reducing consumption across the board isnt just unprofitable, it would mean everyone agreeing to overcome our biological gradients. i do not think it is possible for us to do, and evolution has not equipped us to do that as far as i can tell.
my semi-superstitious take is that the race to achieve ai is grounded in needing something that knows whats going on and is able to make decisions aligned to generational time horizons. whether that works out or not time will tell, but i get the sense a "good enough" ai is probably our best shot at saving us from ourselves. it's clear we can't do that on our own.
Which is why, to be blunt, libertarians and conservatives are wrong to demonize government without being equally or more skeptical of the corrupting power of money.
Government is the only apparatus that can govern unregulated motivations of capital, and we need regulations on pollution and investments in clean energy and waste creation/collection to stop things like climate change.
Gen X and forward grew up in a world that by default was cleaner due to regulations like the Clean Water Act, better for seniors due to things like Social Security and Medicare, and safer due to things like food regulations and vaccine mandates. The people who rail against these things are railing against the very things that made their world safer and in some instances kept them alive.
Chrome is a monopoly by extending the internet in ways that force users into chrome. Due to market share and Google's prevalence, they have the sway to introduce things that cannot meaningfully be avoided without extreme siloing.
Outside of WebUSB I personally haven't meaningfully been impacted in any ways. Can you share which ways this is?
Note, this is separate from a "so many things are just Chromium", which I agree is an issue, but isn't the same as a "Google Chrome is a monopoly". Because in the end there are still many non-Chrome browsers which support WebUSB which do not end up with a lot of the downsides of Chrome specifically about Google harvesting your data and what not.
> You know full well what people mean when they say "Chrome"
Yeah, Chrome, the web browser made by Google that bugs you to sign in with your Google Account. Most people don't mean Microsoft Edge when you say "Chrome". Do you call Microsoft Edge "Chrome"?
Chrome is a product made by Google that is a web browser. If the argument is Chromium is too interwoven, that's a separate argument.
But even then, what does it mean that "Chromium is a monopoly"? Is Linux a monopoly as well? Why or why not?
Note you haven't actually given me any other ways one would be impacted like I asked. What are the other majorly missing features Chrome pushes that other browsers don't have that most sites require? What else am I missing by not using a non-Chromium-based browser?
As someone else said earlier, it is a monopoly by extending the internet in ways that force users into using their browser engine. Due to market share and Google's prevalence, they have the sway to introduce things that cannot meaningfully be avoided without extreme siloing.
> What are the other majorly missing features Chrome pushes that other browsers don't have that most sites require?
This is a different question, please don't move the goalposts.
> by extending the internet in ways that force users into using their browser engine
And yet after multiple times of me asking you've yet to give me a single real feature lost.
> This is a different question
Its literally the thing we're saying is the problem, how is it a different question entirely?!
You're saying the problem is they're adding features that force Chromium, but asking about which features you're talking about is just bringing up unrelated and different questions.
It's not so much forcing people to Chrome/chromium for specific features, but trying to increase market share through more subtle means, like paying to have their search engine featured, advertising their products everywhere possible (including inside other people's apps), slowing down their sites (like youtube) on other browsers, or tying in other services (along with way too much personal info) to try to keep people within their sphere of influence.
Is Linux also a monopoly? In a way sure, but I think a big difference is they're not "doing evil" as people claim Google is, and all the development/decisions are still made out in the open in a democratic way.
Former Google execs have even compared their setup to "running the New York Stock Exchange while trading on it."
At least Linux isn't trying to tell people what to do with their software.
> it is a monopoly by extending the internet in ways that force users into using their browser engine
2 messages later that seems to be contradicted?
> It's not so much forcing people to Chrome/chromium for specific features
I might've misread.
> but trying to increase market share through more subtle means, like paying to have their search engine featured
This isn't Chromium, the open source basis of many web browsers. Now you're talking about Google the company.
> Is Linux also a monopoly?
Monopolies in the sense worth discussing are highly popular things that are held in place by things other than competition. If anything, Google props up Chrome's competitors to reduce this.
So now Chrome is a "monopoly" because they're "advertising their products everywhere possible". I guess I can only ever drink Redbull, they're a monopoly, because they're advertising their products everywhere.
Seriously? That's our standard of what is a "monpoply"?
Words have no meaning anymore.
You can choose to use something different. The device you bought probably came with an alternative! Otherwise, the device next to it on the shelf on the store where you bought it likely would have had an alternative browser, because most devices on the store shelves outside of some hypothetical physical Google store don't come with Chrome.
I'm asking what features force me to use Chrome instead of Firefox or Edge or Safari. I've yet to hear an answer other than it's advertised heavily and that it's popular.
There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge, but some websites don't work with Safari or Firefox because Google has pushed nonstandard stuff. And it's weirdly not only advanced WebWhatever stuff, but also some things that affects basic features like forms. Though sometimes they have a separate mobile site that was tested in iPhone Safari.
