Who do you have in mind who did better than Netscape back then? The one thing IE did better was insert itself everywhere.

I think a number of people left not to retreat to an echo chamber, but because every post, every hit on X means money for Elon Musk.

Just like in Russia

This situation was created by the US attacking Iran, which made the world a worse place. No incorrect argument or mental gymnastics will change this fact, reality is stubborn. You take all the time you need to reconcile your world view with that reality.

A human is able to tell if an LLM is wrong. The opposite isn't true.

I agree but we are now talking about different things I think. I am talking about the cases where WFH is viable but companies refuse it due to dogma or a need to control.

Yes please!

In this capitalist world, companies will find a way to make employees pay for it. For instance by mandating that you move near the office. Or by only hiring people that live nearby. And what do you know, they will own nearby buildings and offer you a good deal on rent. One big issue our western societies currently have is that the rich airways find a way to make the poor pay for them. So financial incentives have a high chance of failing, unless carefully accompanied by other measures.

Signal on Debian does not do that. It updates with the other apps, when I tell apt to update all my apps, and it never asks me to update.

I don't want Iran to have nukes. I also don't want any other country to have nukes. The USA do not have a stronger claim to a right to have nukes than Iran does.

Have you tried Kodi?

Just gift them to the local population and insist that they can drive themselves, the great destructive effect will follow.

Making up a false dichotomy doesn't mean that people fall nicely on one side or the other of it. It probably says something about you though.

The beginning of your answer was interesting. Then you projected things on me that are false, not sure why. Then you insulted me. You could have stopped while you were reasonable and respectful, that would have been a better answer by any sensible criterion. Not sure why you sabotaged your answer like that. There's no need to be a dickhead, and no benefit either.

People stop smoking every day, without external help too. Are you saying that these people were not addicted to begin with? I suggest that your definition is simplistic and not useful for this discussion.

Please elaborate. On the surface it seems like a good analogy: both alcohol and sugar can be avoided by making a choice, both are addictions (including everything that comes with addiction), both cause health issues, both have a cost for society. Analogies don't have to be a perfect 1:1 fit, they just have to work well enough for the points being discussed. We could probably make a decent analogy with smartphone addiction too.