What’s really clobbered Firefox has been the rise of smartphones, where Firefox has very limited uptake.

That’s fucking crazy, because Firefox has been far better than the default options for as long as I’ve had a smartphone. I only recently dumped chrome on desktop for Firefox, but I took one look at Chrome when I got an android and immediately dumped that shit.

It now has a bonus against evil outsiders and undead.

Not in a million fucking years Sony. I would have gladly given you my money, but apparently that’s not good enough for you.

Don’t worry, it might still bubble up to the surface in the hallucinations of an AI.

Yes?

In this case it’s corporate being especially protective of Batman, and terrified of anything that might affect toy sales (among other things). IIRC Justice League unlimited had quite a few episodes shot down or rewritten because of various Batman related edicts from on high. And parental backlash after Batman Returns is part of why we got Joel Schumacher. Hell, it’s how we got Robin and the no killing rule, because they wanted to make the comics more marketable to kids.

Shit on the other side of the 4th wall is often the biggest problem superheroes face, and not just through censorship. It’s why Spider-Man made a deal with the devil. And it’s why Arkham has a revolving door, since popular and marketable villains need to keep coming back (which is why the “Batman should kill people” argument is idiotic, as any villain that won’t stay in jail will also refuse to stay dead).

These are corporate owned characters. The company in charge is going to care far more about making money and protecting their brand than they will about art, consistency, or even whether their policies are rational. Hell, they canceled a Green Lantern show that was popular and successful because they weren’t happy with the fucking toy sales.

Kai Winn is intended to be hated. And Dukat is such an enjoyable character that the writers had to go out of their way to remind everyone that he’s a bad guy.

I don’t think people hate Wesley in the same way. They don’t hate the fictional person, they hate the way the story presents him. They hate the way he saves the ship by being effortlessly superior to everyone, including Data. And it doesn’t help that he was a young actor with limited skill, featured most prominently during the shows weakest seasons that suffered from bad writing.

I think there’s far less negative reaction to the Wesley we see in The Samaritan Snare or The First Duty. He’s still a smart kid with a lot of potential, but the story presents him as a flawed, vulnerable person, rather than an obnoxious little shit with a terminal case of smug overconfidence.

Ukraine is a major global food supplier. The war has directly impacted food prices. And if Russia succeeds, it will only encourage more conflict of this kind. And that’s ignoring the possibility that this will escalate into an even larger conflict because Putin decides that NATO’s resolve is weak enough that article 5 is no longer a plausible threat.

Also, that stupid argument applies just as much to funding schools, cancer research, fighting climate change and basically all other functions of government that serve the public good. We should do more to address economic issues, but that doesn’t mean we should stop doing everything else.

My dad used to tell me “It’s a lot harder to carpet the world than it is to wear shoes.”

Ambitious redesigns of existing infrastructure are neat, but they are rarely more efficient or practical. Especially when you are overengineering to solve an issue that’s already been dealt with. A self cleaning room requires a lot of additional hardware, all of which has to be designed, built and installed, and has to be powered and run by software that needs to be programmed. It also needs to be maintained, and depending on how it’s cleaning things, it may also be dangerous, or at least capable of damaging property (ever have a motion activated light turnoff while in a bathroom stall? now imagine it triggers steam jets). Not to mention the potential hazards of water damage on a room if anything goes wrong.

Or, you can buy a mop for 0.1% of the price.

Humanoid robots can escape this problem because versatility adds value. The upfront cost may be tens of thousands of dollars, but for that price you’re getting something that solves many, many problems. They can potentially go from task to task, filling a multitude of roles, and ideally with minimal down time.

It also helps that we can use existing processes to train them. They can observe human workers performing a task, attempt to replicate that task, and use feedback to improve. And that’s critical because the hardware is the easier part, it’s software that’s the real challenge.

It’s easier to build a specialized robot for one task than to create a general purpose robot to handle that task. However, as the technology matures, I think it becomes much more practical to create a general purpose robot that’s capable of performing millions of tasks than to create millions of different specialized robots. Not only is that far less to design, source parts for, build and maintain, but it also makes it much easier to repurpose them as needs change. The same basic design can potentially be used for factory work, household chores, new construction, search and rescue operations, food service, vehicle maintenance, mining, caring for kids/elderly/pets, building and maintaining other robots, etc. We’re not there yet, but that’s where this kind of technology could potentially take us.

The advantage of a mostly humanoid robot is that it’s versatile and can use existing solutions built for people. Yes, you could replace the legs with wheels or treads, and you’d probably be just fine for most functions with a Johnny 5 type design, but there will still be exceptions. Being able to climb up or down a ladder for example means that you don’t have to engineer a solution to deal with getting onto a roof or down into a tunnel system. We’ve already spent thousands of years solving those problems for humans.

