I have Comcast with T-Mobile as a back up (T-Mobile Home Backup, $25/mo for full service but a cap of 180Mb)

I would not recommend T-Mo and neither would the other customers I know personally. I'm fine with paying that much for the service, the aim is just to ensure I'm online in some shape or form next time there's a hurricane (last one blew out Comcast's Internet access for about a week) But T-Mo is basically CGNAT and crippled IPv6 (VERY crippled, as in no incoming connections), and my router (which supports both with a fallover to T-Mo if Comcast fails) reports that T-Mobile has gone down far more frequently than Comcast during normal conditions.

Remember they're basically running an Internet service that's over their existing 3GPP infrastructure. It's basically infrastructure that's been declared "good enough" by some idiot in marketing who knows that "what the people want" is some Wi-Fi router that "has Internet" so you can surf the web and stream a movie or two. Anything more complex than that is just not practical over infrastructure designed for mobile phone use.

And the asymmetric speeds that TFA explicitly mentions are problems are problems with T-Mo as well. I get 40/400 rather than the 30/600 I get with Comcast. It's better on the upload front, but not that much better.

I think if people have the resources to start ISPs, it's a good time to do that. It's something we all need, and the big players have extremely variable service.

I assume older versions will suffice for older hardware - it's not as if that hardware is going to be updated in a way that requires new BIOS/UEFI features, with GParted needing to be updated to support those features.

I'm semi-disappointed, because I generally don't have great experiences in other instances of technologies being declared obsolete instead of becoming obsolete naturally. But at the same time I just can't think of a good argument against making future versions of this very special purpose tool support hardware that just isn't made any more, when old versions will continue to be made available.

https://www.dc.com/blog/2017/0...

"And remember boys and girls, your school - like our country - is made up of Americans of many different races, religions, and national origins. So... if YOU hear anybody talk against a schoolmate or anyone else because of his religion, race, or national origin - don't wait: tell him THAT KIND OF TALK IS UN-AMERICAN" - Superman, 1949.

Superman has always been "woke" on societal issues and has never been quiet about it. That's what makes him super. And racists unamerican.

Which side are you on?

Is it mindless slop? By definition, yes. Any venture into anything of interest is accidental.

If someone has genuine questions that happen to intersect with the LLMs, they'll likely raise them without prompting. We don't need this shit polluting *gestures everywhere*

So about half of the 63% who voted are pro-MAGA, and 37% of the population is OK with MAGA. So about 68% of the population are directly or indirectly pro-MAGA.

Now, I know under normal circumstances, just saying "No, I can't be bothered to vote" doesn't mean you're actually indirectly pro-MAGA, but we're looking at an extreme ideology here. If a liberal and a normal conservative have an argument about the best way to provide healthcare, and you look at them and shrug and say you don't care which wins, it's not necessarily an indirect endorsement of either. But when one side is talking about becoming a dictatorship, and the other is opposed to that... I mean, who the fuck says "Oh, one side wants a dictatorship, the other doesn't, eh, doesn't matter."

Silence is often complicity and it is in this case. No decent human being who was registered to vote stayed at home in November.

> enough to power 7,000 homes for a year

Does this mean "enough to power 7,000 homes while the turbines are in operation", or does it mean "6.5 years of energy generated by this infrastructure will power 7,000 homes for a year"?

If the latter, why now "will power over 1,000 homes while in operation"? That'd be a simpler way to say the same thing and to boot would include a round number.

Wonder Woman wasn't a bad entry into the positive DC superhero(ine) category. (Well, at least the first 4/5ths of the first movie.) But I agree Snyder's Batman-fan viewpoint on everything DC related severely screwed over Superman.

(Unpopular view: this isn't bad per-se, it's great to have different visions for how a character should be, but it doesn't mean it always works. Back to more popular view: Superman is hated by many fans of comics for being an OP goodie-two-shoes, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean you fundamentally change the character, any more than you'd make Wonder Woman a goth. And the latter has at least changed quite a bit since her bondage fiend beginnings - but is no less a positive character who wants to help people.)

Supposedly one was toggled a second or two after the other, so it looks intentional.

I'm reluctant to call it deliberate without more information, but it certainly looks deliberate. There's a tiny chance the pilots thought the engines were failing before they hit the cut offs, and hit it as part of a rebooting procedure? I don't know, not a pilot, but even that seems really implausable.

It's starting to look intentional and now the obvious questions are why. The obvious culprit group (Pakistan and pro-Pakistan terrorist groups) hasn't claimed responsibility, so it's unlikely that.

