CEOs have very little to do with the failure or success of most large companies. If they work very hard they can pull a company out of a death spiral, or start it down one, but failure or success takes years if not decades of steady improvement or decline. All the examples of “failures” given in the article are terrible and don’t demonstrate at all that those CEOs were bad.

One of the worst problems with businesses in the US currently is this culture of fetishizing CEOs. They’re paid far too much for what they actually bring to companies, and people grossly exaggerate how much of an impact CEOs have on companies. If you want proof of his just take a look at literally any company Elon Musk is a CEO of. The fact that none of those companies (particularly Twitter) have filed for bankruptcy yet shows exactly how little a truly terrible CEO actually impacts things.

Honestly the article is bullshit. It’s right, but for all the wrong reasons. Intel isn’t failing because it failed to buy OpenAI or partner with Apple. Intel is failing because they’ve made shit design decisions on their chips, sat on their laurels when they were riding high and just raised prices (giving up the engineering lead to AMD and TSMC), and then utterly fumbled the responses to multiple public failures when things started to go down hill.

LLMs are basically just really fancy search engines. The reason the initial code is garbage is that it’s cut and pasted together from random crap the LLM found on the net under various keywords. It gets more performant when you ask because then the LLM is running a different search. The first search was “assemble some pieces of code to accomplish X”, while the second search was “given this sample of code find parts of it that could be optimized”, two completely different queries.

As noted in another comment the true fatal flaw of LLMs is that they don’t really have a threshold for just saying " I don’t know that" as they are inherently probabilistic in nature. When asked something they can’t find an answer for they assemble a lexically probable response from similar search results even in cases where it’s wildly wrong. The more uncommon and niche your search is the more likely this is to happen. In other words they work well for finding very common information, and increasingly worse the less common that information is.

But not really. The Settings menu has never been as useful as Control Panel and there’s still a ton of functionality that can only be accessed from the Control Panel. This and many other moves by MS recently are why Windows 10 is the last version of Windows I’ll be using. With the work Valve has done to support SteamDeck I can finally go 100% Linux.

SteamOS is based on Arch with customization by Valve to make it immutable and a few other tweaks. In theory Valve will release SteamOS Holo (the version used on SteamDeck) for usage on Desktop at some point, but that hasn’t happened yet. In the meantime you can achieve very similar results to SteamOS a variety of ways. Depending on if you care about immutability or not there’s a number of non-Arch distros and even a install script (astOS) that can install Arch configured in an immutable fashion similar to what SteamOS does. There’s also a number of non-immutable gaming focused distros the most prominent of them being Manjaro. Any of them once you install Steam will function very similar to each other and SteamOS.

For now. If enough of the market shifts to Linux those companies will support Linux. Particularly since the CrowdStrike fiasco has spurred Microsoft to crack down on kernel level access which means the days of anti-cheat rootkits are numbered. It’s not going to be long before there’s no functional difference between gaming on Windows and gaming on Linux.

It’s debatable if D-Wave is actually a quantum computer at least in the sense most people use the term. There’s a lot of unanswered questions still on exactly how to use and design a quantum computer and we’re not likely to get those answers until we can reliably produce and run systems with at least 8 qubits. Maybe DARPA and the military/CIA has such systems, but I don’t think anyone else does.

Quantum computers are still mostly theoretical. We have some of the building blocks of one, but there’s still a few critical pieces missing. Quantum computers are in about the same place as fusion reactors are. Theoretically possible but not currently producible in a form that’s useful without a few more technological breakthroughs.

Just wait. At the rate they’re going it won’t be long before you’re forced to sit through a 30 second full screen ad in order to even open the start menu.

Further reason, the physical button isn’t always in a location that’s convenient to push. Sure it’s usually accessible, but sometimes it’s under a desk or behind a monitor or some other awkward location. Mouse and keyboard by their nature are always located in a conveniently accessible location.

Seems to be a combination of students too distracted playing on their phones and difficulty policing behavior on social media bleeding into school time. They give an example of students filming a student being bullied on school grounds and the video being uploaded and shared on social media. I’m not sure banning smart phones during school hours is the right solution, but it’s certainly a tricky problem to deal with.

I’m sure in his wet dreams Reddit is no longer a community site but a thinly veiled astroturfing platform that’s paid billions by large corporations to get their adsposts in front of users.

That sounds like the only acceptable use of that sub to me.

Yeah, that was the laughingstock I mentioned. It’s basically a really terrible highway underground that’s worse in just about every possible way from a normal highway. If I recall it’s a 2 lane road and the top speed was only like 35 mph or something. It’s a complete joke.

Have they not gone bankrupt yet? I just kind of assumed they had once their “prototypes” turned into a complete laughing-stock and having not heard anything from them in years.

