The title misses something more important: Firefox is and has been for a very long time the only browser who wasn't made by people trying to extract profit from you.
Everything follows from this. Edge people, Chrome people have been living in a fairytale for believing that the keepers of their portal to the web were offering a product as complex and expensive as a browser without asking for anything in return.
Anyone knows that any company that gives you something for free will eventually want something from you. You accepted a free browser from a for-profit entity and paid nothing. Now, Faust has come to collect your soul.
Same reason it couldn't be a problem to sell aerosolized anthrax at the hardware store. Humans have (many many times) made aerosolized anthrax. Can't see any conceivable problem with more people having access to it.
I hope there will always be an affordable paid option that comes with no ads.
The news industry’s failure to address this is what ruined journalism. Every publication, whether they admit it or not, judges its content by number of clicks, which destroys the incentive for producing quality journalism.
Both social media and mobile games have evolved to optimize for maximum ongoing engagement rather than delivering value to the user.
I pay $10/month for Apple Arcade in order to get mobile games with no ads and no addictive behavior model.
I can’t pay for ad-free Facebook or Instagram so I won’t use them.
If AI chatbots start optimizing for keeping me talking longer, rather than giving me the answers I want as quickly as possible, they will have failed miserably.
You thought RISC-V chips were compatible with each other beyond the basics? They're not. RISC-V is only a starting point for designing the ISA your chip will actually implement. Don't get me wrong - it's still beneficial that simple code works on many chips.
I don’t think it’s silly to say there’s a potential revolution and ask what it might be. Overly cynical comment I think, trying to be Vaclav Smil in a conversation not mentioning energy.
> why is everything always about gerational preference shifts?
I noticed that too, it’s usually pushed to create a herd mentality, then a trend about something, and obviously there’s a direct or indirect outcome, here, it’s movies revenue. So if you are a xyz gen, you will fear to miss out what all of your other peers are doing.
My 8yo kid wanted to listen to news, so I'm trying an experiment: have AI generate a news podcast episode every day where stories of any seriousness are unpacked and explained to kids. Topics like wars and politics are ok, but trying to stay away from local crime. Right now it tells ~5 stories per day, but I'm still tweaking things. My kid's initial feedback was: make fewer stories and tell them more in depth. Might switch to something like 1 main story + 2-3 smaller ones. Might also change the preference for what kind of stories are told. Wanted to also add some sound effects/intro/outro music. This is still an early prototype and I make no guarantees about what content it might produce, so be careful if you want to subscribe. Curious what people think about an idea like this.
Tech info: research is done by GPT 5.6-Sol, goes through clarity review loop with Kimi K3, audio is created with Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS. Hugo for static site generation, hosted on Cloudflare (R2 for audio files).
The argument is so bad that a part of me is starting to wonder if it might be a deliberate signal from a judge under extrajudicial pressure. Like a hostage trying to blink morse while reading a message from his captors into the camera.
"Do what they ask for but do it so badly that perhaps some people start asking the right questions"
Books like that are pretty much all AI trainers are interested in.
The classics are all in public domain already so there's no reason for them to want to destroy a rare edition of Charles Dickens or Arthur Conan Doyle. And the stuff that isn't in public domain went through an era of mass publishing where copies are a plenty.
But further, just the nature of LLM trainers is they probably aren't particularly interested in lesser known books from the 30s or 40s. Why would they want, for example, an Chemistry book from the 30s? Something published in 2026 is much more up to date and likely to be useful. The only books they'd be interested in that period would be popular and have cultural impact. Meaning, there's probably plenty of copies laying around.
pastvu were created by people from xUSSR and most users are also from there, the data there is actually global. For example, if you navigate to Richmond, Virginia, you can see that there are more there one hundred photos available.
(default map provider is in Russian, but you can switch to OSM using selector at the top of the page)
My personal experience is the larger the task you ask it to do, the less attention it pays to the details - for a very large task it seems more prone to missing test coverage, writing duplicate code, not refactoring where it should etc. So I try to split into smaller tasks where possible (also makes it easier to review).
LLM emulate cognition, there is a huge difference, it's a mimick process not genuine
if you read about psychopaths/sociopaths, they do not comprehend emotions but they can learn to emulate them by watching others and mimicking them
that's exactly what LLM is doing, it is taught to assemble words in a way that mimics all the humans in its huge datapool, so it comes off as "cognition" because that's what the humans it's emulating were doing
Sure if you use remote AI services, but any companies working on niche markets where they want to protect their IP, or they simply work with sensitive stuff, will rely on local AI instead.
If you're referring to the loom analogy, then it's quite similar: you choose which threads to weave into the next context; unwanted threads can be unraveled :)
But agents don't _know_ why they gave an answer. They can only give "reasoning" that links to something in their context, and even then, you would have to parse out their response with some heuristics to try to match against something upstream of that turn.
I could see it being done, and if you're fond of the "models all the way down" mode of thinking, you could use a smaller model to identify it, but it could just as well be a "load-bearing seam" (ha) for something else in the conversation.
> Clearly then if one wishes to maintain in a great giant the same proportion of limb as that found in an ordinary man he must either find a harder and stronger material for making the bones, or he must admit a diminution of strength in comparison with men of medium stature; for if his height be increased inordinately he will fall and be crushed under his own weight.
> While Galileo’s argument explains the nonexistence of human giants ...
The blog completely misreads what Galileo wrote. Galileo did not write that human giants did not exist, as the blog asserts. Galileo wrote how they could have existed, which could not have happened simply by scaled body structures.
In a rational world with perfect information, yes, limiting the supply would help the artist. The world is not strictly rational. As someone with family in the book business, I can promise you that there are tons of irrational buyers.
Book buyers will buy because they see other people reading that authors books (more copies in the world means more sales in this case), they will buy special editions of their favorite books they already own, they will buy copies of books that they intend to read once and give to a friend even when the library is a block away and has copies, they will pay extra to have a hardcover new release even though there are effectively infinite other books that could entertain them until the paperback is released. Rational economic choices are actually not a given at the consumer level.
I fully agree about copyright. As a wild example, unless jk Rowling dies in the next three years, Harry Potter will have US copyright that started in the 20th century, and extends into the 22nd century.
Anna’s Archive still doesn't have everything — I suspect all these books described are not in this great dataset.