Yeah yeah, it's an easy shot to just say, "Trump would harm the environment if he knew there was progress made somewhere"...and for the record, I have *never* voted for him. ...but I think the fact that a number of comments in the thread echo the sentiment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. The ban on CFCs worked effectively due to global cooperation, but also because of another reason: it was an incredibly easy transition.

There was no ban on in-home refrigerators or freezers. There was no mandatory removal of existing home refrigerators. There was no mandate that cars were sold without air conditioners. There was no fine for using hair spray. Industry had drop-in replacements that worked at least 90% as well, were of similar cost, and worked with existing systems which required those chemicals for operation.

Had the CFC ban required buildings to do six-figure HVAC replacements, or mandate that new cars didn't have air conditioners at all, or perform a blanket-ban on aerosol products completely, or require everyone to replace their refrigerators, or if HFCs were a.) ten times the price, b.) required a top-off once a month, and/or c.) only got half as cold, it'd still be a wedge issue and that hole would be triple the size.

Peel back the layers of rhetoric and sensationalism, and you'll see that there is an element of truth behind a lot of the pushback. Did anyone like drinking through those paper straws that tasted like toilet paper tubes? No; they were about as universally unpopular as a colonoscopy, and I've never once seen a report that they nudged the needle on improving the environment.

My state is talking about banning gas cars and gas stoves and gas furnaces...but over 80% of the electricity generated in my state is generated by...burning oil and natural gas. Does burning oil pollute less when my local power plant does it instead of my car? ...So why is the Red Team in my deeply-blue state so backwards-thinking for pushing back against a ban that won't meaningfully improve its carbon footprint while *also* causing homebuilding prices to go up, *and* gas prices to go up, *and* insurance prices to go up, *and* electric rates to go up?

The CFC ban was easy *because* it was trivial to implement, and caused little to no impact on consumers as a result. I'm pretty sure that *most* environmental regulations would receive bipartisan support and consumer acceptance if they were that easy to do...but somehow, the Red Team are the curmudgeons who don't care about the environment because they don't want to drink cardboard or give up gas stoves to achieve no meaningful improvement on climate change numbers. They're terrible, uneducated, backwater hicks for saying, "build enough climate-friendly grid capacity to handle the expected increase in usage and THEN roll out the mandates", especially when those who shame them suddenly start saying, "not in MY backyard" when windmills and solar panels start getting proposed in THEIR neighborhoods...

...so yeah, Trump's rhetoric on the climate is terrible, no argument. The Republicans *generally* give more pushback on climate initiatives than Democrats, fair. But the CFC ban worked because HFCs were cheap, easy, effective, drop-in replacements, ready to go by time the bans took effect. When climate solutions look like that, they get implemented. When they look like an expensive headache for nominal improvements, they get pushback.

Want proof? Who was the US president who signed on to the Montreal Protocol in 1987? Ronald Reagan. Who was president when it went into effect in 1989? George H.W. Bush.

I got a desktop computer in 1995. It had a 686 Cyrix at 166MHz, 16MB of RAM, an 8x CD-ROM, 1.6 GB hard disk...and it was one of the fastest computers in my circle. By 2001, it was unusable. USB was on its way to replacing serial and parallel peripherals, which Windows 95 didn't support. 166MHz was slow, compared to the 600MHz P3's that were available (and a year later, they'd hit 1GHz). 48MB of RAM was nothing (64MB was common, 256MB was available), and while 1.6GB was a bottomless pit when Word documents was all I was creating, and 50MB installations for video games were considered pigs, 10GB drives were available...and needed for the CDs I was ripping into MP3s. Six years of computer progress was clear, obvious, palpable, and using the old computer had a clear feeling of constraint.

Today, unless you're doing local AI, 8K video rendering, or a handful of other niche applications, a 6-year-old computer will be perfectly usable. Six years ago, SSDs were already the default, 6-core CPUs were the default, and it was right at the cusp of when 16GB became mainstream. A six year old computer is perfectly usable for most tasks. It runs current iterations of OSes (admittedly a 6-year-old Mac might not because of the OSX shelf life on Intel), it *might* need a RAM upgrade, and it *might* benefit from a newer SSD to some extent...but while a 6-year difference was night-and-day in 2000, it's turned into "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

And, so too it is with phones. The difference between the iPhone 4 and iPhone 8 was readily understood and appreciated by most users; the storage capacity increases, camera improvements, FaceID implementation, Apple Wallet/NFC, bidirectional lightning cable, and screen size increase were all understood, palpable, and basically sold themselves. I went through the Wikipedia page to get a feel for what changed between the 13 and the 17...and the answers were the satellite connectivity (that may-or-may-not-work depending on carrier), Apple Intelligence (that they famously are still trying to get off the ground), the dynamic island, a few more camera improvements, and colors...oh, and they are more expensive now.

Samsung is kinda the same deal; the foldable phones are nifty, but at $2,000, one can get a phone, a laptop, *and* a tablet for the same price...and the difference between an S21 and an S25 is similarly uninspiring for a $1,000 upgrade.

