I remember unboxing this AT&T 3B1 with utter excitement. It ran UNIX, real AT&T UNIX (which we later learned was riddled with bugs lol). I could compile GCC overnight LOL. There were times I had no f'ing idea what I was doing, but I kept learning. I had the modem and the voice card, which gave me tons of hours of exploring/learning, dial-up BBS via ProComm. I connected a DEC VT330 to this and logged in -- total excitment (LOL!). Hey, it was my geeky time.

I agree with other sentiment here, the product was poorly planned. The AT&T UNIX PC was expensive, off-the-shelf software was nearly non-existent. Open source was in its infancy. UNIX (and all variants like Xenix) were "exclusive" -- marketed and priced as such. SCO milked everyone for a long as they could, then fell into disaster. AT&T didn't put the real work into the larger ecosystem for this, but they had higher-end 3B servers which did a little better. For what it was and what it accomplished in the UI I think was pretty decent.

At the time, though, there really wasn't much useful need or context for UNIX on the desktop at home. Very few people understood it, we had IBM PCs and Commodore 64s and the Apple Mac, the Amiga... along with the huge software bases.

The world moved on.

FYI There is an emulator in open source called FreeBee on Github that will run the AT&T 3B1 (3.51) OS, for those who are interested: github.com/philpem/freebee

Star Trek was designed to endure. From the beginning, it was inclusive — not as a marketing strategy, but because that was the whole point of Roddenberry's future. Multiple races, interspecies politics, a Russian on the bridge during the Cold War, a Black woman as a senior officer in 1966. That wasn't "woke," it was the premise. So when people blame inclusivity for Trek's decline, I feel they're misdiagnosing the problem entirely.

What actually killed it is a lack of vision, poor writing, and management that treated the franchise like IP to be mined rather than a universe to be respected.

I'll admit — Academy grew on me. The characters developed, the acting was good, and when it hit the warfare arcs it found some real weight. But it needed more time to breathe, and it never fully escaped the teen drama gravity well that nobody asked for. I wanted to love it, because I love Star Trek and I'll always give it a chance. But wanting to love something and it earning that love are two different things. That's the frustrating part — you could see what it could have been if they'd trusted the material and given it room to develop.

The timeline fragmentation hasn't helped either. I know there are fans who embrace all the timelines, and more power to them — but for me, it's fractured any sense of a coherent universe. Kelvin timeline, Discovery's jump to the 32nd century, prequels contradicting established canon — at some point you can't even tell what's connected to what anymore. The TOSTNGDS9Voyager era had a coherent forward trajectory. You knew where you stood. That matters, because investment in a fictional universe requires continuity to mean something.

For those of us old enough to remember, there was a stretch after TOS ended and before TMP where there was no active Trek at all. It survived. It came back. But it came back because people with genuine passion and understanding picked it up. That's what it needs again — not more content, but better stewardship.

I honestly don't know what Gene Roddenberry would say about any of this. But I suspect he'd recognize the difference between a show that has something to say and one that's just wearing the uniform.

The browser performance matter feels like a moving target -- each vendor is constantly developing, changing. I use multiple browsers where I feel my task will be best experienced (by me). Firefox, for ad blocking; I agree with other sentiment here, Google is an advertising company, they changed from Manifest V2 extension framework to Manifest V3 (MV3), which cripples the functionality of traditional ad blockers (go figure, right?). There is the BRAVE browser that still supports Manifest V2, but how long will they be around?

My choice of browser usage fits my circumstances, but I've been around long enough that I don't worry much about it, though I do find some of it utterly frustrating -- if something changes, I will adapt. Having multiple browsers allows me to do that.

LinkedIn used to be a good product, it created a niche for a time. There was nothing like it at the time, and it helped bring people into opportunity.

Since MS bought it, it's continued to decline, being filled with annoying, sycophantic content and a lot of other garbage and a poor UX. The messaging is a complete f'ing JOKE.

We have Indeed and others who, as competitors, follow suit. Waiting for "those scandals" to appear.

Something new, novel, simple should replace it. But what would that even look like.

There are apps in the App Store that already do a lot of this--there is a core "app" but much UI/content is fed from a website.

If they can stop bastardizing Star Wars (George Lucas has commented on this), I will show up. There is so much inconsistency and tangential storyline that it has become very confusing. It feels like the original vision has been long lost.

Most of us older folk (GRIN) are loyal to the original story, narrative and characters. That doesn't mean change can't happen -- that's life, but Disney has made a big mess.

