This is a really valid point, especially because it’s not only faster but dramatically cheaper.

The thing is, summaries which are pretty terrible might be costly. If decision makers are relying on these summaries and they’re inaccurate, then the consequences might be immeasurable.

Suppose you’re considering 2 cars, one is very cheap but on one random day per month it just won’t start, the other is 5x the price but will work every day. If you really need the car to get to work, then the one that randomly doesn’t start might be worse than no car at all.

Lots of people do lots of things.

I have a second sim card for my phone. I just turn off that sim when I’m not working, and set my status as away for group chat.

In this context, there isn’t any tangible benefit to having a second phone.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it plans out.

A regular group chat and another signal one for when you specifically need to talk to OP.

Having two phones absolutely sucks. Didn’t work for me at all.

It’s nice to be nice.

The flag looks a bit like a disgruntled goose.

Obviously. Why is that threatened by this antitrust ruling ?

Nonsense. The users who have left are an infinitesimal portion of users.

This article doesn’t even bother to explain the connection. I don’t get it if I’m honest.

Well, he does grant people position or status or whatever - see SCOTUS for example.

That tends to be how dictatorships work.

booking.com is the worst I’ve encountered. There’s a captcha type anti-bot thing that I can’t pass with firefox. I think it uses canvas.

edit: another I use all the time is called echo360. It’s the platform my university uses to host lecture videos. The player just plain doesn’t work in firefox - blank screen.

If one company is stifling competition, then competitors don’t have the resources required to innovate.

When you look at competitors offerings, you’re seeing the best they can do in a google-dominated market.

Real competition benefits users.

So that makes odysee’s behaviour OK?

Yeah it really does seem this way.

I’ve never been a “free speech absolutist”. I acknowledge that censorship is problematic, but it seems much less so than the alternative.

The problem is, if one company dominates search, you have no way to evaluate whether they are doing it well.

Mozilla could do search themselves.

I hadn’t heard of this.

The FAQ says it’s not a 1 for 1 replacement. There’s a lot of features which can’t be ported.

It’s probably better than nothing for most people, but not as good as uBO was.

Still, I wonder why it’s not mentioned more often.

Meh.

Librewolf already breaks loads of websites with it’s fingerprinting resistance - just get used to turning it off.

In any case, you already need a chromium fork handy for all the sites that just plain don’t support firefox any more. I’ve run in to weird issues in firefox that don’t arise in chromium several times in the last month. This is going to get much worse.

As for changing browsers. I don’t care very much. I don’t use many browser features like bookmarks or passwords.

The article seems to be based on a number of flawed premises.

Firstly, that chatgpt is the only LLM. It’s not, and better, stronger, cheaper alternatives are likely to emerge.

Secondly, that LLMs are a step on the way to AGI. Like any minute now they’re going to evolve. They’re not, they’re a one trick pony which is making coherent sentences. That’s it.