I'm not OP, but I find the American threat more real and immediate than the more abstract Chinese and Russian threats.
From my perspective, the American President has threatened to annex my country, American businesses have repeatedly violated my trust, spyed on me and leaked my data, and American big tech is meddling in my country's politics. No other country has demonstrated such an ability and willingness to collect information about me and use it against me.
Given the US' NSA's long-standing violation of human rights at massive scale, and the proclivity of American society to be reasonable about kidnapping people, deemed unsavory, off the streets by jackboot thugs - and the fact that China builds roads, hospitals, ports, and communities around the world in nations considered 'inferior' by America's military junta/oligarch ruling class, while America bombs them into oblivion - I'm fine with the idea of eschewing American AI.
Its kind of necessary, I think, to resist this at the moment - at scale too, I might add.
If Americans want to fix this they still can - time is running out, however.
What I don't want to do is give it to services with an agenda to abuse the data, particularly those profiling individuals for profit. Frankly, I'd trust a Chinese service more than I would an Adtech based one, but that's still not much.
Yeah, I agree it's a form of signaling. Once the tech gets old enough to not be considered "everyday use", signalers will find it appealing. I dated a girl, who insisted on taking pictures with her 2000 style digital camera rather than the phone - you know the kind which puts the date and time in the bottom right in an orange font. A few years ago these early digital cameras were untouchable - not retro enough to beat polaroids, significantly worse than phone cameras. Now the time window has moved enough...
> Wine 11 is different. This isn't just another yearly release with a few hundred bug fixes and some compatibility tweaks. It represents a huge number of changes and bug fixes.
What's the point of being a "journalist", when your job is to write words and instead a machine has written them? What is the point of such a "journalist"?
P.S. I am assuming "Lead Technical Editor" falls under the umbrella of "journalist" in some sense
I've been writing for nearly a decade, and I can assure you, all of this is human written. I've long been writing about the Linux kernel where it's been relevant to my coverage, and there are articles under my name talking about low-level technical aspects in drivers and kernels from as far back as 2017.
I get that it's hard to know what to trust out there given that Dead Internet Theory is beginning to feel like a reality, but comments like this can be quite upsetting after spending days researching and writing an article like this. I totally get criticism of the article itself, and I'm fine with that, but it feels as if people are too quick to jump on the "must be written by AI" bandwagon. I receive it, my colleagues receive it, and for the people who I know put in so much effort into their work, it can be upsetting to them as well.
As was mentioned in another thread, there were actually a couple of typos in this article when it went live. I cleaned those up once they were pointed out, but AI doesn't make typos. I get it to an extent; hostility and accusations of all kinds have been levied at writers for the years and years I've been in this industry writing long-form content and analysis. But with the proliferation of AI, that hostility has really ramped up over the last couple of years.
Apologies if my post hurt your feelings and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. The writing style in the piece I quoted looked very AI driven to me, that's why I said what I said.
While I don't agree with the other poster, that the comment was a mess, sentences were so long, that I had to focus not to lose the point. I think the top comment read a bit too much like stream of consciousness, which as a person I tolerate much more in spoken speech than written one. Still, I liked the comment, but agree it could have been improved.
I was a Runbox customer for several years and recently switched to Mailbox and never looked back. Runbox is nice, but I had enough of reliability issues, and a few emails got lost.
> They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers
I've got to disagree. Macs are a fantastic option as long as the software needed to do actual work is available. That's the real bottleneck and it's not something Dell, Lenovo, or HP have any power over.
They still ship a lot more computers than Apple. For most of the world, Apple is a niche product. I use it, and I love them, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking corporations will start buying Mac Minis to replace their desktops and thin clients anytime soon.
I am not fooling myself and I do not care what corporations would or would not do - I simply state that the reason there is such a pressure to use Windows is not due to Dell and other providers, but software providers - mainly Microsoft.
That… does not follow. Corporations simply aren't going to start buying Macs for all of their millions of rank-and-file corporate drones. Even if they wanted, and they don't, they're tied to the Windows ecosystem in all sorts of ways, even though the software lives on someone else's computer these days.
Thanks for saying the same thing I have said? Do people even read before they post? Seems like the moment Apple is mentioned some folks just turn on a downvote + disagree autopilot, even when they agree?
I will just note, that about two weeks ago I was trying to shrink my Parallels Windows 11 VM disk size only to discover, that PowerToys update files were stored on the drive indefinitely, accumulating over 10 gb of disk space.
Of all the possible criticisms that's the one you chose? If that's the worst of the problems you can see, why don't you buy some stock and became the shareholder. Per your own words, you will get more.
> Of all the possible criticisms that's the one you chose? If that's the worst of the problems you can see
The point is there is little benefit to these technologies to the consumer, especially in relation to likely harm in other areas (you lost your customer service job, but AI overview will answer your trivia question with slightly less effort). Note: little does not mean none.
So the farce is they benefit by religiously worshiping capitalist shareholders.
> why don't you buy some stock and became the shareholder. Per your own words, you will get more.
LOL. Don't you get it? The kind of smallholdings of shares available to regular people won't provide the kind of returns to mitigate any of these harms. They work as a ploy to trick dumb-ass workers into identifying with capitalist tycoons (e.g. opposing pro-worker things that'd get you a dollar more an hour in wages to get a penny more a quarter in dividends, it works because most don't do the math).
> Yes, yes, workers of the world unite. It worked so great the last few times it was tried. You are very smart.
No, I guess I wasn't smart enough to realize there are only two options: the present day status quo or Soviet central planning. Nothing else is possible.
reply