Mozilla's tracking is not even in the same ballpark as Microsoft's and Google's. I agree that the hypocrisy is annoying but saying they're worse than FAANG is just wrong.
I see your point but... not sure if I agree. Here's an example:
Mozilla makes Google the default search engine in Firefox for all users. That's FAANG + misinformation + hypocrisy + perversity on my book.
Misinformation because you can´t be serious about privacy if your default search engine is Google.
Hypocrisy because they position themselves as a privacy-focused product but they still push Google, Pocket, ads and other nasty stuff.
Perversity because they emotionally manipulate users to make them feel safe, while at the same time they make them vulnerable to tracking.
Today I installed Firefox on my iPhone. When you launch the app, there's a child-like drawing of a smiling woman hugging the FF logo.
A heading reads "Welcome to an independent internet". Subheading reads "Firefox puts people over profits and defends your privacy as you browse".
Whatever you type on the URL bar connects you to Google. So... because of their defaults any user action will lead such user in exactly the opposite direction of what they were promised a second ago. That's perverse and disturbing.
I'm done with Mozilla and Firefox, they need to be exposed and shamed like any other FAANG orgs.
I've been wishing and hoping they get things right but this behavior has now been going on for over a decade.
> Mozilla makes Google the default search engine in Firefox for all users
Be still, my beating heart! Thank goodness Apple doesn't subtly push Google search on it's users or anything. Otherwise it might feel like you're throwing stones from a glass house.
> they need to be exposed and shamed like any other FAANG orgs
They're not a FAANG org. They are a nonprofit that publishes their code and optionally allows you to use their software.
The parent comment is right - whatever "misinformation + hypocrisy + perversity" you perceive Mozilla to be responsible has been done 100fold by your pick of any Fortune 500 company. If your largest demonstrable harm is "defaulting to Google" then we shall expose and shame every big tech org connected to AWS or GCP.
That's a false comparison. You can still edit documents using LibreOffice installed via flatpak, or, like probably most users, use Google Docs, Office 365, or OnlyOffice.
Meanwhile without proper HDR support and better color management, Linux desktop is basically a non-starter for any professional creative use-case, including design, animation, illustration, image and video editing.
Ideally both would be done but they seem to have limited resources, so in this scenario I personally fully support their choice as it will enable Linux desktop usage to a whole new user-base (which is also a paying user-base, namely animation studios that use RHEL).
If they have real studios using it I'm guessing this just means plug and play HDR support? As opposed some previously working set up requiring tweaking it yourself?
To my knowledge, there was no working HDR of any kind until the last year, when Valve hacked in hardware-specific HDR into Gamescope, and even that only works if you really get your hands dirty.
Last month there was a hackathon with all the big players (Valve, AMD, Nvidia, KDE, Red Hat, Wayland) to finally settle on a plan for universal compositor HDR implementation.
No, HDR basically doesn't exist on Linux at this stage. I believe there's some (insufficient) scaffolding in the kernel for it, but no support in the common display stacks.
I've moved from Ubuntu to Fedora and it's been more stable while also being more up-to-date without rolling-release distros headaches. Strongly recommend it.
I gave Fedora a try some years ago (4-5?) and had a couple of issues with nvidia drivers. Whats the status these days? I also have a long history with debs, so going to rpm is a mystery for me :)
Also to add. Fedora has a 6 month release cycle for versions and a version is supported for about 13 months I think.
But during this time they regularly update packages. My kernel is always the latest version.
But I trust it because Fedora has a massive testing automated update and testing system. Every package is thoroughly tested for regressions and other things.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ to look for yourself.
It is also integrated into their bug and other systems so it's a very well oiled machine.
It's been rock solid stable for me and I've been running it since 35. And upgrades are super easy.
There is also COPR which is their AUR/PPA hybrid system that lets them provide a way for users to setup their own repos but build using Fedoras learnings and systems. It's pretty cool.
Also with `dnf` RPMs are as easy as DEBs. And some of the commands are similar.
I find dnf is even smarter and better at managing dependencies.
I only ever run 2-3 commands. `dnd install` `dnf update` and `dnf remove`. Update handles the repo refresh and actually updating packages. And force refreshing repos you just add `--refresh` to the command. Otherwise it does it every few hours on its own (the refreshing of repos, not installing updates)
Fedora is a breath of fresh air after decades of Ubuntu, and then Manjaro. I wouldnt go back and I have used Ubuntu since 5.04 til 22.04
Nvidia is still nvidia -- with newer kernels you may occasionally find some build problems for their drivers. Fedora amplifies this by using such recent kernels
There are better packages/attempts at handling it, but I still find myself switching it to an LTS kernel if I have Nvidia or ZFS involved.
Good news, the current US administration is aware, and has committed many billions of dollars to make resources available, and presumably will continue to do so.
No, we shouldn't. ChatGPT isn't a search engine, it's a language model.
The AI isn't getting this made-up information from anywhere on the internet; it's creating it itself because that's what it's made to do: generate good sounding sentences that "make sense" for some user input.
No, what you are writing is not correct. It can make up "information" on the fly. It's goal is to sound plausible, not to tell the truth.
Second, the "language model" is a text completion engine. What can be controlled using conversational natur language is ChatGPT, which is a conversational engine developed out of a language model.
