I have been using ScreenFloat (and similar tooling) for decades; those are more useful than this because it works on every application and not just the browser.
It's quite possible I am missing something from their demo, but based on what they show: 1) it's just for Firefox; and, 2) it's really kind of a pain in the ass to use.
Try DuckDuckGo. I rarely need to use anything else.
Yeah exactly. I think any guess as to whether AI is truly inextricable from their search product would be ill informed - I'm willing to believe it is and it isn't, but Google may get turned down (or their bluff called) by enough schools such that a sizable number of kids grow up with the muscle memory of typing in or configuring their own browsers to a different search engine.
Well, what's even more absurd was that "Data centers" is already a term used for the similar but not the same facility that provides regular computing resources, either for cloud providers or for companies that want to keep their own hardware in a remote server room.
This fact had a lot of derailers protesting against anti-Data center people as being "aNtI-eMaIl".
Now the derailer turd sophists have one less quiver in their arsenal (emphasis on the first four letters) to derail anti-AI-facility buildings. So they're going to lose shills and corporate bootlickers.
It seems... self defeating.
So, naturally, I'm all for it.
That's not what anyone is talking about here. The NYT has no objection to its website being viewed in webbrowsers.
Let me guess, you're one of the people that responds to the current hostility against giant new AI data centers, shorthanded to "data centers", as people being opposed to email, right?
> I didn't look at ads when print was a thing either. Digital is no different.
OK, you all need to make up your mind here. Do you want to pay for content or not? Because back when "print was a thing" newspapers revenue was a mix of advertising and... wait for it!... SUBSCRIPTIONS!
> In any case, none of this is "Capitalism." Actual "Capitalism" does not involve this sort of dysfunction. It certainly has other dysfunctions, but private-interest incumbent control over government gatekeeping is not among them. That's a different problem, and rational people don't confuse it with "Capitalism."
Capitalism is about ownership, not the degree to which the government is involved. Perhaps you're confusing capitalism with the free market?
Wealthy assholes monopolizing capital in order to control more capital is pretty much the definition of capitalism.
This would be relevant if the argument was about numbers of competitors, rather than whether someone is fit to have significant control over telecommunications.
(Also the debate about T-Mobile buying Sprint wasn't about numbers: everyone knew Sprint was going to die anyway. The question was did you want the assets split equally across two large companies and one small one, or give them to the small one so it could be the same size as either of its competitors.)
You can write a small letter to Grandma in the filename. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS, University of Washington
