If I watch one single video from a given channel, 50% or more of future recommendations will be from that channel, and flagging individual videos "not interested" has no detectable effect.

And this is different from every other sub on Reddit how?

We just migrated to a hosted server for our main point of sale/inventory system. Not because we wanted to, but because there was literally no other choice. The in-house server was end of life, and the vendor just refused to sell us a new one. There's nothing - we have looked - that can replace it, open source or otherwise, without extensive customization that would take several years and require a full time staff of programmers, plus the active cooperation of the national franchise that would not be forthcoming, at a cost of millions.

And it's not an upgrade. We've had more offline time in the last two weeks that we did in the last year with the in-house server, and there are some very important functions that are, at best, unstable and almost unusably slower. They can't even get the login screen to work right.

And it costs us about 50% more than the platinum support contract we had before.

That's not an upgrade, it's a clusterfuck.

If there were an open source point of sale/inventory package available that was capable of replacing our current proprietary system, we'd be on it in a second. Until there is, and there never will be, we're stuck.

The ones overloading my web server are, without any doubt, AI bots. Most of them honor the robots.txt file. Amazon's, however, do not, and constitute more traffic than everything else combined (and it get a fair amount of legitimate traffic per day).

Soon? Only if you reverse the flow of time.

What is your definition of "conscious" by which you make that statement? Something more objective than "because I said so" or "I read it on some web site." Be sure it includes Placozoa, since you said "animals" and not "some animals."

This has nothing to do with the capabilities of any AI, and everything to do with upcoming IPOs.

"AI is going to take over the world, so you'd better buy stock in it now or YOU'LL DIE!!!!"

Or be able to tell. Since we can't even define it.

That's like the National Enquirer quoting the Weekly World News on a Bat Boy story.

Why on earth would Democrats in California engage in election fraud? The only insanity is believing they would bother to cheat in an election they're going to win anyway.

So? Proof (or disproof) is irrelevant in a PR fight.

What facts? You have unverified and unverifiable claims from a disgruntled ex-employee, and this own admission is ""My thought was . . .". There are no facts there, only opinions from someone with an agenda and a limited imagination.

There's a difference between auditing paper ballots in a polling station and counting mail in ballots that, inherently, are either completely unverifiable, or trivially easy to connect to specific voters without outside supervision. (And remember, Trump has personal experience with retribution by the winner after the election. That's where he learned the playbook he's using now.)

They may well be full of shit on how much tampering goes on, but there is an internal logic to their ramblings.

No, they wanted to prove they're insecure so they could reveal the proof at a press conference (or on social media).