I don't think I am: I just read the transcript of a quite funny chatgpt conversation, where it was asked to explain about a hungarian poet (Petőfi Sándor) in hungarian. It listed some true facts, then a list of the "most famous poems", including a bunch that didn't exist. Then the user asked about a particular one titled "The Panther". It responded by explainin about the poem, how it's main theme is fight for freedom (Petőfi was a big figure in the hungarian revolution of 1848), and how the panther itself symbolizes freedom and self-sacrifice. It even quoted a few lines from the poem (it didn't rhyme, but otherwise was very plausible to have been written by Petőfi).
See, "The Panther" is not a poem of Petőfi. The quote was not from any other work of him. It's not from the Rilke poem (or its translations I know of) either. It's completely made up, but also made to sound very plausible, to the point where if I didn't know better or look it up, I could be convinced. The only thing suspicios is the lack of rhyming.
I put information in quotes because I don't consider made up stuff information.
How are you coming to the conclusion that it's invented information, rather than — reworded / rephrased — incorrect information that an actual human has provided online?
I can't exclude the possibility. But kind of in the same sense that I can't exclude the possibility that it's actually true. Sure, might be that I'm simply not aware of the poem, etc. I find this extremely unlikely.
I also find it extremely unlikely that someone on the internet invented this tale about "the panther" and chatgpt just rephrased it or quoted it. The internet is full of actual true lists of Petőfi's famous poems, but it isn't full of people inventing fake poems of his.
On a very theoretical level, sure, it's a rephrasing and combination of pieces of stuff ChatGPT has actually been trained on, because it has seen hungarian text, it has learned stuff about Petőfi, it has seen every single word that its using. But after a certain point, combining known words and text structures with bits of semantic knowledge in unexpected ways becomes a new invented thing, instead of just quotes.
But you can see many examples of ChatGPT inventing things like urls, python libraries, etc. It's perfectly capable of bulshitting believably.
> I can't exclude the possibility. But kind of in the same sense that I can't exclude the possibility that it's actually true. Sure, might be that I'm simply not aware of the poem, etc. I find this extremely unlikely.
Except it is able to synthesize information. Which is more than just regurgitating content found elsewhere.
You can ask him to synthesize the main thoughts of a philosopher, and it will produce an original set of sentences that nobody has ever written anywhere else.
Are humans able to produce truely novel content, ever ? I’d say in a given field, it maybe occurs once in a decade and we call those people genius. It’s a bit too much to ask to an AI don’t you think ?
Academia is currently exploring multiple use cases, and some are already being used in real world scenarios. Permissioned blockchains for example can have multiple use cases in enterprise.
An example is supply chain management [0] and supply chain traceability, which is already in use at Walmart [1].
This is all the more reason to state it as a yearly salary. There are only 12 months in a year. You might get 2 extra paychecks but those are bonuses/irregular payments; there aren’t magically 2 extra months in the year.
Gnome 40+ is basically perfect for me after adding the "AppIndicators", "Bluetooth Quick Connect" and "Sound Input and Output" extensions.
I absolutely love being able to click a single key and being able to easily:
- see all windows open across monitors
- drag windows to different desktops / monitors
- close any window and re-organize the whole thing (something I can't do on macOS)
Default apps are also pretty good and the whole DE is super stable and snappy.
My only complaints are the GTK file picker being useless and the title bars taking too much space on non-gnome apps (which don't have window decorations).
But Apple does have an ad-network, and they do sell access to it. It might not be Google/Facebook-level yet, but nothing stops them from continuing that path as a means to generate more revenue in the future.
People always seem to ignore the obvious. In addition to advertising, Apple partners with third parties to sell stuff "directly" (with Apple as the middleman) to the computer owner after the sale of the computer is complete. Apple takes a cut. Music, e-books, software, etc. Apple wants credit card numbers for future use; most purchasers comply.
Buy stuff using an Apple computer and Apple makes money.
There once was a time when Apple computers were just computers, not an intended means for capturing further revenue after purchase by partnering with media companies and other sellers. There was no mandatory data collection after purchase. No submission of credit card numbers. I still have one of those Apple computers. The company changed. Whether that was in response to what other companies were doing, e.g., Google, "changes in the industry", etc., is left as a question for the reader.
A patent application from Apple some years ago described advertising embedded into the operating ssystem. (Imagine the computer refusing to boot until the user has viewed an ad.) Perhaps we could tell ourselves Steve Jobs was trying to protect computer owners from advertising by filing for claims to the most annoying advertising tactics imaginable, with the intent to never practice these inventions and to sue alleged infringers. No doubt online commenters will have more cogent explanations of what this application represents.
People always seem to ignore the obvious. In addition to advertising, Apple partners with third parties to sell stuff "directly" (with Apple as the middleman) to the computer owner after the sale of the computer is complete. Apple takes a cut. Music, e-books, software, etc. Apple wants credit card numbers for future use; most purchasers comply.
Buy stuff using an Apple computer and Apple makes money.
There once was a time when Apple computers were just computers, not an intended means for capturing further revenue after purchase by partnering with media companies and other sellers. There was no mandatory data collection after purchase. No submission of credit card numbers. I still have one of those Apple computers. The company changed. Whether that was in response to what other companies were doing, e.g., Google, "changes in the industry", etc., is left as a question for the reader.
There was a patent application from Apple some years ago regarding advertising embedded into the operating ssystem. (Imagine the computer refusing to boot until the user has viewed an ad.) Perhaps we could tell ourselves Steve Jobs was trying to protect us by filing for claims to the most annoying advertising tactics imaginable, with the intent to never practice these inventions and to sue anyone who does. No doubt online commenters will have more cogent explanations of what this application represents.
