Wikipedia officially requires articles to summarize their sources from a neutral point of view. However, Wikipedia did become overtly political with the PROTECT IP blackout of January 18, 2012, in protest of a proposed law seen to threaten Wikipedia's existence.

The first time you add a website to your home screen, it installs the website's service worker. You have to use the Internet for that, just as you have to use the Internet to download an application from Apple's App Store.

And I'm curious about what the blockers for even a partial PWA implementation have been during each of these 12 years.

All I've been asking is what features of Grab combined with missing features of PWA likely led to their continuing to choose native apps.

I don't see where I "assume[d] to know better than Grab".

However, most people who ask that do it while pointing to people who are actually quite important producers, such as financiers. Be careful not to conflate "don't produce anything of value" with "do something I don't understand the importance of".

Of course there are people in every profession who get paid a lot more than they're worth. This is less true of manual labor jobs where the output is easy to see and measure, but it's true across the board. Even in manual labor jobs you can have people whose output is negative. They may pick X apples or whatever, but they might do it while making everyone around them work slower.

Just to complete the description of the "empty chair" tactic, this is why lawsuits typically name anyone and everyone who might possibly be blamed, including many who clearly aren't culpable. It's not because the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney actually thinks all of those extra targets really might be liable, it's so that the culpable parties can't try to shift the blame to an empty chair, forcing the plaintiff to explain why the empty chair isn't culpable (i.e., defend them). Of course this means that those clearly non-culpable parties might have to defend themselves, which sucks for them.

So... you didn't actually look at the size of WikiMedia Foundation's bank account.

WikiMedia absolutely has enough money to run Wikipedia indefinitely if they treated their current pile of money as an endowment and just used the income from it to support the site. They don't have "billions upon billions", but they do have almost $300M, and they spend about $3M per year on hosting, and probably about that much again on technical staff to run the site, so about $6M per year. That's 2% per year. Assuming they can get a 6% average return on their assets, they can fully fund Wikipedia forever, and then some.

So, what do they do with all of the donations instead, if the money isn't needed to run Wikipedia? It funds the foundation's grant programs. Of course, you might actually like their grant programs. I think some of their grants are great, myself, and if they were honest about what they're using it for I might be inclined to give. But they're not, and the fact that they continue lying to Wikipedia's user base really pisses me off, so I don't give and I strongly discourage everyone I can from giving, at every opportunity.

Me too, but it took a lot longer and I was a lot less thorough. I would skim a half-dozen links from the search result, the LLM reads a lot more, and a lot more thoroughly.

I do. I tell the LLM to always include links to its sources, and I check them. Not all of them, but enough to make sure the LLM is accurately representing them. Granted that other people might not do this, but those other people also wouldn't check more than the first hit from the search engine, which is basically the same problem. If you only read the top hit, you're trusting the search engine's ranking algorithm.

That seems like a potential risk. I have't actually seen that happening in any of the stuff I've looked at.

When I was in college circa 2000, my undergraduate macroeconomics professor pointed out why the US is so attractive to corporations. "If you want to setup shop in China," he said, "you will need to pay for your own backup generator because the power grid isn't reliable like it is here." He went on to explain similarly about labor - how the US constantly produces a supply of educated people (referring to us in the classroom). So when you incorporate in the US, you have everything you need.

For decades people have predicted this would change, and the time has finally arrived. From 2010 to 2020, the US built 1 new nuclear reactor, while China built 30. Education? While we debate subsidies for solar, China covers entire mountains in solar panels. Foreign student enrollment dropped 15% overall, with big universities seeing as much as 63% decline (DePaul University). The foreign students paid disproportionately more tuition, so universities are going to experience a budget declines next year.

We are digging our own grave.

Adverts pay for the web. And also clutter it up. Both of these things are true. Without advertising, there would be very little content that isn't paywalled, and there would be far less content than there is. Slashdot wouldn't exist, for example. The key is to keep advertising sufficiently profitable that it can fund the web, but not so intrusive that it make the web awful.

How do we do that? The best idea I've seen is to use adblockers that selectively block the obnoxious ads. But not enough people do it, so that doesn't work either.

There are already enough dependencies between food and energy production without intentionally making the problem worse.

If you've never been subjected to an SEO report, I'd understand that take. For a time I had a site set up to support my books, and the SEO reports continually told me to shit-up the content on the site with the typical nonsense. You can tell the difference between a site where someone is excitedly discussing something they're interested in, and a site that was SEO'ed into a dumpster fire. When you go to look at a recipe and have to read about how the family dog likes to accompany the owner to the grocery store, and grandma used to bake this over an open fire, that's SEO prescribed bullshit.

We've let algorithmic rot dictate the direction of the web for far, far too long. There's no turning it back into a good resource for humans if we don't *STOP* throwing layers of algorithms at it, but it seems like all the decision makers, and most of their clingers, are convinced the only way forward is to pour more algorithmic syrup over the whole mess in the hopes of getting something better. It's all feeling extremely backwards, while all being done in the name of "progress."

This. There seems to be a widespread assumption that random genetic changes are somehow less problematic than carefully-selected ones because they're "natural" or something. It's not like cosmic rays, mutagenic chemicals, transcription errors and other sources of random genetic mutation are somehow careful not to make harmful changes. Engineered changes might not be better than random mutations, but they're clearly not worse.

Maybe we shouldn't have allowed SEO to insist we garbage-spew single sentence answers into novel length diatribes that require AI to sort through to turn into something a human would want to read. Adding AI slop on top of the slop we created for ourselves is *NOT* good for humans. De-junking the lot and getting the machines out of the way would be, but apparently we're too far down the rabbit hole to turn back now.

I don't see anything suggesting that AI will make the web better for humans. Seems like he's arguing it'll make the web better for machines, and the AIs that run on those machines. Well, yeah. That's why us silly humans are calling everything being done to the web today "enshitification." Because, as stupid as it may seem to the hardcore tech crowd, sometimes humans care about the human experience. I know, how anti-progressive of me.

Ok plz ignore, thet whole thing blew over in 2024 and I missed it my bad

Also adseece got bammed by the EU iirc, unless thst has been resolved I eat that kind of impacted their revenue