Or better yet, it adds LEDs to your web browsing experience (in-page and inside PWAs) and the colours scheme is synchronized with your computer’s LED.

Also depends on which source we are discussing. Many YouTube channel owners do no not call themselves “influencers” and just focus on their domains and are very strict about sponserships (some don’t even accept sponsorships).

It downloads RAM for you, sells your browsing data to major gaming companies, helps you stay on top of your Twitch subs by disabling the ability to block web notifications.

You know, a gaming browser.

I agree with you, I may be even more cynical than you with respect to senior executives’ public statements and corporate PR.

I just don’t see a clear motive for the DDG CEO to inflate the valuation of Chrome. The examples you cite seem a bit far fetched (to me), I could be wrong of course.

That is a possibility.

However, I think in this particular case, the DDG CEO is better qualified than me or you to evaluate the value of Chrome. I can’t think of any reason for Weinberg to promote an inflated valuation for Chrome.

It’s not only about the brand, it’s about the installed base. You have hundreds of millions (billion plus?) of users who use your application every day for a wide variety of tasks.

Weinberg described his estimate as a “back-of-the-envelope” calculation, based on Chrome’s vast user base and global reach – a figure that far exceeds previous estimates, such as the $20 billion valuation offered by Bloomberg analyst Mandeep Singh last November. Weinberg added that such a price tag would be well beyond DuckDuckGo’s financial capabilities, remarking, “That’s out of DuckDuckGo’s price range.”

The UI/UX has always been absolutely atrocious.

Corruption, American style. Americans love their elaborate and borderline-tiring corruption schemes and PR propaganda.

Also depends on your taste in gaming. More niche games and some retro games can be really hit or miss. But I do agree that in the last ~5 years there has been a revolution in gaming on Linux.

I still have to move away from Windows (by far the biggest issue due to line of business applications and gaming) and Android with Google.

I have experience with Linux via a headless Raspberry Pi home server, but desktop/laptop is whole different level of complexity.

Let’s just hope that this has a noticeable impact on the hyperscale CSPs bottom lines in 4-6 quarters. Europe has a very a very bad habit of kicking the can down the road and not rocking the boat. Now is not the time for such meekness.

If you don’t live in the US, you’re asking for trouble if you use American tech. Doesn’t matter if the provider is sane or not, they are still subject to the whims of a proto-facist regime. But even beyond the regime, the American business community is extremely corrupt. They might not see it as corruption (corruption is what happens in some shithole), but that’s just an excuse.

And with all due respect to sane Americans, unless there is a massive change in their risk tolerance, it is unlikely there will be any movement away from proto-facism in the short to medium term.

Things aren’t going to magically sort themselves out.

Do you not understand the difference between a press release and an article? Are you being serious? The authors literally have apple email accounts.

How is what I said a strawman? What exactly am I “strawmanning”; could you please be clear and specific on this?

There is no bias. This is common sense. Corporate messaging around sustainability (and there are different brands of this) by definition cannot be trusted.

Can you show me how they define “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”, surely if they added it in their emissions table and it’s really the only piece that’s important (because it ties back to the “60% of 2015 claim”, everything else in the press release is fluff), you should be able to find the definition as per Apple?

This is not an article, this is a press release. It is written by Apple employees.

I didn’t say they were lying. If anything the much more likely scenario is that it is framed in a duplicitous manner but without explicitly lying (in the strict pedantic sense).

Here is a simple question one for you. Find me where Apple provides a clear explanation of their definition of “gross emissions - Manufacturing (purchased goods and services)”; this is the line item that’s key to their press release, everything else is fluff and holds no value when it comes to the bigger picture.

Keep in mind, there is a very large probability that much of the content in the press release is misleading and de facto untrue.

Why would you ever take a corporate press release at face value?

philosoraptor_meme.avif

PaintDotNet is perfect if you only need some commonly used “pro” features. It’s a relatively easy transition from paint.

OpenAI x Digg 2.0 is a bit too unwieldy so how about OpenDiggAI?

Sure, and people like quick solutions to problems and largely don’t think about long-term consequences. And then they’re all “surprised pikachu” when that thing inevitably morphs into something they don’t like.

