anti consumer architectures that force users to spend more every upgrade.
anti competitive agreements with laptop and desktop oems.
synthetically limited chips to force users to buy much more expensive versions to 'unlock' those features.

I'm good with not supporting intel until they start supporting what customers want a bit more than what their shareholders want... until those things become aligned a lot more.

enshitification isn't limited to ads being included or increased in a given thing.

it's about the company producing the product or service, treating the desire of their investors above those of their customers to the detriment of the long term survival of the company and/or degradation of existing features and functionality of the products or services in question.

the idea here is by taking the product or service out of one company's hands, they can't deliver what their investors want while degrading their product or service, because people will walk over to a competitor.

it sounds good in theory, but the idea that you could decentralize such things in the same way as email ignores the fact that spam exists because of this and most email services now block email unless it comes from approved forwarders and domains which basically means if you do your email from some place not 'approved' it might be treated as second class or not delivered at all. it's also one thing to decentralize something like email, but a serial media type of service has to store data. what share of your communication is going some server that is used for evil or is turned off at some point? how would that system even be organized?

maybe this guy thinks social media could be implemented like IRC and servers follow the same protocol but aren't interconnected.

i find it really hard to care either way if social media turns to crap. a website forum / feedback post is as close as i get to social media. let it die in fire and rip everyone off involved. it seems more harmful than any good in provides to users.

there are two extremes used to deal with application level network traffic use. the normal way which can interrupt applications during high load and lead to poor performance or a busy polling mode which forces the app to use 100% cpu to ensure it doesn't get interrupted.

this patch lets an app do both when it makes sense based on traffic load it's handling. idle/ low traffic is 'normal' mode and in high traffic it behaves like the busy polling mode and this happens dynamically.

sounds like a good thing. the advertised savings is in relation to how often the existing static configs are not needed.

at least that's what i got from the article

unlike previous revolutions that take a long time and create new industries, ai doesn't create a new industry for humans. its ultimate goal is to eliminate jobs or reduce how many humans are needed to do them. that's it.

not really sure how that sounds like a good idea to anyone... including rich people. everything depends on lots of people spending money on stuff and all ai seems designed to accomplish is reducing how many people have money to spend on stuff.

though, i guess we can just hope we move to a fully socialist or post capitalism society before it becomes less a tech revolution and more of the old-style violent kind. i honestly don't see how anyone looks at the future of what ai does for the world and sees it as positive. not while money matters anyway.

depends on how you 'backed off' your oc and if you returned it to stock or stayed oc'd.

most normal instability is caused by the voltage dropping too low. the voltage being too high causes heat throttling (unless you get stupid). you generally don't cause perm damage. so if stress tests like noted pass, and you ran them for many hours, you should be safe. but like a 10 min test... sure, that may slip by.

oc'ing is automatic these days in all cpu's. it's called boost clocks. there's really no need to manually overclock. there's very little danger to the cpu letting it oc itself.

anything sold with patents should have those patents voided if support is ended on a product. opening up support to any interested third parties.

that should create incentive for companies to support products they are still profiting on directly or indirectly. or it opens those abandoned products up to the free market.

Proper use of git and other scm's really should be a part of mandatory training at companies. Not knowing how it actually works is more of a default from what i've experienced.

companies won't go bankrupt. they will either make slightly less margins of profit (these are companies with double digit margins) or they won't bring unsustainable products to market, or costs will be adjusted to make them sustainable. I'd rather force the people with money to make the changes necessary than let them continue to take advantage. if they take their ball and go home then someone else will come to the court. you can still make a healthy living by standing by your products and maybe having 10% margins instead of 25+. the problem is you won't get private equity money with that model... Which is good. pe is the main driver of enshitification and anything that tries stopping that is worth doing.

how about we just do what the article suggests and hold companies accountable to the appropriate expectations of selling goods and services instead of letting the market continue to devolve into a wild west of exploitation and deception?

not many llm's know actual objectivity since they are not given truths and the logic to base those truths on like deepmind does for math or similar. additionally the content provided is all third person, the llm did not collect and observe or experience anything it knows itself from the world. so it relies on annotation and implication of what data was provided to it to guess what is objective.

instead what you will generally get is the appearance of objectivity. Which is worse than being more transparent.

"arm is winning" is computing's version of "fusion is 10 years away". even superior hardware isn't going to supplant x86. replacing x86 is a software problem. not really a hardware one. and the value of updating the software for arm is not there for end users.

i want coupes or sporty sedans without any driving assist sensors or self driving features. just a car that is able to be driven aggressively when desired, uses standard components and has independent isolated systems so you can upgrade/repair something without impacting other things.

give me the gm ecrate concept, throw it in a camaro, mustang, charger type vehicle and allow the power supply to be modular and open standardized so as battery tech advances, you can just switch to it with a simple software update to the charge controller.

I'm not buying any suv, any truck, any van, any cuv and i have no interest in self driving or cars that are 1min away from being subscription based disposable marketing arms of investment-mentality infected car manufacturers.

until something like that hits the market, I'll just stick with my current vehicle... even if that means driving it till it's 30 years old.

you forgot to include your salary then and what it should be using the same inflation calculator.

how can ai take jobs (permanently) if it relies on just a few companies providing the ai services and those aren't making a profit?

eventually either the cost of ai will have to be raised to make a profit or these services will end.

either way, the risk to employment drops. right now it may look cost effective to switch to ai, but that's based on an unsustainable ai subscription cost. and if the general public doesn't directly buy in to subscribing, spreading the real sustainable cost over a smaller subscriber base is going to drive costs much higher.

it's a bubble based around lies and imaginary efficacy and potential. i think it will pop before they collapse society. job elimination will occur eventually, but i think it will be a few decades before it really happens.

gamblers lose money to another gambler that played the game better.

the only negative about this story is that we mix investing in companies with stock market gambling schemes and that such short term activity has real impact on the things being gambled on.