Web browsers turned into application engines because it was a path to get useable software on PCs without having to deal with Microsoft. IE6 stayed broken forever for a reason.
Now, they enable applications to exist without going through app store gateways.
A new document-only protocol aligned the Web's original intention would be very useful simply for security reasons. I liked Gemini because, by design, a Gemini document is not executable in any way; there's no popups, plugins, or even cookies; all this is out of the box without having to manage settings, and Gemini documents are very readable without an app at all.
But replacing the modern browser rather than being another option will actually lock in people further than they already are-open protocols require apps which are all behind a gateway now on the primary computing device of users: phones.
It probably won't matter in a few years as the Web will likely be equally locked down soon, though.
> Web browsers turned into application engines because it was a path to get useable software on PCs without having to deal with Microsoft. [...] Now, they enable applications to exist without going through app store gateways.
What? You could deploy software without dealing with Microsoft back then and you still can today. Unless you meant avoiding building for Windows natively.
>Web browsers turned into application engines because it was a path to get useable software on PCs without having to deal with Microsoft. IE6 stayed broken forever for a reason.
Nonsense, lots of software were just local, I've even see MSN clones written in TCL/Tk, and Lazarus still used in some places, and tons of VB6/C# software. Back in the day except for Intranet turds (which in the end causes disasters like Iloveyou.VBS "thanks" to IE/Outlook deeply tied to Windows 9x software ) everyone serious about programming security and correctness flew away from the web model for the good. It was everything about Java (and applets) and later C#. The web had an overgrowth and languages which shouldn't be part of the desktop.
The "couch potato" force that in the past, made people sit on their couches and watch hours of TV simply because it was the easiest thing for them to do.
It's fine though. Low-effort people deserve low-effort content. Maybe the work of high-effort creators and the patrons that support their works will simply not be on the Internet in the future.
- X doesn't pay child support because X lost their job.
- X gets their driver's license revoked because they missed child support payments.
So ... how are you supposed to find a new job with out a car in most U.S. communities? This doesn't improve the situation for anyone involved, but allows the state to make it much, much worse.
Whoever had the idea of revoking business and professional licenses of those behind on paying their kids were real geniuses. I can understand doing it after a contempt hearing where it was determined the person absolutely will not be using them to help the child.... but an administrative revocation for being delinquent is insane.
It's crazy how obsessed America is with kicking people in the teeth when they are down. Your kids are broke? Sorry, we won't help you, but how about we take away your ability to work domestically or abroad.
"These countries also directly take care of their citizens, which I think is an important factor. Other societies will let you be homeless and say it is your fault for being broke even when employers terminate you purely for economic reasons or when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. That backdrop contributes to desperation and predatory mindsets."
I disagree with her though, because that sounds communistic and can only lead to empty store shelves, tattered housing blocs, and the state preventing me from listening to the same rock music songs I've heard since the 1970's.
Countries taking care of their citizens is communism? A social safety net leads to empty store shelves? Am I the latest victim of Poe's Law here?
Every advanced economy in the world except for the United States has a well developed social safety net, and I assure you our shelves are not empty and I can listen to all the Mötley Crüe I desire.
> Every advanced economy in the world except for the United States has a well developed social safety net
The United States has a very well-developed social safety net, despite what Reddit likes to claim. It spends a ton of money making sure the poor are fed, housed, and clothed. There exist literal generations of people who have lived on the public dole.
yeah, but sometimes the calculations they do are wrong.
Very annoying when it happens, used to be common on the chipsets in the TB16 Thunderbolt docks from Dell... if you knew to turn off the offloading the ethernet worked otherwise it was slower than wifi..
You hear a song with vocals that strongly emotionally resonate with you, reminding you of your mother who passed away recently after a long terrible illness. You want to know more about the singer that almost brought you to tears, only to find there is none and that the song was AI generated.
But if you did the exercise 10 years ago you'd find the lyrics were originally about the songwriter's daughter and the band tweaked it to be able the the band manager's hypochondriac ex boyfriend.
Then they hired a session singer to sing it and mixed in several takes and then adjusted the sound with various tools to produce just the right sound. Plus the Chorus was actually from some country song from 1972 that had been completely changed
and the actual "band" is actually just two guys who hire session players to do most of the music while they handle the keyboard and mixing
So it does something good for you, then you decide to put a label on it due to how it was made. You are letting your mind overwrite a genuine response you had based on an opinion that "it should not feel good because it's AI made". As I said in another comment - intelectualization.
