Attempts to anonymize data in the past have ended badly. I don't think this is as practical as the EU thinks.

Also, frankly, I don't want Google providing data to third parties. Period. And I don't think we need competition in the AI space, we need the space either shut down completely or regulated. This isn't the EU protecting citizens, it's it applying its boilerplate "Competition is always good" policies to a technology it doesn't understand is actively harmful.

Regulate it to a point it's either a net good with virtually no downsides - the Sloptavists about to reply to this will claim this is somehow possible, so they'll surely (sarcasm) support this kind of regulation - and deal with Google's monopoly position in general by reducing their power, maybe through regulation, maybe by making them sell off their email, Android and AI assets to separate independent companies.

But this? I've never seen such a fucking stupid set of policies in my life. This is the same crap that happened to Bernie, who also became enamoured by the hype. They need to be taking this in a completely different direction.

I've said it before but if the EU had to deal with Mafia protection rackets, instead of shutting down the protection rackets, they'd demand the Mafia split into rival protection rackets to protect competition. This is so ridiculous.

> So, any news source that makes a sincere effort at being unbiased will be distrusted by viewers at least half the time

I disagree with that. In general the left is more likely to consider centrist or center right media trustworthy. How many on the left do you think like MSNow? It's fewer than you think.

I'm not saying it's impossible to produce an openly left wing news outlet that the left finds credible, look at the Alan Rusbridger Guardian, for example, as a paper that did its best to have integrity while focusing on issues important to the left. But this cable-news shit is killing everyone. I'm not interested in Trump's gaffes, There's more important things this administration is doing the media - all of it - needs to cover. And do so objectively - but not in a bipartisan way, which isn't the same thing at all.

> That is a complete fluke, an accident

Are you sure about that?

The legal stuff was sorted out before either became popular, and BSD had the benefit of name recognition, 20 years of development (and thus a mature base), familiarity by academics across the world, and so on. While Linux was some hobby project written by an unknown programmer as a quick and dirty 32 bit replacement for the MINIX kernel so he could run MINIX with applications able to access gigabytes of RAM and be completely secured from one another.

The quick and dirty MINIX replacement somehow became the most popular operating system on Earth. While BSD was basically dead in the water by the early 2000s.

Is it just possible that the development environment mattered? That people contributed to Linux, causing it to become the universal OS compatible with almost every hardware environment with the RAM and processing power necessary, because they knew that their contributions would be more meaningful in an environment where people could copy it but never, ever, hide it and claim it as their own?

> That's why many commercial companies like to base their systems on FreeBSD.

Oh you were doing so well until then...

Curious actually to know whether FreeBSD is being used anywhere these days in a finished product? IIRC there was some firewall/router software based on it but for the most part everything, even the crap in your router, your phone, your SCSI controller, etc, is Linux.

> Or maybe people just don't agree with you? Or maybe you also didn't read the article title? The plan was to KEEP DST, so winter is unchanged.

I misparsed his comment too.

He's saying it's bad to have DST during the Winter. So KEEPing DST all year around is EXACTLY what he's saying is bad. Because then we'll have DST during the winter.

And I agree with him FWIW. Let's just have standard time during the entire year, so noon is (timezone sizes obviously not withstanding) as close an approximation to midday as possible. If we want to go to work later during the winter, and earlier during the summer, we can encourage businesses to cater for that, who'll see benefits in implementing it as a gradual time shift (say, over a period of a month, each week opening 15 minutes earlier), rather than doing everything at once like we do now.

DST is just plain dumb: sleep deprivation for once a year with very little beyond "But I can go to the park at 9pm rather than 8pm in July!" as the supposed benefit. It's nice to have more time after work in daylight, but DST is absolutely the worst way to do it. And the only thing even worse is subjecting everyone to DST during the winter.