So yeah, phones have gotten "good enough" for most people, they've been that way for a while, despite the price tags more frequently involving commas. So...yeah...makes perfect sense that with more money expected for less improvement...that 3-year-old phones are the norm now.

It's just below IRC and just above Usenet.

Hate to disappoint...but it was exactly that for longer than it was the P2P network from which it got its notoriety.

Circa 2003, Napster came back as a legit music seller, just like iTunes. They spent a few years selling DRM'd WMA files, but they were between a rock and a hard place because Apple wouldn't license the iTunes DRM that worked on iPods, nor would they license Microsoft's WMA format, and the RIAA wasn't about to let them sell ordinary MP3 files without DRM (God knows how Amazon managed to score that deal)...so, Napster blamed Microsoft for the fact that their sales paled in comparison to Apple.

I'd argue that they were also a bit ahead of their time; Napster To Go was a monthly subscription service that used Microsoft's Janus DRM to enforce subscriptions...the Slashdot crowd hated the DRM at the time, but in a pre-LTE era, that was pretty much how subscription music on mobile was going to happen...and several years later, we have Spotify, which is basically the successor of Napster To Go, enforcing its DRM by other means. They also had a short-lived partnership with XM Radio that allowed subscribers to listen to linear streams of certain music channels, in turn allowing rental or purchases of songs that were liked while broadcast. A decade later, Shazam would do that with Apple Music and audio recognition, but Napster implemented a rudimentary version of the idea before Apple implemented iMessage.

In 2011, Rhapsody acquired Napster, but their niche was in licensing to other businesses. While they kept the "Spotify from Temu or Wish.com" setup for a while, their real bread and butter was in licensing to other companies; many of those music channels available on cable subscriptions were Rhapsody on the back end. They also did 'compliant music for businesses', similar to Muzak and other companies who pumped music into stores and bars and things. Amusingly enough, Rhapsody rebranded itself as Napster, and continued on the model, going through a handful of private equity firms, until earlier this year, when once again, the company found itself in court...again...due to unpaid licensing fees.

So...yeah, while they've floundered around for a number of reasons (some their fault, some not), they were a P2P service for about three years...and a (mostly) law-abiding corporation for over 20...and most of the highlights were posted as articles here on Slashdot.

In fairness...

1.) Cisco is far less litigation happy than Oracle is. Not saying they don't have attorneys on retainer, but Oracle is frequently referred to as a law firm with a software sales division - very different tiers.

2.) Cisco owned Linksys for a while, sure, but they haven't owned it in nearly 15 years - Cisco sold it over to Belkin back in 2013, who in turn sold it to Foxconn around 2018.

3.) Cisco may have discontinued selling routers running Linux out of the box, but they never did any signed-bootloader shenanigans that prevented DD-WRT/Tomato/OpenWRT from running on routers for quite some time - I remember running Shibby's TomatoUSB on an AC3200 for quite some time. Ironically, I think Belkin later started making it nearly-impossible to run third party firmware on Linksys hardware (except the $400 ones).

4.) It's not like anyone else took up the mantle...a handful of routers can run OpenWRT, but they're from obscure vendors - it's not like Cisco got rid of OSS-running routers, only to have Belkin or Netgear or D-Link take it up...Asus did for a little bit (the N56U being a better example), but they didn't keep up with it.

So yeah, Cisco has its clear faults...but how they handled the consumer router division, in my opinion, isn't the best example of this problem...and certainly not when being compared to Oracle.

I found GP2.5 to be great at academic-style research and writing; it was absolutely awful at writing code. So; I would tell it to plan some thing for me and write it in a way that could be used by another agent (Claude Code) to build the code to do the thing. In this way, it has been great! I haven't yet attempted it with 3.

That said, I found GP3.0's page to be hilarious:

It demonstrates PhD-level reasoning with top scores on Humanityâ(TM)s Last Exam (37.5% without the usage of any tools) and GPQA Diamond (91.9%). It also sets a new standard for frontier models in mathematics, achieving a new state-of-the-art of 23.4% on MathArena Apex.

It then proceeds to show, lower down on the page, an example of what it can do, by showing off 'Our Family Recipes". If there's anything that touts PhD-level reasoning and writing, it's a recipe book.

Irrespective of the nationality of the people making decisions, I think what the GP is getting at is that there were different philosophies over the decades at Microsoft. Amongst the things Ballmer is most famous for is his "Developers, developers, developers, developers" mantra...and the idea was to make Windows the easiest platform to develop software for, and the developers would write software that would encourage the proliferation of Windows in the market. It was a rare case of growth by "trickle-down economics" - take care of the developers, and the developers would grow the market for the platform.

Microsoft's method of increasing shareholder value during the Ballmer era was indirect - value was sought after by market capture, which was fulfilled more so by third party developers than by Microsoft itself. By contrast, the Nadella era has been about "increasing shareholder value" by pushing everyone to Azure and Office subscriptions and by putting ads into Windows and by data harvesting.

Neither era was some sort of pinnacle of customer care; both were concerned about increasing shareholder value. I think the GP is at least somewhat justified in having concern about Microsoft's shift toward increasing shareholder value by making the Windows platform being actively-user-hostile, rather than developer-friendly.

