Its Nintendo. They were already suing them before they even knew about the ad. Most lawyers are familiar with the old “cease and desist” letter method, but Nintendo’s even got “don’t even start” warnings from their legal department.

Good? No.

I think it is telling about Signal, though, that despite being in a privacy-unfriendly jurisdiction, federal authorities can only extract data from it when its users mess up.

I don’t think you’ll get much better until some of these other services mature more. Some of them seem painted into a corner where improving them further seems to involve rewriting big sections of them, like Matrix, so I am less optimistic about those.

I think you might be surprised. Generative AI has limited utility and costs a lot to operate; so much, in fact that t does not appear there are enough natural resources on the planet we’re on to ramp it up to the scale that is intended. Soon, the hype-based funding will dry up, and the free and subsidized generative AI tokens will all disappear. Only then will we see the true cost of using it and if users will bear that cost. If it costs a lot of money to ask it to do things, people will go back to doing a lot of those things themselves.

Agreed. They run on dump drucks of burning VC capital. I don’t see how LLMs stick around in any meaningful way when the dump trucks stop pulling up.

That’s entirely the fault of the TV cartel. If they could get their collective act together, these TV add-on modules would have gotten off the ground.

You could have a TV monitor with a couple of empty sockets on it to put a streaming module or NTSC antenna card or DirecTV card or whatever.

Consider that things are the way they are because the involved companies are short-sighted, collusive, and uncooperative on standards, and the fact you need cable spaghetti and half a dozen remotes is due to a lack of consumer protections, not a lack of bells and whistles in your TV.

I don’t really agree that is conceptually okay. TVs and computers have drastically different life cycles. That TV will still be kicking probably a decade after the internal Smart TV computer is uselessly underpowered. This same problem is arguably even worse with cars.

Windows progressively worsening and Microsoft’s dubious practices are entirely independent issues from whatever is going on with Linux, though.

People interested in and well-suited for Linux use may take that route, given the situation, but even users with no inclination toward or intention to switch to Linux can and do still have legitimate grievances with the company and its software direction.

Almost everyone has to interact with Windows and Microsoft at some level throughout their lives whether they like it or not, so it is natural and constructive for them to make their opinions known. Microsoft may not respond to these criticisms in a sane or useful manner, but that is their failing, not a failing of the criticisms themselves.

I find it helpful to consider the substance of the complaint and evaluate it on its own merits, as it sounds you may have already been doing. For example, someone that is solely spouting negativity with no concrete examples of what they dislike about this company and its products is not constructive nor contributing to the conversation, but if someone states specific grievance with a software or company behavior is contributing, whether or not Microsoft takes the contribution.

If you, personally, have not encountered any problems with Windows or Microsoft that give you any pause or problems in your life, go nuts and use Windows, but knowing that alternatives exist is empowering. At the rate of decline in the quality of the Windows OS, it is not impossible that Linux could become superior in every meaningful metric without even improving. However, it is also conceivable that a user’s needs are such that those quality declines have not impacted you specifically.

I had a Windows 7 machine for like a decade without a single crash or BSD, and now, a decade later, I have multiple brand new PCs with Windows 11 installs that came on them that have lockups, crashes, and other buggy behaviors right out of the box. It is not unusable, but its stability is more reminiscent of the Windows of the 90s than an improvement on the Windows of 2010. Again, if that’s not your experience, count yourself among the lucky ones and continue to use Windows and be lucky.

I think the rabid evangelism for Linux around here may have convinced you to try it because of their fervor, rather than their reasoning. I hope you continue to have luck with Windows, but if not, feel free to switch any time! The angry nerds don’t have to impact your decision one way or the other.

The management will say something else when they realize their plan makes them uninsurable.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer pack of jackals.

Are you reading the hate on Windows?

Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar international mega-corp, and their software is meant for enterprise use as a tool to get a job done–a means to an end. All of its other uses are distantly secondary to that.

In that context, the tool becoming progressively less reliable, fast, and predictable makes it ever less fit for purpose. Sure, you used that time for something else productive, but when you need your computer for something important right now, it failing to work because its maker broke it when you weren’t looking is a lot to take. Dollars and jobs can be lost because of Microsoft’s cavalier attitude toward quality.

