And now we just give up and find ways to reword everything.

Google was better than Altavista when AV was a thing. Once the effective competition disappeared and the term "Google" became synonymous with searching, they broke their product in the name of "engagement".

The really weird part to me is why none of the modern alternatives (DDG, Startpage, etc) are better. How hard could it be to implement a hard "include only these words, exactly as I spelled them"?

> It can handle Multimedia as well as OSX

Found the Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware 3.x user.

Have you used GNU/Linux since, say, 9/11?

Apple Hardware before 2012 cannot run operating systems other than those branded OS X or Mac OS X. While, technically, anyone who bought hardware before 2016 or so could be sticking with the OS that came with their machine, anyone with such a machine will get nagged and will not be getting updates to Safari.

The more likely explanation is this is bot traffic using older UA strings and SC's figures are BS.

OS X has been macOS for a while, and Apple, alas, makes its hardware obsolete after about 5 years (say one thing for Microsoft, they usually - recent TPM/Win 11 stuff aside - allow much older hardware run its latest OSes), so I'm wondering what's going on there. Are there really a lot of users of Macs from 5 years before whenever the rebranding started in 2016? That means a lot of people using Macs from before 2011. A huge number. Which genuinely surprises me. I have a Mac mini from 2014 and it crawls to the point of being borderline useless

So... maybe "OS X" is referring to something else? Maybe this is bot traffic using older user agent strings? I've never trusted StatCounter, I used to manage a set of websites that had millions of users across a relatively broad set of demographics, and what we were seeing via Google Analytics didn't remotely match what they were claiming. And by not remotely, I mean not even in the same ballpark.

The idea that they're not even checking whether the traffic is bot generated wouldn't surprise me.

Yes, but the itemized labels are not going away.

- The headline is wrong
- The first sentence is misleading. The labels will be still there, they're just going to not necessarily be on the main page advertising the product but will be linked to in that instance.

And in the end, as you point out,the fees making up the final price are bullshit, so you're interested in the final price. And ISPs are now required to publish the highest possible price you may be charged, even if you might be charged less.

They can itemize all they want, but they still have to give a final figure that includes all the pre-Biden-era "itemizations" when advertising the product, which is ultimately what we want.

If you read the summary, it contradicts the headline:

> Under Chairman Brendan Carr, the Trump FCC has steadily whittled away at requirements imposed under Democrats. An order (PDF) released in draft form last week would eliminate the requirement to itemize passthrough fees and let ISPs list them in a single "up to" amount. The "up to" amount can include both government fees and fees charged by non-government entities such as owners of utility poles.

> ISPs will be allowed to provide links to price labels instead of displaying the full labels prominently on ordering pages and account portals, and will be allowed to stop making the price-label information available in machine-readable spreadsheets.

So the labels aren't going away. The ISPs will be required to advertise the highest amount they could possibly charge the customer, including all taxes and fees. And they'll be required to have those labels. The only thing going away is the requirement the label (not the price) be on the same page as the offering, and the ability to download the information in spreadsheet form.

I hate Carr as much as the next guy, but this is a tweak of the Biden regulations, not an "end to", and it's completely 100% reasonable.

Well you'd be wrong. They've always regulated this kind of thing, even back when they were regulating telephones and radios (no feeds for the latter, obviously.) This is under their jurisdiction, and because of that the FTC, which would normally regulate this kind of thing, doesn't.

Also I don't plan to bitch about this if it's what the summary is claiming: requiring they publish the most it could cost a victi... uh customer, and then link to a breakout, seems fairly reasonable to me.

I'd like them to go further and brand different classes of Internet service: ie:

Gold tier: Ports either unfiltered, or filtered but user can turn off filter via a web portal, no restrictions on usage beyond bans on "commercial" usage for residential users. IPv6. IPv4. No traffic limits or per-byte billing outside of an AUP that allows only temporary throttling during periods of high congestion.

Silver tier: As Gold but CGNAT allowed given difficultly of getting IPv4 addresses.

Bronze tier: As silver, but some ports permanently blocked.

Brown tier: arbitrary restrictions on "servers", or no IPv6, or lobotomized IPv6 (no DHCP-PD, or IPv6 range changes more than once a month), traffic limits.

If you're going to describe something as "Internet", you should be clear about what it is you're selling. Tiers like the above would improve things dramatically.

It's one of those things that "This is a type of X, people are familiar with the concept, we will only do it when we make X" type thing.

It's like frozen Indian meal makers tend to focus on Butter Chicken. You can get Butter Chicken in a Walmart in Alaska. Interested in something that's not Butter Chicken? You're asking too much! They might have a couple of other types, but even those are things you've tried a million times before.

I used to like IPAs, but have gone off them simply because it's the same old thing every time.

You've never heard of mail merge? Really?

Maybe should you ask Gemini to explain it to you.

To be honest, even the big breweries are capable of better and often produce "speciality" beers that are decent. The problem is that they can't change their core product, because too many people like it.

Britain, where I came from, had some very good ales throughout my time there. But it also had Bass. And you could drink such delightful imports as Budweiser, Castlemaine 4X, and so on if Bass wasn't shitty enough for you, at a sizable number of pubs.

The microbrews are fairly reasonable, the only problem is that 99% of them think IPAs are the only ales in existence, which to me is weird. Once you get off the IPA makers you find some decent stuff around, especially in genuine microbrew pubs/restaurants.

I suspect it won't matter for much longer as the individual cable channels either sell directly via a streaming package that specializes in these things (see frndly for an example) or just turn into individual ad-supported streaming channels, or else disappear completely.

The format has become massively unpopular, and so likely the TV channels that depend upon it will become obsolete unless they repackage themselves for the streaming era.

We cancelled ours 5-10 years ago, by which time it had been supplanted by our Roku for 2-3 years completely.

I had a long discussion with my spouse on cancelling it because, in theory, it was the only reliable way to get local channels (I need to get on the roof and install an antenna as indoor isn't cutting it), and we live in Florida where hurricanes are regular events.

I think people don't generally *plan* to cancel something like this, after using it for decades, they instead realize they're paying for something they don't use. Then it takes time, "Are we really never going to need it again?" "What about...?"

My suspicion is that of that 5 million subscribers in the headline, itself a tiny number, only a few hundred thousand actually use Dish regularly. And of those, a sizable number are only using it for Fox News.

So you're saying they're putting delicate electronics that can't be fully shielded (because they're transmitting and receiving radio waves) in the Van Allen radiation belt?

Thank God Mac OS X hasn't been training people to enter their admin password whenever they install anything or do anything adminy using an easily replicated dialog since 2001. Otherwise people might fall for this!