This is what I think too. Basically have www.mynewssite.com and content.mynewssite.com - the latter has the full articles and a no-robots policy, the former headlines, first two paragraphs, and (legitimate) SEO keywords from the article so people doing a search will come from it. The former redirects to the latter after a few seconds so people landing on it get to the right page ultimately.

Until Google ceases being abusive, I think unfortunately we're going to have to structure all new websites this way if we're to keep search working. But what this won't do is deal with the fact Gemini is going to inject itself between users and search anyway, and so may not actually let the user see search results if it thinks it has the answer.

So you trolled a subreddit (let's be honest, you've been referred to The Paradox of Tolerance, and even if you haven't, you know full well the "spirit of liberalism" has never been about forcing privately owned infrastructure to be used to amplify racism), and you got temp bans. And you think that's a sign it was wrong?

> Once I got off the site I found the real, actual liberalism was being supported more by the right than the left now.

No you didn't. There's not a single right wing forum I've seen that fully tolerates left wing, non-violent, voices. Hell, most of them will ban you for disagreement even if you're coming at it from a right wing viewpoint.

Even the "fReE sPeEcH X" shadowbans posts that use the term "cis" which it terms an "insult" but actually just makes it impractical to discuss transgenderism. That's how ridiculous the right wing are. And "fReE sPeEcH X" is notorious for banning journalists who get under Musk's notoriously thin skin.

But sure, tell us how banning the N-word makes the left the true fascists, Jan.

> And how would you know? The propaganda matches your statement, yes, but the reality does not. With some exceptions, government workers are those that could not make it anywhere else.

The irony of claiming the GP is spouting propaganda while you repost a tired, worn out, and completely absurd propaganda slogan is palpable.

Bullshit.

The only reason you think that is because of $YOUR_AGE years of right wing American brainwashing and the people at the top deliberately breaking government to try to prevent, for example, nationalizing healthcare becoming popular.

The reality is that the government is full of smart, conscientious, people, and had more before DOGE started firing swathes of them. People used to be able to rely upon advice from the FDA and CDC, to name but two agencies that do great work when left alone by politicians.

If government doesn't work for you, blame the people you vote for.

> They could just hire people to do it and then the fruits of that labor could be available to

Intentional snip at the end because I want to give an example where it's not open source. For example, in the 1970s the CIA did something similar to what you describe and commissioned a database from some consultants. The product was for a database, which the CIA code-named "Oracle".

Can you guess who was one of those consultants and what they're doing today with the code?

No, he was a Democrat from 2001-2009. He was a failed Republican until the mid-1990s, and a failed Reform Party member until 2001. (That is, both times he tried to run for office, VP under Bush Sr, and President under the Reform Party, and was rejected in both cases.)

It IS true that he moved in the same circles, and was friendly with the Clintons after Clinton was out of office, but he clearly never voted for any Democrat for office with the possible exception (unknown) of John Kerry.

From Wikipedia:

> Trump registered as a Republican in Queens in 1969 and in Manhattan in 1987;[13][105] a member of the Independence Party, the New York state affiliate of the Reform Party, in 1999; a Democrat in 2001; a Republican in 2009; unaffiliated in 2011; and a Republican in 2012.[106]

So during Clinton's presidency he was an opponent of him. Indeed, he made an attempt to be Bush Sr's running mate in 1992. He was only a Democrat for about 8 years, in part because he had been rejected by the pre-Palin/Tea Party Republican Party AND the Reform Party essentially during the Bush Jr administration.

That said, they were clearly friendly as people until the latter stages of the Trump 2016 campaign.

Bingo.

Google demands phone numbers to log into accounts now if you change your IP address for some reason and haven't logged in in a while. Phone numbers that clearly have *nothing* to do with security as you don't have one associated with your account.

They're a surveillance company now, not an ad-supported general Internet services company, pretty much moving to a Flock-like business model. Anyone who doesn't have a Google exit plan needs to figure one out. And anyone who does... needs to seriously considering executing.
 

That doesn't make much sense either, the further back, the difference in the very way English is spoken/written.

