Yes and let's optimize revenue on the search screen by sorting worst to best, maybe make a few of the ads confusingly look like plausible search results while putting other ads in almost clearly marked boxes throughout the results to lower the user's guard. Probably a banner at top and bottom and both sides that stays in place as the user scrolls, charge a premium for that space, cause you have to have tiers. Could make clicking on a search result pop up a little movie trailer or interactive game ad that you have to play to close, have you seen those?

I just can't believe Google has the gal to put the thing you're looking for right there at the top without properly monetizing it. Barbaric.

You all keep blaming AI, but 10 years ago the internet was already full of regular content mill garbage, SEO spam and ads. Half your results might be some mailing list server scraped and replicated to unauthorized web forum looking things to sell ads. You have to go back 15 years minimum, and rewind the entire internet with it. Some might argue the internet was already beyond fucked even then. Good luck, time traveler.

Man it's very weird knowing Google's whole story and seeing people in 2026 act surprised that search engines make more money the longer it takes people to find what they came for. Like that's how they killed their competition back in the day, by actually getting what you're looking for on the top of the first page. They made their fortune selling ads on OTHER sites. Selling ads on their own search page eventually happened as their competitors dried up.

This news is as dumb as suddenly realizing that the Feeling Lucky button generated less revenue than when people look at the results screen.

Nope. Can't happen. The whole theory is fucking batshit. There is an equal chance of lizard people from Neptune taking over humanity. The provenance of both stories is equally credible.

See if I just said lizard people from Neptune you'd just say that's ridiculous! When I add the take over humanity part, you say of course those fucking lizards would, they want our freedoms or oceans or people meat or some other shit we pretend to care about.

That's why you believe in AI singularity bullshit. You don't have the foggiest beginning of a clue how information theory can even support the concept, but you're afraid. The fear makes it real. Like being afraid of the dark makes whatever isn't out there feel real. It's a weakness, don't know what else to tell you.

I'm glad you have to pay more for groceries, you were eating too much.

Why would someone want to throw even more money away on a gaming PC? The economy is tightening up around everything, people are buying just enough gaming hardware, and just enough PC, and just enough anything else. "Why not buy more PC" is a losing proposition when people aren't really buying PCs anymore in the first place when they have just enough already - a phone. And you don't have to like it or agree with it, but it's what people are doing.

Idk it's like if the price of dirtbikes got uncomfortably high and you're trying to recommend building your own because they're faster. Like the mass produced hobby toy is unaffordable, and you know you don't have a private stash of parts that makes DIY cheaper, so your message is "its faster"... dude hobby spending will just drop. DIY takes off when money is good, demand is high, and that boosts PC sales. People don't cobble together expensive toys when money is tight. Look how many people in this thread are talking about retro potato gaming ffs, that's about where we're at.

https://www.cisa.gov/about

The entire reason that agency exists is to help secure our infrastructure and coordinate with the public. Or do you see something in their mission about privately discovering vulnerabilities for politics.

If the point is to score political points for the party in charge, it's probably illegal for a federal agency to do that bud.

Or JFC guys, maybe he's just a shady hedge fund advisor. Which would explain _everything_, including the level of competence displayed.

But that's a boring story, so let's call him Mohamed Al Bond and make up a better one.

Yes, and I have as much control over IP I produce as I ever have? Which is to say it's complex, but not something I fret over, and who does exactly. Why are we clutching these pearls now, it seems odd from this community, where things like abolish software IP used to get +5 Insightful. Nothing changed with IP law, the application of it, or the resulting effects. You have this badass reverse engineering tool, and I could get +5 Godlike here by saying you shouldn't use tools to understand other people's codes guyz, it's immoral and the tools were built using forbidden knowledges. Wtaf happened.

Can the folks that are not working IT professionals shut up about this stuff already? Your only connection to reality on the ground seems to be when Linus talks about his day, literally. Professionals use AI every day now, to produce the same proprietary code you hate with all its IP protections, to produce open source material with the same copy left protections and to reverse engineer and hack all of the above like any other Tuesday. AI is a tool, get over it.

