This is basically right, although no one should think the solutions will be easy or obvious. The internet is geared toward allowing people to do horrible things without consequence. It needs to be exactly the opposite. The ultra-rich won't want that to change, many are rich for precisely that reason.

"And quit trying to force your views on everyone else."
Even when those views are about social media designed for force views on everyone else? Do you not get the irony, talk about a "simpleton point of view"!

"...so they think everyone else should be forced to give up the Internet as well. Fuck off."
Considering that no on is advocating that, we should all see your post for what it is, an attempt by a simpleton to express contempt for what he doesn't understand.

"With social media ... we tried to start with a global city and it turned out to be a tower of babble."
Except that is utterly false. Social media was always about villages and exclusivity. Tribalism was a foundational principle of social media. MySpace was about particular content creation, Facebook was exclusive to college students, this exclusivity drove popularity, a "global city" was the enemy from the start. "Birds of a feather" is literally the foundational principle of social media, it has never been otherwise.

I don't know who you think "we" is, but I certainly understand that, the problem is that the OP doesn't. "The internet" here means what a layperson thinks, it is the content not the nuts and bolts. The internet is what you interact with, not the phone line you use to do so. No one advocates that data services should die.

"We just want web 1.0 back"
No, we don't. Ignorance is what has created the mess, it will not be the solution to it. Your opinion is based on your assumed personal superiority, an assumption at odds with your simplistic view.

There is no accountability on the internet, by design. Until that changes, "the internet" will be corrupt and "we", as in you, continue to think that's the right answer. Web 1.0 had no accountability, that was the part preserved to enable the corruption we face.

I have been saying these things since the 90's, for at least 30 years. Greed and corruption was apparent then, all that has changed is how obvious the social damage is. Back then, the enthusiasm was directed to how to exploit ad revenue devices to take money while providing no product or service, literally pure greed. That was what drove the internet then and drives the internet now, a return to "Web 1.0" does nothing to fix that even if it makes you feel better about yourself.

It should also be understood that it's not just "the internet". The computer revolution was driven by opportunities to improve productivity, people was interested because they cared what they could do. Computers and applications were driven by improved capability and that's what computer sciences focused on. That is not true today, instead computing is oriented around exploitation and corporate profit and that is now what computer sciences focus on. That's why modern software development sucks, it's entirely greed-driven. AI is the same, research used to focus on capability, now it's money grab.

You'd have more credibility if you understood that censorship doesn't apply to reading, it applies to writing.

"I don't read any of them, so I am not censored by them."
Fabulous.

"There is no need for the internet as defined above to die..."

Which is why that's not the definition of interest.

Sounds like you suck like ordinary Joe off the street. Funny how shitty programmers don't know what good programming is.

"So this is what the skillset interview should evaluate. Can you use the modern tools to generate good product, and do it pretty quick."
How about do you know what a good product is? Because in your case, no.

so an AI apologist expresses an opinion on human talent evaluation and hiring practices? Why should anyone care? Nothing he claims about the abilities of Claude mean two shits when it comes to hiring a human to do work. If you only cared about the solution in the challenge you wouldn't be hiring.

Frankly, coding challenges during interviews are terrible, good riddance but not because of AI.

They were right. Worse yet, no one even wants a tablet. Apple sells them, Android doesn't. Tablets are a function of Apple shoving it down their fans' throats. Never forget, Jobs didn't even want to do a phone because he didn't use one, tablets are purely a Jobs thing and they HAD to be different than Macs. But Apple's touch UIs have been better and their desktop UIs not polluted by a do-everything mentality, at least until now.

No, Jobs was a moron who didn't even use a cell phone. Apple's devices improved greatly when Jobs was gone. Their software, though, has gotten worse and worse and there's no innovation. They make nice processors so far and they take image quality seriously. Apple has improved technically since Jobs left.

"...most devices contain in-built digitisers to work with a pen..."
Most as in very few. If you limit yourself to devices designed to do that, then sure, but desktops aren't, notebooks are evolutions of desktops not tablets.

It's funny how so many people have forgotten how computers are actually used. "Diverse UI elements appear in different areas of the screen". LOL. Were we born yesterday?

"Touch your screen to draw, drag or provide singular location based inputs."
Or use the techniques that have been used for decades. No one is inventing anything here. A notebook with a touch screen is a tablet. Apple decided notebooks and tablets were different and they were proven right. Now they are wrong, just like Microsoft...and you.

Because the screen is two feet away? The touchpad allows scrolling without large hand movements, something you'd know if you were a computer user.

"And I liked PowerPC, I was just shocked Intel could keep up. "

LOL PowerPC was explicitly created to only match Intel performance, but do so at lower cost with smaller dies. Intel keeping up was ensured from the start and PowerPC was never really developed beyond IBM's reference designs.

Thinking that PowerPC was somehow better than Intel is pure Apple brainwashing. It was Steve Jobs that lied about PowerPC, not IBM.

It's a scheme to convince people like the OP that it provides value when it doesn't, a scheme to sell to people like ShanghaiBill who are easily exploited due to their greed and entitlement. Down the road, it might be worthwhile if it doesn't degrade your future battery technologies.

For most it's a feature worth paying nothing for. Build it into EVSEs for free.

"Getting a second useful job out of the most expensive part of an EV makes sense. "

No it doesn't. First, it's not a "second useful job" very often, if ever, and not for many buyers, plus it decreases the lifetime of the "most expensive part of an EV". It's an option, it doesn't make sense for many people, perhaps any when you consider the long term cost.

"a reasonably priced way to keep the fridge and lights running is a pretty appealing extra..."

For many that's a rare problem. For others there are alternative solutions that don't wear your vehicle out.

"Making the hardware affordable is a good start; the electricity savings still have to survive the subscription bill."

For the subset that could receive any benefit at all. I get no value out of such management, my electric is flat rate. Plus I don't have a service interruption even once a year.

Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's "useful".