old that to the best of my recollection worked when plugged in and I installed some basic drivers for additional features.

If it ever dies I will probably switch to Brother as the odds of Samsung going downhill is greater than Brother.

An LLM is like having the receptionist provide detailed information from what they have heard other people talk about in the lobby.

An LLM is like having the receptionist provide detailed information from what they have heard other people talk about in the lobby.

All AI share a central design flaw of being what people think they should return based on weighted averages of ‘what people are saying’ with a little randomization to spice things up. They are not designed to return factual information because they are not actually intelligent so they don’t know fact from fiction.

ChatGPT is designed to ‘chat’ with you like a real person, who happens to be agreeable so you will keep chatting with it. Using it for any kind of fact based searching is the opposite of what it is designed to do.

To most people, the Internet is just there to be taken for granted like the public street and park outside someone’s house.

Both of which require maintenance that most people don’t think about…

The competition’s bots.

Although Telegram does use end-to-end encryption, it isn’t the default option. Many users don’t know this; they automatically assume their conversations are 100% secure.

On the other hand, the app does nothing to inform them about the “Secret Chat” option. Once a user kick-starts a new chat, Telegram stays silent about options other than the default.

Look, if this was an app that allowed for E2EE on all communication and did not store any of the communication on some company’s servers I would be saying France is completely 100% wrong. France is wrong in saying the encryption is the problem, but they are partially right about Telegram not complying with legal requirements as it does not encrypt all communication and it should be obligated to comply with criminal investigations just like they would be obligated if they were a mail delivery service.

Just because something is on the internet doesn’t mean it isn’t subject to warrants. If a company can be compelled to provide written documentation in their possession, the same is true for electronic. That company should not be obligated to undermine their own encryption though.

I assume that proving they can’t know about it would be part of the defense if it goes to trial.