At least it wasn't Boeing I guess, so many fingers pointed at them after the accident.

I know the media has a boner for AI, but is there any justification for the use of the word "some" here when it appears to be a decent survey and there's no evidence that the senior devs involved are atypical? I wouldn't expect a drug report where most of the people not in the control group saw their symptoms as improving reported as "{Drugname} Cures Some {Condition} sufferers"

Seems a strange choice of headline.

If it was in the 1990s, Microsoft Office skills were Office skills in general.

Before the mid-2000s, virtually all office suites had CUA UIs - a standardized placement of menus, keyboard short cuts, dialogs, etc, that made it easy to pick up a new application as long as you were familiar with its features and the CUA itself. A Wordperfect user had little difficulty transitioning to Word and vice versa. So teaching people how to use Word in the 1990s was teaching them wordprocessing.

This all changed with the Ribbon and then the "app" mobile-UIs of the late 2000s. Suddenly user interfaces were no longer standardized and people can't transition as easily from Word to, say, LibreOffice Writer, as they could in the 1990s.

And, given the timing, with the work on the Ribbon starting almost immediately after the Microsoft monopoly cases, and the general sense that Windows itself would not be Microsoft's long term money earner, that may be completely intentional...

AI generated stuff is relatively easy for humans to detect but extremely difficult for computers to detect, which is why there's a whole generation of students who have had their grades wiped out by snake-oil "AI detectors" falsely flagging their essays as AI.

What you're asking for will result in a ton of false positives and will do little to slow the stream of AI generated crap.

I'd also add it's probably something Google wouldn't want to do anyway. If someone creates a video with an AI movie generation tool that's scripted by a human (I've seen numerous spoofs, and even things like a team song for a Discord group, done this way), YouTube will probably feel it's legitimate even if the rest of us find it too jarring, awkward, and morally dubious to watch. But such a filter would ban it.

I'm inclined to just let it happen. Let YouTube die. YouTube's good creators have alternatives they can move to. We will lose nothing except a really poor recommendations algorithm which does little but boost misinformation and grifters. Fuck that shit.

> YouTube's only concern these days is revenue and profit.

Which is ironic, because the shittier things become, the more it'll drive people away - not immediately, they may even see usage spikes because of engagement, but sooner or later the bubble bursts.

> This is why I'm moving to self-hosting my own videos on an instance of PeerTube and I encourage other creators to do the same. When you self-host you have *FULL* control and you no longer have to worry about censorship or losing your entire community just because one of YT's AI bots has runamok and identifies your cute cat videos as CSAM.

Complete agreement here. And in general, the solution to the centralization we've seen over the last 20 years and the resultant enshittification is decentralization. There are things we still need such as easier ways to monetize these platforms (so professional creators who do good work can get rewarded - yes, I know, some here think there aren't any, but there are some excellent YouTube channels, especially in the hobby fields, that fly under the radar here - but otherwise the sooner we can move from YouTube the better.

Wow, the description of a mother who persuaded a judge to deny custody to a father (exactly how do you suppose she did that? I assume you're going to accuse her of sleeping with her - in the real world judges HATE giving sole custody to a single parent) as a "Karen" really helps add to the level of misogyny dripping from this post.

It's a shame because you weren't wrong about amber alerts mostly being about custody rather than strangers. But that doesn't make them invalid. A parent protecting their kid against an abusive co-parent and presenting enough evidence to prove that to a judge is generally a good thing, and an attempt by the abusive parent to grab their kid is putting that kid in danger.

Oh they'll do it anyway.

Besides, most amber alerts, when I've seen them followed up on, are more likely custody disputes than "Strange man jumps out of bush and steals kid" type thing. ie a parent is told emphatically by a Judge they're not allowed to go near one of their own children (usually for a good reason), they grab them anyway, and an amber alert is issued.

(Which is why they almost always have a full description of both adult and child, and the car they're in's license plate.)

Not suggesting these are not serious incidents, but when you hear "Child abduction" you usually think serial killer, which is not normally the case.

Client side scripting was created in the mid-1990s: Netscape released JavaScript in December 1995 and Netscape didn't even make the first browser with client side scripting. So... in many ways, saying the Internet was destroyed before it took off is certainly a take.

The real problems with the Internet started with a combination of smartphone apps, and the obsession with centralization, not JS. Facebook (and MySpace before it), Reddit, and a thousand unwanted "Use our app!" dialogs broke free of JS's security sandboxing, the former by being a large enough sandbox that virtually everything could be linked to it, the latter by having access to information you could only ever dream of getting from webpages.

Before that JS was a potential concern, but mostly did more good than damage.