pluralmonad

"I want to be a Kardashian when I grow up..."

First time I've heard somebody call recognizing the evils of ad tech cynicism.

Your clarification aligns perfectly with the final statement in GPs comment. Most people do not realize the extent and invasiveness of googles voyeurism.

You sign up once and login an arbitrary number of times. Not sure how signing up is ever the more frequent path. I've signed up for things I use maybe at most twice throughout a lifetime. Logins I couldn't even begin to count.

I've come to view the goal of things being cheap as an anti goal. The biggest contribution to us speed running killing our ecosystems. Maybe all of us going without more often would end up with a significantly higher standard of living in the long term.

Maybe try and build something and see for yourself? Saying elixir is not fit for real world use shows how little experience with it you have.

Such a delight to use and the core team seems to always make the right decision.

I like to think I have a sense of humor, but if this is funny, maybe I don't.

A malware OS installing other malware seems fitting.

How does one "win the AI race?"

If there is a concrete finish line, there are likely no winners.

OpenCode Zen gives api rate access to lots of different models. You can get a lot done with Deepseek v4 for pennies.

In that context it is still not theft. The term is copyright infringement, a distinct fiction and categorically not theft.

Only if you operate under the misguided assumption that the law cannot be wrong. I care less for legalese than morals. Its plainly not theft, regardless of the hand wringing of bureaucrats and gatekeepers.

Brother, arranging 0s and 1s a particular way on storage you own is not theft in any context.

Hopefully most of these folks that have been scammed know how to sail the high seas.

Why wouldn't they? It patronizes and infantilizes most of them. You can see the father knows best attitude all over this very forum. Calls for locking users out of their phones for their own good are seen here daily and that is just one example. When something big acts continually to disempower a group of people, of course some of them will resent it.

This works for me:

echo "0.0.0.0 youtube.com www.youtube.com m.youtube.com" | sudo tee -a /etc/hosts

Well, none of them _need_ age verification.

"We" should not be involved in the raising of strangers children. This perspective is one of the oddest to creep out of modernity.

I know this sounds bad, but when has consent mattered before? I agree with you wholeheartedly, but consent is simply not something these power structures value.

That seems backwards to me. You can choose to personally not do business with whatever big tech corp you dislike. Men with guns will show up at your house if you stop "doing business" with the regional government.

I would like the USB-C connector was more durable. I've literally never killed a USB-A connector, but enough lateral force and USB-C just breaks. I suppose it was made so small due to mobile devices, which is understandable, but came with tradeoffs.

I think this is one reason online anonymity is so important for some of us. It is the thing that let's us tamp down the great unification, at least a little.

Ad tech comes with a whole bundle of mal-incentives, like engagement hacking. If you are supported by ad revenue then your primary job is to get your users to look at ads. That's an ad company, for our purposes here.

What are some direct solar appliances or equipment you've found that you like?

Yes, ad (supported) companies are a large subset of the former. I am not sure what point you are attempting to make.

The people deciding between delivering their payload via app or web page. Engagement hacking is not something we have to guess that ad companies want.

Not being invisible in public is different than being continually monitored, analyzed, and cataloged. The "no expectation of privacy in public" argument seems in bad faith to me since it ignores this vast difference.

Is there a defensible position from which to advocate removing the ability of other people to communicate privately? I can't think of any.

There will always be those who make excuses for the panopticon. Is yours that reducing auto theft is worth the tradeoffs?