Bluesky likely knows this problem well. The pro is that I never find myself stuck there. The con is that I just end up somewhere else (including this orange website). Time to ctrl-w.
Although Bluesky is tiny, they are the biggest and most stable proponent of letting users control their feed. Even if they don't grow big, being half the size of a toxic social media platform is a damn good business model. Somebody can win with that, and I hope a diverse group of startups try.
The question really is how to keep it in (or, at least, near) that sweet spot.
People would love to go back to something like Facebook circa 2012 or the Twitter (or even Reddit) of maybe a couple of years later. But if you were to somehow manage to do that, how would you prevent them from turning into what they ended up becoming in the past decade?
It seems to me that federation might have given us at least part of the answer, but only if there was some concrete reason to limit posts by default to being "local" (ie. unfederated) rather than global. Think of how FidoNet echoes tended to be limited to a specific net or region, or how IRC networks would inevitably split once they reached something like 100k users.
Google+'s circles might have evolved into something like that, but ATproto seems to prioritise the "big world" rather than "small world" view. I guess commercial considerations make that inevitable but, personally, I think it's a pity that there's not some sort of technical limitation that would force a smaller horizon.
If one truly believes it's not in a bubble, then borrow and leverage an unlimited amount and bet the house & your family on creating a business with infinite growth and value. Don't know how to do your own prompts? Borrow and then hire others to do it for you. If those who you hire don't know, they can hire others too.*
[* This is not financial advice. Please don't actually do this.]
You could make the converse argument, too: why don't you borrow and leverage and bet and short these AI companies, if you so vehemently think it's a bubble?
The bottom line is that markets are complicated, useful technologies are often accompanied by bubbles, investors are not always rational, and people generally try to make the best decision with the information they have available. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle, but that's a lot more boring and a lot less inflammatory.
> You could make the converse argument, too: why don't you borrow and leverage and bet and short these AI companies, if you so vehemently think it's a bubble?
Because going long and going short are very different. For successfully shorting something you need to have a pretty precise estimate of when the crash will happen. Being a comparatively short time off can cost you everything.
Yeah, but that applies to the argument in the original comment too. It's supposedly directed at someone who denies we're in an AI bubble, telling them to put their money where their mouth is. But then suddenly they're supposed to risk literally everything they have on "creating a business with infinite growth and value" before their "unlimited" leveraged loans are called in.
Obviously there's some hyperbole there, and I'm not really sure what serious point was being made, but it does seem to depend on the anti-bubble guy having some very confident and specific beliefs...
You mean for companies that make -$2.50 for every $1 of revenue, and bury their groups $2Tn debt in a footnote?
It is not a question of if the bubble will go, but when... but you are right that Bears or Bulls always get it wrong predicting the future (if they are a legal investor.)
Personally, Shrek movie release correlation with market corrections is funny, and a new film is due June 2027. Please hedge your bets with a diversified portfolio. =3
> Every restaurant I’ve been to like this has a menu somewhere.
And the best restaurants have staff and chefs that can deliver things that aren't even on a standard menu...
Actually, this reminds me of a time when I saw a person with communication difficulties order at a McDonald's counter. Without missing a beat, the staff member pulled out a large pictorial menu from beneath their counter for the person with a disability to point to. It seemed like a totally normal occurrence to them, but a very novel one to me as the next person in line.
I don't believe Linux Australia is the first port of call. Rather, conferences/meetups that are supported by Linux Australia would be the way to go. Basically, it needs to be very grassroots, and start with (capable) people who are genuinely interested in this and not distracted by other things that are a waste of attention. Any other strategy will likely be even more difficult and less likely to take fruition.
Or you could use Nix as a package manager on practically any distro or OS of your choice. Arch, Debian, Windows, macOS - it doesn't matter. Most users should never ever need to bother with AUR again with this approach.
It depends on the type of ad and way they're being delivered. Advertisers do in fact highly value events like the Superbowl, Tour de France, Olympics and FIFA World Cup. Instagram influencers and podcast bros still focus a lot of time and energy on shilling products and supplements in an "honest" way to their uncritical audiences.
Meanwhile, junk food, tobacco, alcohol and gambling corporations are always willing to fight tooth and nail to block attempts at advertising restriction and bans. Advertising in the long haul will always work, especially if it manages to stand out in noisy but bland environments.
As for the ones that we deem to be the most useless ads, perhaps they still serve an Overton Window purpose in maintaining a level of chaos and confusion along with keeping a marketing manager occupied with busywork (or ad fraud) until they have a real campaign to impress their boss with.
The fact that I still semi-regularly encounter "tech literate" people who refuse or are slow to learn to use uBlock Origin (or similar) says a lot about how accepting many people actually are when it comes to noise.
I recently made the move away from an out-of-support macOS 12 Monterey to Debian Stable (13 trixie), after some failed attempts to upgrade macOS using OpenCore Legacy Patcher.
While Linux support will always remain far from perfect with that series of MBP, it was still much better than I expected compared to my last look many years ago. I happen to get better use out of my particular setup now compared to macOS; as it's basically a glorified streaming device that I interact with through wayvnc/vncviewer out of arm's reach across a table. This also allows me to mostly avoid using the semi-busted Butterfly keyboard.
In addition to having something with security updates again, I'll now never need to think about Apple dropping Intel support. I'd also like to note that nix-darwin support on Intel macOS is ending very soon too - but not Linux + nix as a package manager (nixpkgs) since that combination is separate to macOS + nix-darwin.
Whenever I encounter someone who jumps at the first opportunity to criticise "mainstream media", I ask them what their preferred outlets are. I tend to not get a response, which to me is quite telling.
