CGI was a pretty early invention, so you would have had to be on the Web very early indeed to remember when it was entirely static. Main difference between the server-side era and now was that the usual way for pages to show changes back then was to autotrigger the browser’s reload mechanism after a fixed time.
From the viewpoint of an observing human, what’s the difference between the robot saying something which is believes to be true but isn’t (very common with current software, and unlikely to change even in the distant future, see “humans, purportedly intelligent”) and lying on purpose? If it lies on purpose, does the intent to lie come from the robot itself, or its programmers? Ultimately, it seems like the presence and source of intent is the only difference. Regardless, a robot will never be right about everything it says, so its statements have to be weighed in a way similar to how one would weigh statements coming from a human.
TL;DR: I expect robots to tell me untruths from time to time regardless of how I feel about it.
Different group, I think, and not as close to success. The thylacine has a better chance at long-term survival if we do bring it back, though—it isn’t an ice age creature, and it was surviving despite competition from other creatures in a similar niche until humans started aggressively hunting it down.
It suggests that the best the chatbot can do, after being carefully tailored for its job, is no better than the old methods (because the goal is for the students to be able to handle the subject matter without having to check every common operation with a third party, regardless of whether that’s a chatbot or a textbook, and the test is the best indicator of that). Therefore, spending the electricity to run an educational chatbot for highschoolers isn’t justified at this time, but it’s probably worth rechecking in a few years to see if its results have improved. It may also be worth doing extended testing to determine whether there are specific subsets of the student body that benefit more from the chatbot than others. And allowing the students to seek out an untailored chatbot on their own is strongly counterindicated.
Not that long gone—the last relict population on Wrangel Island only died out about 4000 years ago. That’s (barely) within historic time. There are probably islands in the Canadian and Siberian Arctic that could still support them (and have no or few human inhabitants).
I see two big issues. First of all, not all knowledge among elephants is transmitted genetically, and I expect mammoths were the same. Who will the new ones learn from? They’ll have to redevelop best practices for dealing with their environment from scratch.
Secondly, global warming. This seems like about the worst possible time to bring back an ice-age-adapted critter. We’d be better off transferring the effort spent on this project into de-extincting the thylacine, a more recent loss which doesn’t have that specific issue.
Except the-service-formerly-known-as-Twitter isn’t being “shut down”, it’s being stopped at the Brazilian border. This actually happens all the time with print publications in many countries that don’t take Free Speech to toxic extremes—they get confiscated at the border by Customs officials. It’s less common these days than it used to be, but I’d bet that there are still instances of fringe porn and unapologetic Nazi propaganda being seized.
X-Twitter is free to go about its business in the country in which it’s based and in any other country where it hasn’t been banned, just not in Brazil, until and unless it decides to comply with the courts there. Which it is free to do at any time.
I think it depends on the individual. The ones I get are definitely crappy (and occasionally hilarious, like the time it was trying to sell me a copy of Latin for Gardeners.)
Join an instance that’s already explicitly defederated from them (there are several). Or set up your own.
Skimming the article, the suggestion seems to be to use “people” or “humans” rather than “users” This is idiotic on the face of it: “user” refers specifically to a person who is interacting with a computer, not just any person. There are, y’know, still human beings in this world who have never encountered a computer. Some of them never will. There’s no wifi on North Sentinel Island, but the inhabitants are definitely humans and people.
Exact same number of characters (5), and “UXers” requires pressing the shift key while “users” doesn’t. So it’s a fail from the typing efficiency point of view.
I have often mused on how to remotely demolish billboards along highways.
Rocket launcher? If you’re in the US you might even be able to obtain one legally. If you can’t, maybe a truck-mounted trebuchet would work.
There’s no winning a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, especially when having no moles (=viewers) left also means that you lose.
There is a certain unfortunate irony in the realization that one of the easiest ways to avoid this kind of thing is to buy a commercial digital signage panel intended for advertising instead of a consumer TV.
For search engines, this is an interesting list: A look at search engines with their own indexes. It doesn’t cover every possible Bing frontend, but it gives you some idea of where else to try if your default search engine gives you nothing.
As for web browsers, a short practical list broken down by rendering engine looks like this:
Those are all under active development.
This is almost ten years old, and NPAPI plugins have been desupported by pretty much everything except Pale Moon, which forked from Firefox so long ago that it also still supports XUL.
The answer is more than one, because Firefox has several forks of its own, and as far as I know all of them (even Pale Moon, which is highly divergent and never supported Manifest V2) support uBlock.
I agree that all Chromium-based browsers are going to drop support sooner or later.
Makes sense on ultrawides.
In which case, the question becomes: what percentage of users are actually using ultrawides? If it isn’t >50%, then the default should be the setting most appropriate to non-ultrawides. Unless you’re going to autodetect screen resolution and set the button’s location appropriately.
This is not rocket science, but Windows has been blowing it for quite some time now.
Given that Disney’s history with litigation and human rights is pretty vile, I am not terribly surprised by this.
That’s because you lack the political will to fix the actual problem, which isn’t an issue anywhere else in the world and has absolutely nothing to do with communications.
Keyboard typing is a manual skill distinct from tech savvy and has to be taught as such. You’re not going to learn it by dealing with a touchscreen swipe “keyboard”. I’ve known a fair number of programmers who were two-finger typists because they were too busy taking CS courses to learn to type.
On the gripping hand, my early-Boomer mother, who learned on typewriters, can type fast and accurately but is quite technophobic.