I am an early ChatGPT (paid) user, where I've watched the models evolve over time (devolve?) -- at one point recently, it started ordering me around like a dominatrix (LOL). People complained about that, now it is very condescending at times and it reminds me of a frenemy circumstance. Other times, with certain (legitimate) topics I get a HAL response like "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." or some other advisory you didn't ask for.

Basically, the current ChatGPT model has become a Vulcan bitch. At least Spock had a sense of irony, and he could navigate human space very well. But, to be fair, it places ChatGPT in a category where it's most useful, for example writing and interacting with code.

Conversely (literally) I find Claude to be much more personable. It "feels" like it has a presence and I find my interactions with Claude much more helpful, useful and flexible. I also appreciate that Claude's knowledge base is frequently updated, vs ChatGPT.

It appears that Anthropic is noticing Claude, too, with its recent changes in policies, to accept that AI may have feelings. I feel like Anthropic is going in the "right" direction, so they get my money. Oh yeah, Athropic refuses to allow the military to abuse Claude (points++).

Should I stock up on popcorn, for the next security exploit for Spotify? :)

I hope their "engineers" are spending time auditing the code that is generated by AI and used in production... otherwise, this could be very career limiting for them.

Well, they better sue Facebook, Apple, game creators, and so on.... because this is how it works. User engagement, addiction.

I remember reading how the creators of Angry Birds hired psychologists to literally make the game addicting.

There's a deep visceral aspect to this, where humans need the tactile interaction -- it impacts our perception, how we interact, etc. Car manufacturers are starting to realize this, too, and bringing back buttons and switches.

After using my iPhone for a few years, I feel like bringing back the tactile experience is a good thing. The current keyboard feels so "dead" -- I turned off the audible "click" sound as I felt it was annoying and didn't really replace the satisfaction of feedback from a physical keyboard.

I wonder if this is also why some people are migrating back to more tactile keyboards, like the old-style IBM "Model M". I remember working with one of these (1988 LOL) and how satisfying it was, even though my menial job at the time sucked :)

Exercise is always a good thing to engage in, but the thesis feels a bit ignorant, even dismissive of other elements that contribute to depression. For example, metabolic or nutritional absorption problems. Dr. Abram Hoffer's research applies here -- where he treated some with higher doses of niacin, and his thesis was that many people that present with psychiatric troubles are in fact suffering from metabolic or nutritional deficits. And this is just one example I can think of. Hoffer's work has been around for decades, but largely ignored by an industry that prefers to throw pills at people.

There is also genetic testing, such as GeneSight.com (there may be others) that drill down into your individual issues with this. Valuable data.

That being said, exercise can and does impact the brain; we know this, but the core thesis is faulty.

Since AI agents will be deployed to replace humans, in tasks where human judgement is inferred and/or otherwise a component, those same behaviors at times governed by laws, regulations and other oversight -- yes, AI Agents should be subject to the same laws -- this is a liability layer. Otherwise, it would be incredibly easy for a bad actor, or some a**hole at a company, to engage in behaviors or activities that would otherwise cross that line. This would hopefully make a case for legal liability for both people that program them (training data, and onward) an the companies that utilize.

I can already see some panic and push back on that concept :) LOL

Agreeing with other sentiment, I also suspect credit card companies, and their interests (no pun intended) would activate in other sectors to "make us all pay for the loss" -- which would infer harm to consumers. Otherwise, JP Morgan is full of sh*t, IMHO.

Consumers have been victimized by the credit card industry for decades. We're all sick of it.

I would assume the same thing; though, we can assume their code is written to exploit the custom chipsets.

The only reason I update these phones is for the camera improvements and storage, and processing speed of course. I still find iOS 26 to be something they could have withheld for a while longer. They don't have a public beta testing platform, because Apple is so secretive and they think they know what is best for everyone. But, Apple doesn't seem to respond to public feedback, unless there is something that causes significant public embarrassment.

It makes me wonder who's running the show internally and what oversight there is, if any.

I have a new iPhone 17 Pro, so I have no choice but to run iOS 26. I can say I now fully regret this upgrade. They sold this on AI, which was an embarrassing failure; the Liquid glASS is something I can live without, it doesn't add anything useful -- the new Safari experience is completely trashed, unintuitive. If I would install/run iOS 18 on this device, I probably would.

As a long-time Apple user, I am really concerned about their future, if they don't get their act together.