They are (replacing?) Chromebooks. Just one example, the next time my seventy-three-year-old mother destroys her Chromebook, she'll probably wind up getting a Googlebook.

And she'll be utterly baffled and probably angry thinking she "got hacked" every time she accidentally shakes the mouse.

Lots of people buy tech like this. They just need a cheap laptop. They're just using what they're school/job provides. Lots of people who use Chromebooks didn't buy them at all.

"Googlebooks will have a Magic Pointer feature that offers contextual suggestions whenever you shake your cursor and point it at something on the screen. "

Seriously, that sounds awful right? In no way is shaking better than clicking, people will do it accidentally all the time to activate AI they likely don't even want.

It could be a three finger press, or clicking both buttons, or a right button double click. Literally anything would be better than that . . . right? It sounds like a joke or an ill conceived movie computer.

Yes, over the last month it ticked up from 3.6% to 3.8%. It peaked at SEVEN percent at one point in 12 months. The trend is unquestionably, wildly down.

Those are both the lowest readings in 12 months. It's been hovering near 5% all year. It's been consistently over the national average.

It's not under the average, very solidly trending down all year. But the headline is a .2% increase and noise about AI.

I think it actually makes perfect sense.

The whole thing hinges on taking money from Musk claiming to do one thing, and then doing another.

The point is that he was never operating like a nonprofit, but took lots of money to do so. It does sound like a series of wins there, yeah.

Let's dial it back a little and RTFA.

You can certainly have the position that Scientology just sucks and gets what they deserve, but that's not what you actually said. What you said is just sort of silly and shows you didn't read anything but the headline.

It doesn't appear to be a church, just a building owned by a church. Scientology definitely does operate lots of buildings that are basically open to the public every day, but they certainly aren't obligated to make every building like that 24/7.

These people weren't just milling about looking to be invited in, or to film for some kind of investigative purpose, they fought with guards at a secured entrance.

If they want to claim it's some noble protest, they can nobly deal with the legal consequences. They were definitely trespassing and will likely be charged with battery too.

. . . and they should be.

No one said anything about a big deal, small deal, or anything else. What they said, was entirely unambiguous, they said:

"If an attacker gets this far, you have already messed up."

Which regardless of any big deals, is simply wrong. It is a shallow misunderstanding of what security looks like in the real world.

I mean big deal, small deal, etc, they are not at all saying the same thing as you are saying. They just aren't. Words have meaning.

I hate how this reasoning persists. It is just so disconnected from the real world.

So should large organizations just not bother with least privilege and normal users? Everyone might as well be root, if one with bad intentions gets access to a system, well they should be assumed to just be root anyways?

I mean, in a company with even 100 people, if one of their accounts gets compromised, or one of them goes rogue, "you have already messed up" really isn't the point. I used to run a data ingest system where we gave limited shell accounts to somewhere around 1,000 clients, plenty of similar but much larger systems are out there. No one *at my company* had messed up in any way if one of those accounts went rogue. Tons of systems like that exist, it's not some edge case.

They made every employee vibe code, and OK it made a chess app.

IN SIX MONTHS?!?!? And they still emphasize it was just a prototype?

That's the impressive AI fast timeline?

Oh my, no one has ever taught Chess before. What an efficient, innovative thing that could never have happened except in this wonderful future.

Just WTF.

While everyone works in the Metaverse.

It's really absurd how worthless Zuck and Meta as a company are compared to how much money they make.

I feel like we're at that point around 2010, where Internet Explorer was still dominant, but cracks were appearing. IE was invincible . . . right until it wasn't. If Microsoft doesn't play their cards just right, it won't happen overnight, but the same thing is going to happen. Ten years from now will look unrecognizable.

Windows is in trouble, and they know it. Conservatively the Linux market share has more than doubled globally in just a few years and will likely do it again over the next few. It's not new like Chrome was, but from their point of view, I don't think it matters. It's growth is new, and it's the same.

I would bet virtually anything, behind closed doors, this is exactly how Microsoft execs that have been there for 20+ years are discussing this. They are scared for Windows in a way that has never happened before. And it must be extra dissonant for them, because frankly, Microsoft would be relatively fine even if Windows somehow completely died at this point, but it's also their most important brand, and still a money machine.

It's not really clear to me. This was the thing they broadly referred to as "the Metaverse" . . . right?

Like the demo of avatars finally having legs, that's the thing being shut down and nothing is really replacing it except a mobile app that makes it not even really be that thing anymore or am I misunderstanding?

I caught in the article that they say they are "doubling down" and such, but I don't think it really said what "the Metaverse" is anymore . . . it's nothing right?

It'd be hilarious but it's basically just what I expect at this point.

That is not a quote from Stallman.

That is from a statement from Krzysztof Siewicz, and I would assume it's just an odd turn of phrase from someone who mostly speaks something other than English.

RTFA is alive and well.

The housing crisis, in the US at least but many other places too, only exists because existing home owners hold legal power. It's an incumbency problem.

We have to somehow make housing cheaper, while not reducing anyone's property values.

It's absurd. Until we reconcile that, robots don't matter. People will vote down any effort to put up cheaper housing that actually drives prices down, whether it's built by robots, humans, or trained squirrels has nothing to do with it.

I gave up on streaming years ago and I don't think this will get me to go back.

But in terms of consolidation being bad for consumers, this does seem much, much, much better than Netflix buying HBO to me. If Netflix had bought HBO, it would be a year tops until Disney or Amazon bought Paramount.

A weird silver lining I haven't seen discussed, is Paramount and Waner Brothers both still put stuff out on physical media. You can buy DVDs of their shows and media, and I figured that would stop under Netflix, but hopefully it will continue for a while at least now.

Caclulator manufacturers were never trillion dollar companies who controlled the math curriculum in K-12 education through their "charity."

If Texas Instruments had been literally 1,000x larger in 1995 we might have gone that way.

Code.org is a sham.