Many Chinese manufacturers don’t have close ties to the government,

Citation severely needed. Any company operating in China has close ties to the government, it’s literally a requirement to get a business license there.

and any non Chinese phone that you can buy also has backdoors, and quite frankly, for average Joe, their local government may be scarier than the chinese gorvernment.

Maybe, but it really shouldn’t and if it does that’s a problem. It’s a question of non-Chinese phone might have a backdoor, vs. Chinese phone that definitely has a backdoor. Either way saying “other options are just as bad” doesn’t make it a good option.

Also, your data is being used by the Googles, Microsofts, Apples, etc… in vast quantities daily. We are the product generally.

Yes, and that’s a major problem. It’s why there are various replacement firmwares to de-google your phone as well as other techniques to block or disable collection. Once again though, this doesn’t excuse Chinese phones doing this.

Also, remember that most brands manufacture in China, and there are ways to substitute components where the brand would be unsuspecting of the switch.

Sure, supply chain attacks are a thing. In theory there are ways to combat that but it’s a tricky problem. If a Chinese manufacturer got caught doing that though it would be a major international incident. Yet again though just because that might be a risk with any phone doesn’t mean you should just accept and use a phone that’s known to have a backdoor.

I’m willing to work with websites to find a way to pay for them. I’m not willing to work with ad companies. Websites that want my business either come up with a way to make money that doesn’t rely on ads or they put up with ad blocking. That’s it, those are the only two options.

Assuming both the ad and the JS to track said ad are served from a 3rd party (or at least a different domain) that would hold at least so far as recording impressions goes. On the other hand there’s still the conversions part of this to consider, although without recordings of impressions the utility of that (and privacy risk) is debatable.

Ultimately I don’t like being opted into anything that collects data, theoretically anonymized or not. I don’t like that this DAP process is running in the background and randomly sending data to some 3rd party (once I figure out that hostname it’s absolutely getting blackholed at the network level).

Ads are a plague, you give them even an inch and they’ll eventually take everything. It started with broadcast TV, then ads overran it. So they introduced cable. Sure it was expensive, but no ads! Then ads started creeping in and before you knew it cable was a complete ad infested shitshow. Then along comes streaming, a breath of fresh air. Watch what you want, we you want, and best of all no ads. Where are we now? The ads are slowly creeping back in and before long it will be just as bad as cable, 40 minutes of ads in every hour of video.

For a while we’ve been winning the war on the internet, able with some effort to hold back the tide, and Firefox was one of the last bastions that seemed to be working with us instead of against us. This though looks like a crack in the armor. It’s the first step along a path we don’t want to go down. I don’t want Mozilla wasting development time pandering to ad companies, I want them improving the browser for us the users. The only ad related content I want to see from Mozilla is improved ad blocking.

Maybe, but I’m not seeing anything that suggests that would be possible.

Here is the technical documentation for how this feature works. The short version is that it exposes some new JS functions that sites can invoke to register various ad related activities. That data in turn gets forwarded by the browser to a 3rd party using a protocol called DAP which can be considered out of band for the purposes of website interactions. I see no evidence at all that uBlock would be able to block the DAP calls, and limited evidence it could effectively block the JS functions.

uBlock works primarily by blocking network requests using a series of rules. Here is the syntax supported by uBlock for defining its blocking rules. It primarily works by inspecting hostnames, although there is some capability to match on things like HTTP headers, or raw text. There is the capability of blocking an entire script element if it matches specific text E.G. navigator.privateAttribution, however doing so is likely to break sites quite drastically. There is very limited ability to surgically remove such things. Maybe if you injected some JS into each page that overwrites the navigator.privateAttribution namespace with stub functions that do nothing (I believe this is actually what the browser does when you opt-out of that feature), but I’m not sure if that’s even possible or if the browser would simply ignore attempts to write to that namespace.

It’s possible Firefox is being “smart” and if it sees you have uBlock or similar ad blocking extensions loaded it disables this feature. It’s possible that there’s some extra tricks uBlock or other extensions can pull to block this at a more fundamental level that just aren’t obvious from looking at their documentation. But nothing in the documentation for this feature seems to guarantee any of that, and it’s frustratingly vague in several areas. Regardless none of that changes the fact that this should have been opt-in from the start instead of opt-out. Mozilla argues that they made this opt-out because they wanted to insure a large enough user base to anonymize the collected data, but that alone suggests there might be privacy problems with this entire thing. This wouldn’t be the first time that a supposedly anonymized data set could be at least partially de-anonymized.

They can certainly try (and many already do with the anti-adblocking attempts) but I’ve yet to see one succeed. It’s trivially easy to evade nearly all attempts at browser identification, and even trying to detect ad blocking is hard to accomplish.

I do follow release notes which is how I knew to disable it, but the point is that I shouldn’t need to. The reason Mozilla didn’t ask before enabling this “feature” is because they know most people would disable it. That should be a pretty big clue that this isn’t something their users want.