Competition usually isn’t bad. Unfortunately, Apple has a tendency to not only be terribly anti-consumer, but also tends to be a trendsetter. They do shitty things, and other companies learn from their example. Thus, the competition becomes a race to the bottom.

Lying about testing a product in order to get people to buy it so you can get your affiliate revenue sounds like fraud to me. Seems like the kind of thing that should lead to lawsuits and potentially criminal charges. Not that anyone would actually try to do something about this or most other problems facing consumers.

Prime was a reasonable value for me a decade ago. The streaming side was never the main draw but it was a nice added bonus, especially when Netflix started to lose a lot of the content I actually wanted to watch.

Unfortunately, Amazon’s been flooded with worthless trash, and they made the conscious decision to make searching and filtering as useless as possible. It’s actually impressive that they’ve so degraded their service that it’s usually more convenient for me to go shopping locally than to try to navigate the unending mine field on Amazon.

So of course they try to ruin the last thing keeping me subscribed. I’m done, they can fuck off. I’ve got a jellyfin server, I don’t need these assholes.

Unfortunately, I’m sure they’ll make an obscene amount of money with this move, because apparently the world is full of people who will pay good money to bend over and take it.

If I buy a product, and the manufacturer remotely disables that product in order to coerce me into buying their goods and services, the people responsible should be charged with fraud, destruction of property, criminal conspiracy, racketeering, and anything else that can stick. It should be treated no less severely than if they hired thugs to smash it with a crowbar.

Yes, you can make a building from pieces that were produced on an assembly line. But the vast majority of construction doesn’t happen that way. And even those require labor to assemble.

My point was that the stationary robot arm you see putting cars together make sense in a factory setting, but that it wouldn’t be so practical on a job site compared to something less specialized and more versatile.

I think it’s going to be interesting to watch machine labor continue to evolve.

Currently we have factories full of dedicated machines which specialize in a limited number of tasks. This makes sense because mass production involves doing a limited variety of jobs in a controlled environment, as part of a process that only rarely changes. A more general purpose robot adds little value.

Where things get interesting is when you leave the factory. New construction shares similarities to factory production. You have a mostly controlled environment, a predictable process, and most variables within a given job can be planned for in advance. But you can’t throw a house or office building on an assembly line and move it past stationary robot arms. Which means that machines need to be light and mobile enough to move around a building throughout the process. And without the assembly line, extreme specialization is less practical. Better to have one machine that handles each stage of construction, as opposed to many machines which are only capable of a single task.

I could see some future prototype robot acting as an assistant, and slowly taking over more and more tasks. As it becomes more refined, its performance becomes more reliable, and we move more and more towards autonomous operation with human oversight.

The greater challenge is leaving the controlled environment of a construction site and into the real world. Going into some hundred year old building and assessing the existing condition, formulating a plan of action, and the executing that plan (adapting to unexpected complications along the way) is so much more complex and demanding. It’s entirely possible for AI to get to the point where it can do that, but it’s going to be a much longer journey.

Still, I could picture a more advanced version of that construction robot following a plumber or electrician and providing assistance while learning as it observes. As these trade bots expand their pool of knowledge and experience, they could gain the ability to recognize similarities to previous issues, and may learn to analyze and propose solutions which can be approved by a human on site. With each successful task, the machines get a little closer to functioning autonomously.

With a complex enough AI, we really could reach a point where the only jobs performed by humans are the ones where we value the human involvement. AI politicians probably aren’t on the agenda, and there will always be a demand for human sex work. So if nothing else, know that there will always be a job out there for those who specialize in fucking the people.

deleted by creator

AI today, or actual AI someday? And do they need to do the job well, or just at all?

I also wonder how many of these people are open to the idea of UBI when brought up in the context of AI replacing the majority of human labor.

Not since I was a teenager.

Sending a notification that a renewal is coming up? Impossible, will cost a fortune.

Sending mountains of junk mail offering bundles and limited time offers? Clearly much cheaper and easier.

Also, think of the labor costs, retraining the call center staff to not spend hours trying to talk people out of canceling and instead just having them hit a button. Why, that’s got to force a price hike.

This is just going to keep getting worse until we have laws to protect our privacy. Laws that are strong enough to force transparency and accountability on companies that gather data, and to prevent them from holding features hostage if we opt out.

Unfortunately, the current congress can’t even pass legislation that they mostly agree on. And I doubt more than a handful of them give a shit about our privacy. Maybe some future election will bring in some strong privacy advocates, but I’m not holding my breath. I just don’t see things getting better any time soon.