Honestly this, again, means I get to raise a point that I never got a good reply to at the beginning of this LLM BS: what is the incentive for creating new, clean, correct, works at this point? Because "People always want to argue about shit on Reddit" isn't going to get us new information on the majority of topics with the possible exception of politics. And let's be honest, that's not a thing where you can guarantee accuracy by training on it either.

Literally the only people right now with an active incentive in setting up new websites are those trying to sell you something. Amazon will survive this. The (real) news sites... not so much.

And if you asked me in 2006, when the Internet jumped the shark, whether I'd prefer to have Amazon or the news sites in 20 years, I'd have said the second. Not that there was ever a realistic way Amazon like websites would disappear. But given the choice, I'd prefer to keep the stuff AI is killing.

WB is more than just studios, and Netflix might even benefit from a pared down set of studios to rent out to production companies anyway.

Whoever buys WB ends up with quite a large infrastructure of franchise rights, connections, and cable/internet/streaming stuff. It's not just a company that makes Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Sounds a good reason to require they break out their landline and wireless assets into separate companies then, if there's such a clear conflict of interest.

I feel like if they're going to route fiber anyway, which is relatively difficult to route, adding some cheap copper cabling to it that powers the relatively low power digital modem + POTS convertor (ATA/FXS) from a central battery-backed up unit wouldn't be that expensive - save for the fact they haven't bothered to do it yet so retrofitting it would be more expensive (but wouldn't be necessary for that handful that they're desperately wanting to move to fiber.)

They have the infrastructure, the pipes to route this to, junction boxes close by that can contain the batteries. They even have old buried copper, capable of taking more than the power needed (old analog phones with bells had those bells powered by power from that copper) in some cases they can repurpose for this.

I think the bigger problem is they want all of the money and none of the responsibility. But that's why we have regulators.

I'm finding the idea that something that speeds up your heart like some 1990s 31337 h4x0r overclocking their Athlon is "healthy" just implausible. I have to assume, that given these are peer reviewed studies etc, that there's a germ of truth to them, but I just don't understand it.

Plus too much caffeine for me puts me in a foul mood, increasing my anxiety 200% and making me more prone to frustration. I assume it can't be like that for everyone (or maybe it is? Maybe that explains all this *gestures everywhere*) but... come on. What's the mechanism here to make caffeine "healthy"?

> OP argues that immigrants move to UK to have an easier time finding an employer willing to hire them. I am unsure if this is the main motive. It seems to me people divide themselves by language they can speak due to the colonial history. E.g. people from Mali, Ivory Coast, etc. have friends and family connections in France and do not speak English, are uninterested to move to the UK. In the same way, people from Nigeria have connections in UK and can't speak French, so will always move to the UK.

Still doesn't make any sense and the OP is basically arguing that the UK should become more totalitarian to prevent something that's actually positive rather than negative. People coming into the UK who actually work and support themselves cause no harm to anyone else in Britain, and add to the economy.

But the OP has been drenched in propaganda for... well, decades, Enoch Powell and the National Front were arguing that immigrants bad without giving any logical reason back in the 1970s, so instead of blaming people with actual power who have that power and are abusing it for their own benefit for his problems, he's blaming immigrants and demanding the UK take steps towards totalitarianism and risking the liberty of everyone if a truly fascist party is put in charge - and right now, the second most popular party in the UK is very obviously fascist.

And, no coincidence, is promoting the same "It's the "illegal" immigrants, not the people with actual power, who are causing you harm" rhetoric.

> We actually need this in the UK because we donâ(TM)t have any other means of recognising who is allowed to work and who is not.

Uh-hum.

> This is why so many migrants are attracted to the UK from safe countries like France.

Damn those Frenchies taking all of your jobs!

What about letting people work if they're qualified to do the job? They'll generate wealth and create even more jobs in the process. A win-win situation, if you're not looking for excuses to hate immigrants.

If you are, then you're probably going to buy the logic that somehow people working reduces jobs. Odd how the same people who argue this have no problems with those citizens who are actively hoarding wealth. Is it because they want to believe the worst of immigrants, or is it that the wealth hoarders own a media that's all too happy to point the finger at scapegoats to draw attention from themselves?

Why do you so easily believe, despite no economists backing you up, that the most powerless people on Earth are the ones who are harming you?