I think a mixture of BBC, cnn, al jazeera, economist, will get a casual reader to a decent spot, and they're all mainstream media. Possibly guardian but emlarhically not their opinion pages (I agree with them, but even so they're gratingly opinionated, hate to think what a die hard conservative will think of them :)
I used to defend CNN as decent, but it’s almost entirely sensational OpEd talk show type stuff these days. The stuff I criticized FoxNews about. Although, CNN does lean liberal, they sometimes still invite a person from the conservative camp into the discussion. I never see that on FoxNews. They double down and have right and far right takes in their discussions as far as I can tell. It’s effective for brainwashing a populace.
I personally don’t think the 24 hour news cycle is healthy. I pretty much abstain from it except it’s so prevalent in our culture there’s a lot of second hand exposure.
The CEO was placed by the conservative party in 2017 ending decades of impartiality. He is a hack with a background in tabloid news, which has slowly swept into BBC entire ecosystem.
Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage.
So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs
The BBC doesn’t have a ‘CEO’ if you mean the Director General, there wasn’t one appointed in 2017. Tim Davie was appointed in 2020, with Matt Brittin appointed recently.
Possibly you mean David Clementi who was appointed in 2017 as Chair of the BBC, but he was a financier, with no background in journalism tabloids or otherwise, so not sure what you are talking about.
Laura Kuenssberg hasn’t been political editor since spring 2022. The political editor is Chris Mason.
I’m going to take the rest of your comments with a pinch salt.
> 've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs.
yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax.
The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times.
A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial.
Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections.
However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK.
By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one.
Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring.
The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped.
In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored.
After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers.
So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles.
So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.
Rotherdam is the most famous case yes. But there are dozens in the UK sadly, and most were not commited by people with any asian heritage.
However they also got a fraction of the news coverage.
The Rotherdam police had been investigated 3 times before 2013, and they failed all the inspections.
The Sarah Everatt investigation found serious deficiencies in UK policing.
The last 300 page comprehensive report on UK police found systemic mysoginy, classicism and racism at all levels across the ranks and had very direct improvement plans all of which have not even began to be implemented.
So the hoax is it was a singular big pakistani rape gang + unrelated cases, and there is no evidence of a racially motivated coverup?
EDIT no, wikipedia says plural "gangs" also. I have zero idea what a rape gang even is, an organized crime group providing access to foster home girls?
2) that the cases were uninvestigated because of race
Neither is true. Dozens of cases all found commonalities, and they were working class victims and police lack of professionalism.
> I have zero idea what a rape gang even is, an organized crime group providing access to foster home girls?
Its an umbrella term for multiple men, having a system to take advantage of women. In some cases its offering access to drugs, in other cases is giving them gifts, sometimes its using an attractive man as bait.
A famous case happened recently in france where a man was basically drugging his wife and when she was passed out allowing men to come to his house.
Every case its a different type of horrific nightmare. People who try to make it about race instead of finding proactive solutions (like investigating how a judge in Rotherdam with video evidence in front of him ignored it) give 0 fucks about the victims.
And its unsurprising that in protests against this cases, 70% of the men attending had domestic abuse cases. Because protecting women is not their cause, hating brown people is.
Oh, I thought it was rape-rape, not giving foster home girls drugs and gifts in exchange for sex they might or might not have enjoyed. Thank you for doing the dirty work of debunking.
i don't agree that I should do all the work to prove something while the person (GP) whose naked opinion I was responding to is not asked the same about his opinion. This leads me to believe on the basis of evidence that you are selective and share his bias.
so yeah, let's pick one, you: How are you not biased?
I am extremely biased. I have an entire world view and like everyone else I tend to believe things that concur with what I already believe and reject things that are inconsistent correctly or incorrectly. For instance rejection of "mainstream media" is often correlated not with thoughtful analysis but rather with blatant anti-intellectualism common among right wingers.
Asking "are you a dumb conservative bigot" is offensive and shuts down dialogue even when the person wasn't. Better to ask for the fellow to expand on their comment
That is a weird accusation considering the fact that the BBC is still hiding an internal report they made about their Israel / Palestine reporting after they were accused of antisemitism in the early 2000s.
If the report exonerated them, and showed they even have a Israeli bias, why would they spend 50k in lawyer fees (disclosed so far, real number is probably higher) to hide that report?
There is obvious distrust on western sources of the conflict and the UK active participation in the creation of the 2 state solution, as well as its alliance with America all taint the possible impartiality or accuracy of the BBC. But the accusations against them for antisemitism and anti israeli bias go back decades
The BBC's "impartiality" is frequently it's biggest downfall - It's a very standard UK joke that if the BBC was discussing if the earth was flat you'd get a 5 minute interview with a top geographer or physicist from Cambridge followed by an equally credulous 5 minute interview with a madman in his basement claiming it's all the work of the lizard people.
The covererage of the Genocide in Palestine (and I'm betraying my view just by calling it that) just brings this into incredibly sharp relief as there are, to a first approximation, no real centrists in that discussion. And yet you still get the same 5 minutes of interview for a doctor on the ground in Palestine and for Ben Gvir, presented as if there's some kind of happy middle ground that everyone can broadly agree on.
I personally do astral travelling during the night and get my news and knowledge from various entities. Can't say what others are doing but so far this has never let me down.
On my mediocre laptop display, I had to set the brightness moderately, and take my glasses off to see the decoy text more easily (easier than squinting). Deleting the custom text also made it easier. The other tip someone posted about moving the window around also helps a lot. Moving further back from the display also helps.
reply