I find the discrepancy kinda minor though. It's enough that I have Chrome installed alongside Firefox and Safari, but not enough that I use it often. It used to be worse.
> There's nothing forcing you to use Chrome instead of Edge
This is what I mean. How is it a "monopoly" when one can easily just use something else?
The only thing people are saying its "its a monopoly because it has high market share". But a high market share does not a monopoly make, there's more to it than just purely market share. A monopoly requries outsized market power, something that to me at least it doesn't seem like Chrome, the web browser has.
The argument others are making is that Google has a monopoly on browser engines, or that it's becoming that way. IE switched to Chromium partially to resolve compatibility issues. I don't have a strong opinion on this though.
People being able to switch relatively easily means that they're a lot more likely to lose their market power in five years. It doesn't do much to diminish their current market power, which is enormous.
High market share almost always means high market power. That's why people focus on market share since it's easy to cite.
> they're a lot more likely to lose their market power in five years
It doesn't take users five years to install a different browser. It takes maybe two to five minutes. If they really do things to piss off their users they'll be gone far faster than that.
What kind of lock-in does a browser even really have? Its not like some kind of social network or financial setup or anything like that. The browser itself doesn't have the content. Its run an installer, have it import bookmarks and extensions, and you're using a different browser. Its not like we're back in the days of ActiveX where there were entirely proprietary extensions to the web that only Microsoft blessed browsers could run that only ran on certain OSes.
> almost always means high market power.
It doesn't when the competition is so readily available, practically interchangeable, and also zero cost.
Another method is to stall and sabotage the development via endless bike shedding, language changes, rewrites, refactors. All normal things in every project. Drag those feet.
I think curated package repositories solve a problem, but not all of them.
For example, I'm not sure if the world of windows freeware ever moved past this, but very often, the home page for a freeware package will look nearly identical to a page set up to deliver malware. Every package you download you wonder "is this the legit version?". Even push it further, there were multiple examples of sites that were previously trusted for software downloads(SourceForge and the installer debacle) that began packaging spyware or adware into downloads.
With either delivery method, you're not quite safe from supply chain attacks, but with the curated repo, you at least have a single source of packages where you can trust it 99% of the time.
Hmm. I just read the page. It's about a famous concept that came from a book written by a Jewish Marxist who fled Nazi Germany. he wrote it in Paris in 1935 as the Nuremberg Laws were passed. Killed himself in 1940 trying to escape the Gestapo.
He's not hiding any of it. Masquerade is a bit rich.
You're the one who said Russia. Could be a dunce, but just as easily an llm farm of the GOPs. We all know they aren't exactly ethical. But also, they have clearly made dunces out of a lot of people.
An article about a topic doesn’t mean it’s endorsed - are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn’t host an article that describes a theory if you don’t like the theory?
Are you seriously suggesting an encyclopedia should be packed with crackpot conspiracy theories, academic charlatanry, quackery, and agitprop? Or does that not defeat the point? Keep the author's biography, but his "theories" are best left for a footnote in the biography, or websites that explicitly serve as a museum for failed ideas.
A) that’s a very biased view of it that you clearly are emotionally invested in B) an encyclopedia should describe all things factually. It’d be one thing if it described it as truth, but describing it truthfully is far different
Since you can just counter anything I say with calling it “anti-knowledge,” I’ll leave you with a profound quote:
“That’s just like, your opinion, man”
Once you understand that legitimacy of rule by the wealthy is the primary corner stone of the United States, you'll understand that even the wealthy who didn't participate in the Epstein coalition don't want to open that can of worms.
It's why the Democrats keep only pushing social issues, they are captured and cannot make any radical change without losing the support of their wealthy donors.
Another way to look at it, consider that every coup that occurred in South America was done extra-legally to protect American corporate/monetary interests.
Even if they're wrong, erring on the side of caution will have a net positive effect in this case.
It's like someone saying "hey this war with Iran might be based in lies, remember Iraq?" then someone saying "no its different this time" and eventually needing to backtrack.
Many try to be the voice of caution, while others are too trusting and then try to pretend they were always against <Obvious lie and trick>. Just like how getting scammed on a crypto rugpull is shameful and prevents people from speaking out, getting scammed by another obvious national security lie or walled garden lie makes folks feel like fools too.
Something that was really grotesque was some responses to statistics around teen pregnancies. Basically, some pundits were arguing that the drastic drop of teen pregnancy due to education was a bad thing.
A very high portion of teenage pregnancies resulted from sexual abuse from an older adult.
People are out there quite literally arguing that the sexual abuse of essentially children is good for society, to enable the population pyramid scheme.
All to say, Capital at large seeks out the profit. Until climate change effects the profit considerably, mitigation will be the path less traveled.
The only real way to approach this problem is to reduce consumption across the board which as you might guess, isn't profitable.
reply