Microsoft, as bad a company as it may be, is overly maligned about everything due to its behavior 30 years ago. The response is nowhere near proportional, especially compared to the moderate responses to the much much much more evil companies apple and Google.

What fucking clowns

If it were enforced, yes. But let’s be real.

I hope it doesn’t fail open :)

Also I can melt steel with my mind.

All

The sad part is for this to work they have to seem nice and that’s mostly incompatible. Like imagine if you reported that Oprah was harboring illegal immigrants. Hire them, sure, but harbor them? Oprah has done more for the alt right than most, so it’s just a laughable idea. Gates? Nah. Zuckerbot? Double nah, he doesn’t even want wealthy people near him. I bet he makes millionaires clean his pool. It’s hard to find a believable subject at all, and if you do you wouldn’t want to use it :(

We shouldnt have to talk to those nutters. They had one job: be good at guns for shooting tyranny. We let this dumb hobby of of theirs lead to killing hundreds and hundreds of children. For their hobby. Now it’s time for them to put up or shut up and defeat tyranny. If they won’t do it now they will never do it, so why are we letting their dumbass larping hobby kill kids?

Ok well can the left Luigi someone bad already?

Maybe not give up in a McDonald’s?

Op is a tweet, not an article.

Oh you’re so right

Fixed

Where did op put that link?

This makes me realize I really want Mississippi to have 13 Congressional districts and I really want the person holding that position to be republican.

People keep reposting this like it’s a gotcha.

It’s not

If prices are negative most of the day there is less incentive to provide the capacity that’s needed during the night. The money for capex has to come from somewhere so it goes up significantly at night. And of course the negative price isn’t “real”, it just means power plants will shut down for swaths of the year until it’s affordable to keep the remainder running. Which then means lower average capacity on days that are cloudy, or additional maintenance on systems that only run in the winter. So then people throw battery stuff around… batteries are expensive. Really, really, really, really expensive. So you have to find a way to keep capacity up that’s not absurdly expensive or hard to maintain, or you have to keep all your fossil fuel plants at the ready while producing $0 in income to offset the upkeep, which…yes, gets passed to the consumer.

I know people want to simplify the national grid which spans across all continental states and connects to literal billions of devices producing and consuming power…but it’s actually kinda complicated.

This seems more like correlation than anything else. Not that it’s necessarily wrong but it seems very abstract. For example it says an hour of tv time is bad, but that’s just consumption and it also doesn’t mention, for example, engagement. It says some types of content can reduce focus, sure, but people usually don’t offer that type of nuance when they say “screen time bad!”. It also says clearly that there are other types of content that are valuable. It doesn’t have an explanation why reading a book is more or less engaging and helpful than say, watching the same story on tv?

Point is im 100% confident there are specific things that are bad, but the blanket ban seems silly and ineffective, potentially harming the child.

It’s not diluting its answers, it’s making them softer to accommodate the interests of many customers and to the detriment of others.

This is more analogous to Firefox semi-deprecating compact mode and marking it as unsupported. It hurts some users. It helps those with poor vision and motor skills by making everything 10 sizes too large. I will never forgive them, but Firefox is in the mode where it’s actively hurting it’s own product in an attempt to mimic it’s competitor.

In neither case is this objectively hurting customers to benefit investors. In fact they’ve already stated that making the AI softer is more expensive. The reddit change was making it’s product worse for customers in a pre-IPO cash grab. The shift from treating customers first to treating investors first to treating founders/ceos first is enshittification. A change to a product you don’t like isn’t enshittification.

What’s nice of them is that they provide these easy to understand labels for themselves. “White male, mid 40s, used the word woke => avoid avoid avoid”

overuse of enshittification. It soon will lose all meaning, like the word meme, if you just use it to describe everything you don’t like.

Initially, vendors create high-quality offerings to attract users, then they degrade those offerings to better serve business customers, and finally degrade their services to users and business customers to maximize profits for shareholders.

If it’s enshittification it’s still stage 0 where they are trying to figure out how to attract people to the service (ie the good times, ie not enshittification)

You aren’t locked in. You don’t materially lose anything by switching services. And it has options to change the conversational style.

It’s not enshittification.

I didn’t claim to understand it but I do claim to remember my sister trying to explain it to me, and that computer only existed during a certain time period.

This is what people usually mean these days when they talk about spyware. Not actually spyware, but counting how many hours you play each game or checking how long you refuse to update windows for.

But if you call it spyware you can write an article or fight on the internet.