I wish people would just have permanent standard time, rather than DT. Changing the time so you can have marginally more daylight in the evenings during the summer where you're already getting more daylight in the evenings anyway seems absurd to me, and not worth the impact it has on people's sleeping patterns. And nothing stops businesses from adjusting to a more reasonable set of opening patterns, maybe even changing it on a week by week basis so nobody has to wake up an hour early at an arbitrary point each year.

Nope, Intel has made ARM chips before, remember StrongARM? It just couldn't sell them.

Right now Intel is making its variant of an AMD CPU design after trying for several years to make variants of an HP design while reluctantly selling a 32 bit chip based on an 8 bit chip (the 8008) it built for a terminal manufacturer in the 1970s, in much greater quantities. I think you severely overestimate how enthusiastic Intel is about the CPUs it sells. Intel has repeatedly tried to come up with better designs than its popular products and the market has consistently rejected them, from the iAPX 432 in the 1980s to Itanium.

It's more than happy to rent fab space to Apple if Apple ponies up. Especially right now when RAM prices are killing the market for new PCs.

"These days"

They've all been engineered since Heaven's Gate bombed, and certain franchises have always been engineered. There was even a book on how to write generic blockbuster, called Save The Cat!, that became an industry bible in the early 2000s, with scripts being rejected if they didn't follow the formula, which gave a page by page description of what needed to be there.

But... complaining they're engineered is like complaining that rollercoasters are engineered. Nobody goes into a MCU or Bond or even a John Wick movie expecting some amazing piece of meaningful artistry. Hell, if they did, the number of people interested in them would reduce dramatically, because the last thing most of us want to do after writing Java for 5 days and trying to relax on a Friday evening is to think. People want fun escapism sometimes, because life right now sucks more than it's done in 30 years for most people.

"Are they worth saving?" So you're telling me that you feel that giving a group of billionaires more control over what you watch and what information you get because you don't see any cultural or entertainment value in The Beekeeper? That's your argument?

Really?

We shouldn't care about a desktop environment because you have a spiffy window manager configuration you like? Really?

What about Netflix? Leaving aside the fact that Paramount is obviously worse than Netflix - the former is a giant empire that owns studios, cable and broadcast TV stations, news outlets, and so on, while the latter owns a single streaming service that commissions third parties to make content for it, there's no evidence that these people would be in favor of Netflix owning WB either.

But if they were in favor, it'd be understandable. Netflix is definitely the lesser evil here, even without getting into what Skydance has done to CBS.

That's exactly it. Why would you even post to social media if you come to it expecting news or celebrity updates? It's no longer for your content, it's for whatever the algorithm is serving up, which is never people like you.

No it isn't. Accounting isn't going to be improved using a glorified autocomplete. I think you're confusing "AI" with "computerization in general", and you're also failing to learn the lesson of the last 30-40 years that shows that, actually, no you can't automate away all of accounting. You can reduce the number of people involved, sure, but someone has to understand the logic.

AI isn't about logic, it isn't about reason, therefore it cannot replace people whose jobs are 100% logic and reasoning. And it's not going to ever be about logic and reason, because it's about pattern matching. That's not the same thing at all.

Accounting isn't going to be automated by AI any more than it is Bresenham's algorithm or word processors. That's not its field.

And now we just give up and find ways to reword everything.

Google was better than Altavista when AV was a thing. Once the effective competition disappeared and the term "Google" became synonymous with searching, they broke their product in the name of "engagement".

The really weird part to me is why none of the modern alternatives (DDG, Startpage, etc) are better. How hard could it be to implement a hard "include only these words, exactly as I spelled them"?

> It can handle Multimedia as well as OSX

Found the Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware 3.x user.

Have you used GNU/Linux since, say, 9/11?

Apple Hardware before 2012 cannot run operating systems other than those branded OS X or Mac OS X. While, technically, anyone who bought hardware before 2016 or so could be sticking with the OS that came with their machine, anyone with such a machine will get nagged and will not be getting updates to Safari.

The more likely explanation is this is bot traffic using older UA strings and SC's figures are BS.