Again, that’s on the given members of a society. Surveillance and blocking social are not inherently (in a physical sense) good or bad. These are social tools that can be used for good (and sometimes must be used to protect the lives of your fellow citizens) or can be used for bad.

This is a bit of a hyperbolic example, but let’s say you have a CSAM-focused social network, even without an imminent danger to society it is reasonable to block such a social network if it’s hosted in another jurisdiction.

In the US, we have a concept of an “enemy of the state,”

American concepts of “enemy of the state” and “imminent danger” don’t map one to one in the global context.

A country (Albania or otherwise) has the right to counteract influence for foreign nationals/entities on their political process. But that’s just one example.

There is also the FB and genocidal Myanmar and more recently FB and Ethiopia.

A media org is committed to journalism and communicating accurate information and good faith debate. These are not the priorities of Chines social networks (subject to control of the CCP) or Americans social network (subject to control of local oligarchs and criminal groups).

I think we’ve had a good discussion and it’s clear we have our own perspectives.

At this point, I am just trying to point out that there nuances to my OP and it’s not a matter of merely supporting government censorship. The world is a complex place and absolutes are not a viable approach.

If you give the government a new power, they will abuse it, it’s just a matter of time. … because the government perpetually expands the scope of whatever powers we grant it.

I don’t believe in treating the government as a black box. If what you’re saying is true, then that’s a reflection of society. You want a government that has the capability to implement surveillance and ban social networks when the situation calls for it. In the global context, there will be such situations. And you need to have a political and social system that limits such powers when they are not needed anymore.

A specific individual or a group of individuals cannot independently collaborate to implement counter intelligence policies to identify traitors who are providing location data for missile strikes and helping kill your fellow citizens who are fighting for your safety on the front-lines. The government must have deep surveillance capabilities in such a situation.

It’s the personal responsibility of every citizen to contribute to a functioning government system. If it doesn’t function well, that’s on the individuals that make up society. Blanket bans on government surveillance or control external social media is not a viable approach in our world (not just in Ukraine).

In the US context (I’ve lived there, but I am of course more knowledgeable on Eastern Europe), I would argue that continued renewal of the Patriot act (if it even was needed initially, but one can argue after 9/11 there was a period of shock and fear for Americans) is a reflection of the failures of the US political system. Specifically the lack of competitive elections beyond two parties. This is on some level the responsibility of US citizens and not a “black box” model of government.

I understand the need for certain policy changes during wartime. When Russia started its aggressions (arguably, long before Crimea), I can understand a temporary ban on Russian propaganda, because it’s an active war. Maybe it doesn’t include fighting yet, but it does have a credible threat of devolving into that. So I support temporary restrictions while an imminent, credible threat exists or the country is currently at war.

It’s not that simple though. One could frame pre-invasion (i.e. pre Feb 2014 when they invaded Crimea) restrictions on russian social media and services as government overreach. On the other hand, one could frame it as a forward looking government initiative attempting to protect the lives of its citizens. We currently have the benefit of hindsight, so it’s easy to see which approach is correct, but that’s not the case in the moment.

As I mentioned in my OP, I don’t know much about Albanian politics. What I do know is that you don’t need an imminent threat of a physical invasion to limit the influence of much larger countries on your political environment. I do not support having local politics being subject to unaccountable (see Facebook and Rohingya genocide), callous operators; doesn’t matter if they are based in the US or China.

I am not that knowledge on China, but I do know how russia operates. Similar to what you mentioned, I think TikTok operates much closer to the VK/Odnoklassniki models used by the russians. You don’t want the CCP promoting political movements that they have bribed or see as being more beneficial to their interests. You want politics and political messaging to be accountable to the people who live in your country. I will point out that pre-invasion (2014), the russians very much used soft power from their internet services/social media/TV channels to influence politics within Ukraine. That’s unacceptable and has lead to large scale deaths, destruction and misery.

Perhaps dealing with an invasion for a decade plus made me a bit paranoid, but I do support the government being able to regulate the ability of foreign social media/services to influence local politics and spread misinformation and propaganda.

As I mentioned earlier, it’s not all black and white. There are legitimate cases (even without an imminent invasion) where you need to have a measure of control over foreign influence, be it American-style Zuckerburg enabling genocide in Mynmar or Chinese influence campaigns. I don’t see this as being supportive of a Chinese-style total censorship model.