You can't write three paragraphs on why something is dishonest hyperbole then pivot right to charges for allowing it? what? to happen. It didn't do the things they say it did.

You can't have both. You guys are weird. Anything under the umbrella of AI safety and alignment "research" is practically a cult. The anthropomorphizing is one facet of it, they believe some AI god will take form. Do not rationalize them as crash test safety engineers. These folks are saying things like by sending the car into a wall at high velocity with no choice it decided to preserve its course of action and eject the occupants into oncoming traffic, that we made sure was just within reach of the test site, and it didn't even ask why the brakes weren't working or how the passengers felt, the car is misaligned with human values!!!11 The reason it seems to conflict with your senses is because of the cult logic. Cars can be unsafe, and you can distrust them, but when you all pick up on the bullshit, I can't believe they are anthropomorphizing cars, then follow with, they're letting cars murder people, you're being idiots.

AI "alignment" is a doomsday cult. The guy holding the end is near sign is starting dumpster fires. I'm just saying I get why you can agree with him that the world is shitty, but also don't take the guy who is setting dumpster fires word for it.

Dude it's a cult. That human values, alignment, self improving crap comes directly from the AI alignment and safety cult that OpenAI and Anthropic and others are full of. It's where all the conflicting messaging comes from, all the accusations of Altman saying one thing doing another comes from those folks that are concerned he isn't drinking the right amount of koolaid. They believe AI will become a god, and only they can be trusted to build it.

OpenAI and Anthropic are full of them. Anytime you see some "AI safety researcher" quit all huffing and puffing out the door, it's one of those people causing drama. Anthropic was started by folks from OpenAI that reaaaaaly drank the koolaid, see the inviting religious leaders, the don't hurt the AI feelings stuff, the constant drop of the AI is conscious, etc.

They're fucking nuts, and any accidents that come out of an "AI safety" lab at any of these companies deserves heavy squinting. Making a point by any means and generating scary headlines is their entire goal. And yes, it does seem to conflict with the company's mission. Until you understand these companies are full of people that sincerely think the mission is only they can be trusted in the race to build AI god.

So, anyway, outside of that, I'm not saying standard internet safety stuff isn't warranted. Some auditing and reporting thresholds, know your customer, age regulation, they're worth looking at, just filter out the AI safety nuts because that whole field isn't what it looks like.

What does that actually mean, a kebab shop on every corner (yay), or more abortion restrictions, sin taxes, dry counties, blue laws like can't buy a car on a Sunday, can't buy wine before 10am, can't look at a beer after driving west past the third armadillo cause law and order Jesus says so, posted in every classroom?

You're afraid of there was another religion at the table all your stupid religious laws might have to go, I'm calling it. Big talk from Texas politicians, not a lot of legislating cause it might cut a little close to home huh, fucking hypocrites.

A sandboxed development environment still has access to a git remote to pull and push branches, how else would they work? If you're going to wave hands and say that's different, you literally have no clue how access controls on this scion thing works.

If you actually airgap development systems, what are you even talking about, like mount a read only copy of the code in a container, then scrape the ephemeral storage layer off from the outside as you tear it down? Then the system preserving your hypothetical airgapped development uses source control itself to commit the work. The source control system literally does not matter. For local version control you could use anything, or nothing at all. You could use svn then translate it to git commits, you could use git then translate it to scion.. commits? You could just take the whole working copy it produced and squashed commit into whatever the external source control of the day is. Christ you could use svn locally, offline, then translate it into.. external svn commits. It's not rocket surgery. I could fart out scripts to do all of those in any combination in tens of minutes. How could anyone ever think this is only possible with git, like it's the only possible way to do offline development?/!

The actual problem is how many people have opinions on git, and lack a first principals based understanding of how version control even works.

He has given us his shoe! This is a sign that all who follow him shall do likewise! The shoe is the sign! It's a sandal! Gather the shoes! Follow the gourd!

The only thing git adoption proves is that sketch is timeless.

I'm not sure how every centralized version control system can be described as reinventing svn. Or every distributed version control system is a reinvention of git? You can't imagine ways they can be different or improved? Yikes