I think it depends less on workflow and more on screen layout. If you run your browser maximized on a landscape-mode display, there's a lot of horizontal real estate that isn't very well-used, while vertical space is at a premium. So it makes sense to move tabs to the side.

On the other hand, if you don't maximize your window but keep it as narrow as possible (so you can see other windows) but just wide enough that sites render well, then you'll probably prefer them on top.

On the gripping hand, if you're like me and run your browser full-screen on a portrait mode screen, then you have gobs of vertical real-estate and tabs on top definitely makes sense.

(I have three monitors, a 32" (landscape) in the center, which is where my IDE, editors, and "focused" work lives, and a 27" portrait orientation monitor on each side. The left one has a full-screen browser window for work stuff and the right one has a full-screen browser window for personal stuff. It's fantastic.)

Mmmm.... if anything it's "what the Google engineers want emphasized". Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions. For nearly all of Google's existence it's been an almost completely bottom-up driven company and while in the last few years management has been trying to exert more control it's a very, very slow process.

It's actually the engineering-driven culture that produces Google's infamous tendency to abandon products. Stuff gets built because some engineers think it's a good idea and convince their managers to let them run with it. Then eventually it gets boring and engineers tend to wander off to other teams in search of something interesting. If the product has managed to achieve significant userbase and/or revenue stream (and keep in mind that both are measured on Google scales; so anything less than 100M users or $1B/year is "not signficant").

In a top-down company products don't get built until they have significant executive support, which requires a fairly detailed plan, which gets executed and adjusted, and if an exec's project is in trouble it will get support. At Google products kind of wander out the door and into the world and if they happen to be a hit, great, if not, well, unless there are legally-binding contracts obligating the company to support something, it just gets shut down. Even with the projects that the executive leadership are really excited about (like AI!), their influence is mostly limited to shoveling resources at it.

Anyway, the point is that execs likely have little to no influence on Gemini training beyond setting very broad guidelines, and even those might not have much effect.

I think they see a clear attack point. Big enough to make it worth trying it. It also helps that these computers are incredibly cheap to build not just because the leftover parts but because it's literally just a phone SOC.

That's a strong statement. Can you explain why that isn't also true of human brains? What's the intrinsic difference?

Oops, s/he did. Sorry.

Very true. Even just $100k in most of the country is more than enough to live very well.

You might take a paycut, but odds are good that you'll not only end up with more disposable income, but a much nicer home as well.

Litigating each individual infringer is impossibly expensive for them. That's why they tried to go through the utility company.

For now what they will probably do is pick off a few people here and there to use as examples and use the full weight of the legal system to ruin their lives. Of course if you know anything about criminal justice harsh punishments are not effective deterrence.

So far the only reliable way to stop piracy has been to make a product that is better and have consumers that can actually afford to consume.

I'd rather have a digital lying machine than the sub-human one we have right now. At least people will be more willing to ignore criminal orders because they are not in an AI cult. The AI do really like to start nuclear wars but nobody would follow those orders... But given how much AI produced slop from the White House already, we might just end up with a nuclear war... like we did tariffs against penguin island.

nealric didn't claim it was every year. It is in fact $400 to register an EV in Texas for the first two years. Thereafter, it's $200 per year. pdf alert:

https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/de...

Texas does not charge a sales tax for gasoline. However, it does collect a federal tax of 18.4 cents. Another pdf:

https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tt...

Per the second pdf, the math shows that the average driver pays $9.52 per month to the state, or $18.28 per month including federal tax. That comes out to $114.24 per year to the state, or $219.36 including federal tax. So, EV drivers pay more to the state, but ICE drivers pay slightly more overall on average.

I mean based on the president of the United states? Those are rookie numbers. Come on Google you can do better!

Because he was the poster child for austerity politics and right wing economics in Argentina.

Argentina went a little crazy on the rent control without building public housing. Those two things aren't compatible. If you are going to do rent control you have to back it up with subsidies or direct public housing or you're going to have supplies shortages. Which they did.

On top of that droughts have absolutely wrecked Argentina's economy because it's mostly agrarian. It's a modern agrarian economy mind you but it's still in agrarian economy and basically the entire planet is in some stage of droughts thanks to that which shall not be named least I trigger somebody here.

So this means money was getting tight and it's easy to sell people on austerity politics when that happens. Basically slash government programs and services and promise big tax cuts and the miracle of trickle down economics. It's the same playbook we've been hearing since Reagan / Thatcher. Didn't work then doesn't work now but for some reason voters are always willing to try it again...

And for a brief period Of time it looked good. Cutting the rent control got some people back into the market that had pulled inventory off the market. And it takes a little while for the cuts to government services to show up in the economy meanwhile the tax cuts made everything look good and short-term deregulation brought in some capital investment and a little tiny micro bubble.

It didn't take long though for the bubble to burst and for the shit to hit the fan and when that happened as usual the right wing tried to hold down the power anyway they could. If I remember correctly they first tried to overthrow the courts and when that didn't work I think he was plotting an actual coup.