Contrast that with Linux, a free program made by volunteers in their spare time. Its own updates can cause problems like Windows, but they are ever less common, while the opposite is true for Windows. Furthermore, if I have important upcoming use for my PC, I can delay or ignore updates as long as I want, even forever. The owner gets to control the computer’s use, because they’re the owner, a fact Microsoft does not respect at all, and seems to be taking measures to change.

People do not like to be told what to do, nor when or how to do it. People that know how computers work and use them heavily understand how to maintain their computer, and those people are heavily represented here. They are getting their skilled PC management replaced by forced, shoddy, automation of that task and it causes them unnecessary problems, often at inopportune times.

That’s why Windows gets hate here–Microsoft keeps kicking them in the balls and they hate that.

Ooh, does that mean that we’re in for a big “actually we’re restructuring our licensing all the sudden and everyone owes us 10x, effective as soon as you renew” rug pull? All the cool silicon valley mega corps are doing it!

If they get Windows 95, they can also play Hearts to their Solitaire’s content.

I think the inverse might actually be preferable. If there’s slop in the code base, that will be harder to avoid than whole modules that you can just not install.

While neither is preferable, putting it in the development is more insidious.

That could be true. People do seem to tend to tolerate slow declines in platform quality surprisingly long before jumping to available alternatives. I think that’s at least in part due to that ‘critical mass’ effect described elsewhere in this conversation that makes people prefer to stay where they believe everyone else is.

If federation does end up being the only solution that pans out, I hope to see additional approaches beyond ActivityPub. As capable as it is, its design seems to confound any implementations of private communications or revocation of access at many levels where it would be very useful and empowering to admins, moderators, and regular users alike.

I would love to see a federation model where each user has an encrypted profile and content in their own archive that they manage and/or have stored somewhere for them, which they can then use to join servers and choose what data from their profile they share with who else on that server, as well as participate in server local and federated public channels, as well as private data exchanges facilitated but not readable by the server or federated network of servers you have a user account signed up.

I’m not sure it could promise revocation for all data on servers of unknown configuration, but could accommodate info that is facilitated by but not readable by any of the participating servers. Posts in public areas would have and require much lower revocation/deletion assurances, but could still have them in a manner at least as robust as ActivityPub.

I’ve been watching the space as time permits and am interested in a lot of the amazing things people make for free for the ‘love of the game’!

But those countries just have a sign out front that says “communism”, with little to no actual ideological communism taking place inside. Surely those alabaster pure ideologues seek out the Platonic form of perfect ideology, rather than this DPRK-like fun-house mask covering up an entirely different ideology.

I don’t see much of the former, but the latter seems pretty ubiquitous already: vegans hunting vegetarians for sport, communists splitting socialists into equal chunks among them, clones clawing over one another to be standing more to the west than each other.

“The Left: Where the Perfect is the Arch-nemesis of the Good”

I get the sentiment, but I feel that the majority, if not all of those benefits can be achieved by a floss threaded forum server application and companion client applications. So long as the software’s design objectives includes content ownership and portability, you could bail to another instance with all your stuff and re-share it or not as you see fit.

As much as I understand the goals of federation, it introduces many, many, intractable problems with efficiency, privacy, security, moderation, and ease administration in exchange for openness benefits that can likely or definitely be attained in other ways.

I believe that the idea of federation is not fundamentally bad, per se, but seems to have had a hype wave at a really opportune time, that made it the forerunner among the solutions to lock-in being discussed at the time. Plenty of other solutions seemed just as valid, but they lacked newness and novelty that made them less hyped when Reddit alternatives were being heavily discussed.

One of my favorite tricks that a friend of mine showed me years ago was this:

Put a check box or radio button somewhere on the page that will never end up visible to the end user marked with a label like “check here to verify you’re not a not” or “choose your ethnicity from this list or select prefer not to say”, then reject accounts that ever check those boxes, because a human never would. If you occasionally snare a blind person by mistake,they can email to bypass that with a human admin.

I don’t know if it would trick modern bots, but he said it worked awesome back then.

Fining companies that commit a crime a small portion of the money they gained by committing that crime is not progress, that is the problem here. Meta still made more money, after the fine, than if they had not perpetrated the crime. This is more of the status quo, which is why people are complaining about this the same as they had about the previous million times this same thing happened.

I call BS! I have it on good authority that Bilbo Baggins is at least eleventy-one.