Windows 95 and 98 shipped with "Progman", a UI shell that loosely mirrored Windows 3.1. Windows XP, and even Vista, shipped with a "classic mode" Start Menu. My standards are lower now; if they could stop breaking ExplorerPatcher and OpenShell, that'd be great.

And do what? Develop UWP apps to be sold in the Windows Store that was so poorly implemented and curated that it's useful for almost-nobody - the developers still writing desktop Windows software likely have an established distribution channel at this point, so they don't need to pay the MS tax. The users have no need for it because they're either doing everything in a web browser, or using their existing software that already has a distribution channel of some kind. This means that the software on offer amounts to mostly-shovelware.

Tangential because it's Office...but they could show they're listening by making Copilot an icon in a corner when logging into Microsoft365, rather than spitting the user into a chat window by default. They're still trying to find a use case for on-device AI, and it's pretty telling that they're shoving it into the OS via annoyances, while their best example (Recall) is something that made more people say "that's creepy" than would say "that's useful". Copilot is the new Clippy in Office, there are memes about how plain-English formulas in Excel make obvious mathematical mistakes, and this is all on the backdrop of sucking everyones' data into OneDrive.

...So, by the author's admission, AI isn't a feature that matters? ...Seriously, I'm half asleep and I can still come up with holes in this argument...I don't think it's going to stop until the AI bubble implodes; the best we can hope for is for MS to implement fewer nags about it, but if Edge is any indication, I've got no confidence.

Mozilla did this....and unfortunately, it's worse than useless.

Strictly speaking, Toyota's privacy policy is pretty liberal in terms of what is involved, and has been for years...and that's what their rating is based on. And, credit to Toyota, their "we can do whatever we want and you can't sue us" policy goes pretty far back, so Mozilla ranked my 1999 Camry as pretty not-privacy-centric. That's useless, because it got the same ranking as a 2024 Tesla Model S.

Now, regardless of what the paperwork says, the practical difference between the two could not be more different. The 1999 Camry had an ODB2 port, which meant it *did* do some tracking...but it kept it on the computer, and Toyota only got their hands on it if I brought it to their shop and they dumped the memory. A 2024 Tesla sends audio and video data, driving data, mapping data, and remote lock/unlock/disable commends to Tesla, in real-time.

Any list that puts these two things on the same level is worse than useless. 1999 Toyota's data is as opt-in as data sharing could possibly be. Tesla's data sharing requires lots of skill to implement, and functionality tradeoffs as a consequence. The paperwork may reflect that Toyota can share their data dumps if they get them, but Tesla's data collection is not just a default, it's a warranty-voiding engineering problem.

So, yes, I would *love* such a list...but when the privacy advocates are as useless as the privacy violators, the only list that *might* make some traction is an ad-hoc, opt-in list that either manufacturers or users create for vehicles where the owners enumerate the intrusiveness.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ...no seriously, if these things exist, I would be super interested in knowing where to get one.

Yeah, no doubt. But for all the good they do me, right?

...I pay $10/month for my search results, and I'd rather pay Kagi $10/month than use Edge and Bing....and the worst part, is that I don't find Bing results to be *that* bad...certainly, no worse than Google results at this stage...but it's because Edge and Bing are just an *INCESSANT ASSAULT ON WHAT I WANT TO DO*.

"I'm searching for [thing]"
"Here are thirteen things that match pretty well with [thing] - ten based on our heuristics, three sponsored results that most closely match."
"Thanks!"

That's all I want a search engine to do!

I *might* stretch it a bit...
"I'm searching for [thing] near [location]"
"Here's a map of [location] with five push-pins most closely resembling [thing] - three organic options, two sponsored options, all matching [thing]"
"Thanks!"

...but with Bing, it's like...
"RANDOM ASSORTMENT OF THINGS!!!111"
"...uhm, okay, I just want --"
"HAVE YOU TRIED EDGE!!11"
"...I'm using Edge..."
"LOG IN TO EDGE FOR THE BEST EXPERIENCE!!!11"
"ehm, no tha---"
"Nevermind, I Logged You In Anyway Because You Used A Mandatory Microsoft Account To Use Excel."
"okay, whatever...I'm looking for--"
"REWARDS!!!!"
"...[thing]"
"Here Are Six Sponsored Listings That Are In No Way Relevant To [thing]...and then ten organic listings that are at least on par with Google...MAP!!!!" ...it's that constant battle to get Bing to just let me do an anonymous[ish] search, and then show me a combination of search results and unobtrusive ads.

I can use Searx to sanitize Bing if I wanted, but I'd rather pay for Kagi, who doesn't require that kind of headache.

I use Bing, and I get Microsoft Rewards points for that. Each month, the points I earn are automatically donated to the Wikimedia Foundation. Just sayin'.

Welllll, a bunch of countries use VAT, where you pay whatever is on the label. In the US, what you pay for a product will depend on where you buy it, despite it having the same price on the tag..

"Use" is relative, unless you mean "figure out how to cancel it."