Which puts the label "AI made" on it and that changes the listener's perspective. In the example given, the listener had a strong emotional reaction to the sound, but after they put the "AI made" label on it, they suddenly convince themselves to not have that emotional response anymore.
No, that's not the causality. They put the AI label on it and they change their perspective, but the bulk of the perspective change is not specifically because AI, it's because the specific person they felt a connection to doesn't exist. You could get a similar reaction with an extremely impersonal but non-AI method of making a song.
I'm not the one complaining. I have no emotion in this. What conflict do you think I have internally?
You're criticizing an overly simplified version of the actual argument, and I'm trying to help you understand the actual argument.
You could criticize their actual argument. I think there could be a healthy debate there. Their argument, about being disappointed there is no actual author you could have a meeting of the minds with, is something that matters different amounts to different people. Even if you still dislike that argument, it's something you can't dismiss as a mere prejudice that got intellectualized.
> Even if you still dislike that argument, it's something you can't dismiss as a mere prejudice that got intellectualized.
Why can't I?
I think that it's a great example of trying to explain a preference with an idea. Preferences don't need to be explained. Quite often they can't be. I think it strange, that a person would like something, then dislike it because some meta-information about the thing is not preferred. I know people do it all the time. "I like service X, but I don't like the guy who built it" is a great example of that. What we are discussing here is an even better example, because music appeals to the sense of aesthetics more directly and has little to no utility beyond that. If you find a piece that does appeal to your sense of aesthetics, why would you convince yourself to not like it? Sounds like a job for the mind. Discussing which trick of the mind does the job better, seems to be missing the point. That's why I dismiss it.
"I want to have a meeting of the minds" is a valid preference all by itself that involves no prejudice.
> Preferences don't need to be explained.
I don't understand how you start a paragraph with this, and then spend the rest of it taking about how you dismiss people's author-based preferences.
You're allowed to have preferences based on the work itself and the author. Death of the author is not a fundamental truth of the universe. And having those preferences, caring about the author, is not convincing yourself of anything, is not any kind of self-deception.
Realistically speaking, why is that a problem? What is the point of money if not enjoyment? If these people enjoy it, what's wrong with it?
Mark finds $100,000 (something good for Mark), then finds out it's the inheritance of a family who's about to get kicked out of their house (label due to how it was made). Mark decides he should not keep the money because it belongs to the family (intellectualizing).
You're saying Mark should have kept the money because doing otherwise is intellectualizing.
- the 56k modem must be liquid or ground up into a fine powder. the liquid route will be safer.
- the liquid or fine powder must be inside of a can or bottle for alcoholic beverages.
- for best results secure 1 or more homie(s) to occupy the immediate vincinity.
- it is the reader's responsibility to comply with any applicable environmental or littering laws. pouring a 56k modem out to one's homie(s) near a sewer drain or natural water source could lead to contanimation.
My brother's cousin says anytime someone is hiring for this type of work (warehouse, stocking, other retail) and really needs people during a holiday rush, the interview is often nothing more than gathering data used to verify work eligibility, maybe a background check, maybe paperwork for you to get a drug test, and confirming you're available at the hours they need. In her opinion, she says it seems like its something they honestly could replace with an app and it wouldn't even really need AI at all.
> Perhaps if one was just the right age at just the right time, the Internet Was a Place, but for anyone before and anyone after it was just was and just is.
This is well put and I agree. I think there was a unique set of factors that made 1998ish-2006ish the prime time for the Internet to be a "place." The prevailing techno-optimism borne of the 90s was one of those factors.
Now, they enable applications to exist without going through app store gateways.
A new document-only protocol aligned the Web's original intention would be very useful simply for security reasons. I liked Gemini because, by design, a Gemini document is not executable in any way; there's no popups, plugins, or even cookies; all this is out of the box without having to manage settings, and Gemini documents are very readable without an app at all.
But replacing the modern browser rather than being another option will actually lock in people further than they already are-open protocols require apps which are all behind a gateway now on the primary computing device of users: phones.
It probably won't matter in a few years as the Web will likely be equally locked down soon, though.
reply