The Democrats can make the Republicans vote. Vote to not convict Whiskey Pete, Little Marco, et al. Then hang those votes around their necks in 2 years. Make the GOP vote against raising taxes on the rich. Etc. Etc.

To be fair Israelis don't rape little kids, they just blow them up. I suppose that's slightly more civilized.

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.

The first issue is if the only thing it takes to get around these sites paywalls is disabling some scripts, then they don't have a paywall at all. There are ways to put your content behind a paywall so it cannot be accessed (see porn sites). If they are just running a script to stop you, then I have no issue with Brave disabling that script to allow users to run the page without it. Sorry NYT, get a better paywall.

The second issue is the bigger one. If they are truly accessing these sites and scaping the data and offering it to other companies, that is an entirely different thing. That is basically taking the content and redistributing it, which is a huge deal. I would side with the NYT on that one.

"Meanwhile even questioning if the earth is flat will have you downmodded to (-1) Troll."

What you might as well have said.

"A technology can create value by reducing uncertainty, improving coordination, avoiding mistakes, increasing resilience, or expanding opportunities. Those benefits do not necessarily show up as higher output per worker."

This makes zero sense. What good are these things if they do not increase output? If you reduce uncertainty, you cut the time needed to make a decision, thus less wasted time and more output. If you avoid mistakes, that should increase output. If you increase resilience, that means less slowdowns and downtime which should increase output. Expanding opportunities should also increase output unless you are already at capacity. The whole point of these things is to make things more streamlined and increase output.

1) Does anyone really think this will happen? I would put as much faith in this as I do Trump's $5000 checks in the GOP wins the midterms.
2) Does anyone really think he is going to give away his personal shares? Most likely, if it happens, they would issue 73 millions additional shares (or less as he will find some way to send them to only certain people), thus devalueing not only these new shares, but all the shares.
3) Even if he did give his own shares, that is still a time amount of his wealth. Does anyone really think he would ever even notice this change in wealth? This just shows how incredibly out of touch the uber rich are with regular people. This is about 1% of his net worth. He could give away 50% and it would never be noticed. But because it is a big number, people think this is rich people doing good when it is them doing the minimum for good press.

Yes, they did need the money for themselves. But one thing you seem to not understand about poor people is that they are much more likely to actually help people they see and know that are doing worse than them. The rich like to talk a lot about charity and giving, but they generally give less as a percentage of their income and wealth than poor people. Because these people know what it is like to be broke, they are more willing to give even the little extra they have to someone who needs it more than they do.

They really humiliated all the traditional supercar brands out there.

Uh, what?

Sure, go far back enough (and yes, I was on computers at that time) but surely he's not saying, "Man, computers were better when you could only run one process at a time, and the operating system let you do literally anything" etc etc and if so, the answer to that is, you can still do that if you want .. you just can't do it *inside* somebody else's software architecture. You still own the hardware, do whatever you want.

huh? it's trivial to write any code you want and run it on your phone

But with respect to your "dawn of the PC era", unless you wrote the operating system, you couldn't write and run code that could do anything and everything your computer was capable of - only code that could do what the operating system would permit you to do.

That's no different today.

Here's a little sticker for knowing what Firefox is tho. You must be good at computers.

There have been numerous articles about it recently. You have the internet. No need to stop the class just because you're the only lazy ignoramus around here.

you're an old and bitter man, and you've only yourself to blame

and I'm old too and a loooong time c++ professional dev (and still am) and somehow the idea of change or the word 'Rust' doesn't make me shit my pants

I feel bad for you

Jesus, not this shit again. You know why colleges are 58-61% women? Because 55-60% of the application submitted are from women. Now, with us acknowledging that more women are in college (and graduating college) now look at something like amount of women CEOs. Or the general pay gap. Or even the pay gap in the same job (much smaller, but still exists). If women are getting more college degrees, shouldn't that mean they also earn more and get higher positions since people with college degrees earn more? So why isn't this happening? Care to explain how that with your anti-male bias BS?