This becomes obviously and extremely dumb once you try to imagine how this "going to hell" actually looks like. What you're saying is, if you opened a Wikipedia article 15 or 20 years ago, you'd find "great" content, but in the meantime that article has become "shit". Pure nonsense.
In an another comment you say it's bad that you have to double check the sources. But when it started, Wikipedia barely used sources at all! Just look at some random articles from the early days and see for yourself. These days an overabundance of sources could well be more of a problem for editors of big article.
There are thousands of recorded, proven cases of incorrect and malicious updates to pages on there.
Thousands? Probably tens, even hundred of thousands! You know how they're "recorded and proven" most of the time? Through the built-in system that tracks every change since the site was created, and allows editors to check who did what, verify and reverse the bad edits.
The co-founder also said Wikipedia is "broken beyond repair"... back in 2007. Already in 2006 he founded a website that he wanted to compete with WP. Is that before or after your "went to hell" era? My impression is, the guy is just butthurt the project has grown beyond him.
As a relatively active WP editor, I agree that you absolutely shouldn't take it for granted, and there's a lot of absolutely frustrating crap on there, and there's much that one would want to see fixed and improved structurally. But I really can't tolerate this sort of nonsensical criticism.
LLMs do seem to be able to store the chats and work with the old material in new conversations, requiring an account of course. Idk, I haven't personally used any of them that extensively.
We can discuss the details, neither do I like his response overall, but you're massively overblowing and demonizing his position. Anyone can check for themselves. If this is how you think a transphobic fascist-lite sounds, if you think he would actually appeal to any republican voters thanks to this response, you must have a very caricatural understanding of politics and society.
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
For me, the frequency of which character I played is probably huntress>wizard=assassin>warrior. But I kind of fell out of the loop when evan (the dev) introduced a whole new class 😅
Notice how the article implies Samsung and other corporations don’t want to do this, even though it’s something they’ve wanted to do for a long time?
It's already disproportionately difficult to just root a Samsung phone, so this change perfectly fits the pattern. (Posting this from a new Samsung phone that I'm desperately trying to root.)
You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity
From the article:
Location also affects how carbon emissions are managed. Germany has the largest carbon footprint for video streaming at 76g CO₂e per hour of streaming, reflecting its continued reliance on coal and fossil fuels. In the UK, this figure is 48g CO₂e per hour, because its energy mix includes renewables and natural gas, increasingly with nuclear as central to the UK’s low-carbon future. France, with a reliance on nuclear is the lowest, at 10g CO₂e per hour.
This is a massive difference, and clearly doable, nothing that would be limited to the distant future.
So I get this right? I'm naive for expecting govt regulations to put companies' behaviour under control, whereas you're realistic by expecting hundreds of millions of people deciding to systematically minimise their Youtube/Tiktok/Spotify/Netflix/Zoom usage? Hmm, alright.
And yet in an another comment you also expect that Spotify shouldn't introduce video streaming, without any external regulation but out of pure goodness of their hearts?
No, since the article doesn't mention anything of that sort. I really, really doubt that in the world of crypto mining and AI training the average people streaming some music and music videos will make a substantial difference. Your degrowth-oriented approach sounds like it would just solidify the already highly monopolised market, as any new players or innovation can be met with the "wastes too much bandwidth" hammer, as is this new service by Spotify right here.
I highly recommend reading research about the sustainability of the internet.
Decarbonising electricity would substantially mitigate the climate impacts linked to Internet consumption, while the use of mineral and metal resources would remain of concern. A synergistic combination of rapid decarbonisation and additional measures aimed at reducing the use of fresh raw materials in electronic devices (e.g., lifetime extension) is paramount to prevent the growing Internet demand from exacerbating the pressure on the finite Earth’s carrying capacity.
Sounds good to me! With no mention of having to limit our internet usage.
And if reducing bandwidth waste really were that important, it would have go both ways anyway, with the providers optimising their content (probably forced to do so by regulations in some way).
This becomes obviously and extremely dumb once you try to imagine how this "going to hell" actually looks like. What you're saying is, if you opened a Wikipedia article 15 or 20 years ago, you'd find "great" content, but in the meantime that article has become "shit". Pure nonsense.
In an another comment you say it's bad that you have to double check the sources. But when it started, Wikipedia barely used sources at all! Just look at some random articles from the early days and see for yourself. These days an overabundance of sources could well be more of a problem for editors of big article.
Thousands? Probably tens, even hundred of thousands! You know how they're "recorded and proven" most of the time? Through the built-in system that tracks every change since the site was created, and allows editors to check who did what, verify and reverse the bad edits.
The co-founder also said Wikipedia is "broken beyond repair"... back in 2007. Already in 2006 he founded a website that he wanted to compete with WP. Is that before or after your "went to hell" era? My impression is, the guy is just butthurt the project has grown beyond him.
As a relatively active WP editor, I agree that you absolutely shouldn't take it for granted, and there's a lot of absolutely frustrating crap on there, and there's much that one would want to see fixed and improved structurally. But I really can't tolerate this sort of nonsensical criticism.