This. Bernie is wrong. We should've had a 3-day work week back in 2021 based on productivity improvements since the '70s.

It's quite similar to the way phones have phased out keyboards though...

It would be good if CEOs switched to scaring employees and appeasing shareholders with threats from AI rather than fake job posts.

My point was that with little to no unoccupied autonomous cars actually driving around, it's disingenuous to say that it's possible to reduce cars' access to public roads without reducing people's access to public roads. Maybe the number of people getting access overall is higher, but they're not all the same people. Using public transport is such an apples-and-oranges difference from driving that a lot of people were probably forced to leave their job and/or move by this change. Congestion charges work by forcing the drivers who can least afford it to stop driving. It reminds me of how in a lot of American cities in the 20th century, ghettoes were razed to build highways or parks or stadiums.

That'll keep those unoccupied autonomous cars from causing traffic now that they have to pay with their...bitcoins? AAA points?

The idea seems much less anti-poor if you simply skim over who is no longer driving, which the people who support congestion charges always do. They're masters of whitewashing and euphemism.

Would you argue that this program didn't take the poorest 10% of drivers off the road?

The possibility of Israel having zero-days for WhatsApp as cyberweapons is a good reason for anyone in Iran's military and leadership to delete WhatsApp. It's not a good reason for ordinary people to do that though.

Iran wants ordinary people to do that because they want to minimize any common means ordinary people might have of organizing right now.

Semi-colon use is rare. Appropriate semi-colon use is even more rare. It's so uncommon that when I see it in an email, presentation, or website it triggers the "Did ChatGPT write this?" question in my head and I begin looking for other tell-tale signs.

A person who isn't interested in checking the facts is orders of magnitude better controlled than a person who can't.

Mozilla is a 501(c)3 non-profit. It doesn't have a massive revenue source like Google, Microsoft, and Apple in the funding of their browsers. In fact, Mozilla has historically relied on Google for funds. Today, there's a lot less cash being thrown around. There's massive economic uncertainty due to the whims of some governmental executives, a long-slow war in Eastern Europe, and an expanding war in the Middle East. Interest rates are up. Very "up".

One of the few things people with too much money are willing to throw money at is "AI". 5 years ago it was "blockchain" and 5 years before that it was "VR", but today, it's AI. Mozilla NEEDS to look like they're going all in on AI to attract more funds because stupid people with money are told that AI will make everything more efficient, faster, and accessible.

In that time, while funds are being reduced, a non-profit needs to reduce its expenses. It's very likely that Pocket and Fakespot provide too little benefit to too little of a userbase for the expense to maintain the programs. About the two programs--

I used Fakespot to help shop on Amazon. I liked it and I'm sorry to see it go. I also know no one in the real world that knew about it. Amazon actively hated and submitted multiple complaints against Fakespot resulting it it being delisted from the Apple App store at least once. That said, there's a lot of computing power required to analyze and index ALL Amazon products. It seems like a very expensive product to maintain. It makes sense that it's getting cut.

Pocket is just a bookmark/article storage app. The principle is great "bookmark something to read later on any device", but that also means maintaining account infrastructure cloud storage, updating settings, etc. I think the most interesting thing about Pocket is to investigate just how many saved articles were visited later by their users. I'm willing to bet that fewer than 10% of articles saved for later reading were even clicked on ever again. That's not intended to be a dig at Pocket, Mozilla, or the users of Pocket, but more of a commentary of how we hoard things "just in case".

Lastly, let's talk about the sale of user data. Mozilla previously said, "Never" and now is saying, "Only safely". Before you call them traitors to life, consider asking "Why?". Might it be because they're desperately low on funds from prior contributors and need to find SOME sort of revenue to keep operations going? And if they have to sell user data to keep the doors open, isn't it best that they do so in such a way as to not be able to to personally identify any of their users?

It just seems that this article's author is quick to condemn Mozilla for being less righteous today than yesterday while it's trying to stay afloat in a sea of competitors who make no effort or illusion to righteousness. The article is akin to screaming at your child for getting a B+ after having missed 2 weeks of class while in the hospital.

Correct. What we had until our latest president was ethical precedence-- an honor code of integrity that was enforced by the social pressures of other politicos. That has gone by the wayside.

In the future, should we get out of this mess, you can expect significantly stronger restrictions of the office of the president.

Worse than that, he's proven that a crime committed over the full course of a single presidential term is one that happens too fast for the law to catch - see the emoluments case against him during his first term.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 7

The strict reading suggests that the president shouldn't receive payments from the federal or state governments outside of his/her paycheck (see CREW v Trump and the self-dealing of Trump properties) and there is no strict prohibition of making money in business while serving as president. It just so happens that prior presidents have chosen (often under pressure) to relinquish control of their enterprises while president to avoid the accusation of partiality.

His actions go against long-standing historical norms and Congress can cite the actions as an undefined "high crime and misdemeanor", but there's no explicit prohibition against what he's doing. No one in the past realistically conceived the likely scenario where a president would do this and thus no law made it through Congress to create an enforceable crime.