You literally post this on every article about Firefox. Aren't you tired yet? I have replied numerous times that they are *NEVER* going to do that. And then I pointed you to using policies, which will disable updates.

Which is why I don't bother with surveys from company. If they're not going to listen to their customers, why bother doing the survey?

Having to create a policy is not the same as a simple checkbox to disable something.

One would think if customers keep complaining about something that a company would look into changing it. Such as people who complained at having to use a screen in their car to change a/c or temperature or something simple. Car manufacturers went back and put buttons and knobs in to make things easier.

Apparently Mozilla isn't interested in simple. Like so many other companies, the object is to make things as complicated, convoluted, and inconvenient as possible.

For all they keep doing, the one thing they can't seem to do is make a checkbox to stop being harassed about updates. Apparently there is no way to do to this. It's much too complicated for them to figure out.

Perhaps they should put out a notice asking if anyone has the skills to create the checkbox and make it work.

Reminds me of the scene in War Games where Joshua is playing the various games over and over and over:

Jennifer: What is it doing?

David Lightman: It's learning.

Get back to talking about how we're whooping Iran's ass at no cost to oursel-- SHUT UP, I SAID NO COST!!!!1

You won't see this on the Fox tabloid, but the acting Navy Secretary admitted at a Congressional hearing that Iran "blew the hell" out of a naval base in Bahrain such that the USS Abraham Lincoln (sound familiar?) couldn't dock for resupply.

So yeah. Whooping Iran's ass at no cost.

Kids are expected to sit in class for six hours a day then go home and potentially do homework for an hour or two.

The difference is, there are breaks in those six hours. You're in class for 55 minutes, then you get up and walk to your next class, rinse and repeat. Depending on your schedule, breaks could even be longer. You get up and move about. You're not stuck in the same chair for six hours.

Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.

No, there was no "empty space" around it. The space itself expanded in the cosmic inflation, per current theory.

Which I've always hated because it makes no sense. If space itself inflated, what did it inflate into? It's illogical, from any perspective, to say the universe was a speck of energy that suddenly expanded to create itself. If it expanded, it had to expand into something. You can't create yourself. If you say that, then all you've done is recreate, "In the beginning ..."

It's a way of reframing sloppy practices as a signal to your investors that your software has become powerful. Most of the horror stories about AI showing signs of becoming hyperintelligent are coming from the companies themselves, which should tell us something.

While the energy source of wind and solar are free, building and maintaining the plants is not free.

If all they were building were a single 100MW data center, sure: renewables would be cheaper to build. But they evidently are planning a major campus that will consume most of the plant's 615 MW output over the next 25 years.

A solar installation, in a favorable location, capable of supplying 600MW around the clock (with battery backup) would have to be roughly 1800MW in capacity. It would be among the largest inthe world, on the order of ten thousand acres in size at a build cost of maybe 2 billion. The battery backup system to ensure 99.9% uptime would be 9x the size of the largest li-ion grid storage system ever built, and set you back on the order of 4-5 billion dollars.

While it's probably cheaper to go renewable than build a *new* nuclear plant, if you can reactivate and one for just two billion that looks like a bargain, if you have a use for all that power. Inability to save money by load following is the financial Achilles' heel of this generation of reactors, but if you have a guaranteed customer for most of your output, years in advance, that's as close to an ideal economic case for them as anything could be.

You could have stopped at Microsoft Breaks. We just found a previous update from Microsoft breaks the cellular connection in some of our HP laptops. The update flips the IMEI back to the default. We had to get a patch from HP to fix the update.

ToS is the strongest argument, but the distillers are not parties to the ToS. They get their data from data brokers. It is possible that data brokers are violating the ToS, but it would be hard to write ToS that precluded running queries for third parties without creating problems for consultancies and other businesses. Even presuming the ToS could be written to preclude the data brokers doing that, it doesn't affect the resulting model.

But the general shape of the argument brings us right back to unclean hands: we worked hard on this model and it's not fair for you to profit off our work in a way that doesn't have our permission.

I think the fair-minded position is to see what people think when the documentary comes out. You're essentially arguing a negative here -- that there *can't* be anything of value that hasn't been said yet.

Also, I don't think saying something *new* is necessarily critical. Sometimes saying something obvious but in an interesting way is worthwhile.

In this case, Holmes gave access to the filmmaker. Obviously she has an agenda. If the filmmaker is smart, he has an agenda that's different from hers. If he knows his business he'll find something interesting to show you from that conflict.

Now looking at the trailer -- holy shit that woman gives off batshit crazy vibes. That's new to me. I expected her to be slick, persuasive, like Saruman in Lord of the Rings: someone. you'd need real strength of mind to resist being persuaded by. If I'd just handed someone like that my business card, I'd get it back on some pretext then head as fast as I could for the door.

It doesn't make it *right*, but it does make claiming it is *wrong* inconsistent with their own behavior. This could prevent the US companies from suing the Chinese companies seeking an injunction (due to the "unclean hands" doctrine), and probably blocks them from seeking monetary damages in most US jurisdictions.

And suing may undermine the US companies own intellectual property claims by exposing their shaky foundations. An AI model isn't *expression*, so it can't be copyrighted. Insofar as the service allows the underlying model to be deduced through regular usage, trade secret protections don't apply because that's *reverse engineering*, which trade secrets don't prevent.

This leaves violations of terms of service. But setting aside the dubious enforceability of anti-reverse engineering provisions, the Chinese companies may not even be parties to the ToS agreement if they are obtaining the model data through a network of contractors and shell companies.With only moderate paranoia, they can effectively shield themselves from some kind of US tort claim.

Which leaves them with the model they've created from the US company's model, but which the US company has no IP claim upon. If I download a DeepSeek model that's been (hypothetically speaking) trained on Claude, Anthropic might not like that, but what can they do about it?

It's a strange situation. US investors are spending cumulatively on over half a trillion dollars a year in the hope of owning a breakthrough frontier model that is the end of the economic world as we know it. But the essence of the model might not be intellectual property at all.

Details bore me. Describing a person's outfit in detail is filled with information I could not care any less about.

Clearly you don't read any Brandon Sanderson books.

Ah yes, the censorship that still allowed people to see the lies about ivermectin. Clearly an abuse of power to let people see the lies. And no, the technologies in this story were not used by Biden. So another lie which isn't being censored.

Mandatory vaccinations were for a select group of people: i.e. the military and medical workers. No one else was required to get a vaccination.

But please, continue licking RFK, Jr's boots. He needs all the help he can get.