Using Kiwix you can keep older versions of Wikipedia locally on your computer, so if the online version reaches an unusable state, you can still view the articles as they used to be. Of course, it won't have information about anything that happened after that point, but it could still be useful for some purposes.
The real top boss is the Chairman of the Board of Directors, although the Chairman is often appointed CEO, it doesn't always happen. The Board of Directors is made up of large shareholders - the people who actually own the company. The CEO is technically just an employee and needn't own any shares at all (although that would be extremely abnormal).
So, there may actually be a time when a corporation's Board decides to use an "AI" as their CEO to cut costs.
I saw an interesting video suggesting that the real motivation is to give megacorps like Google a new business acting as "banks" for identity, i.e. the Internet would get so inconvenient that people would just save their identity with Google (or Meta, etc) and then use them to log in to other websites.
People in the comments pointed out that those companies would also have the ability to delete or suspend your identity verification if you did something they didn't like (or refused to do something they wanted). Reminds me of the SIN from Shadowrun .
The term "social media" is already toxic. When I started using the Internet, socialising and media were two separate things. Conflating the two implies that every time we say something, we are publishing an article and should care about how many views and likes we get, instead of making a genuine attempt at connection. And it suggests that every reply should be some kind of review of the post it replies to.
In the days of forums, people would just post what came into mind. They were more honest because there was no number next to your comment rating how good it was.
Client-side scripting is a hack. HTML didn't have all the tags people wanted or needed, so instead of carefully updating it to include new features, they demanded that browsers just execute arbitrary code on the user's computer, and with that comes security vulnerabilities, excessive bandwidth use and a barrier-to-entry that makes it difficult to develop new browsers, giving one company a near-monopoly.
Besides the trackers and malware, ads can be categorised as a flaw in technology. A kind of software parasite that uses a computer's resources without providing any additional functionality to the user.
Kind of, but with automation. So if you trust site A 90%, and site A trusts site B 90%, then from your PoV, site B has 81% trust* (which you can choose to replace with your own trust rating, if you want).
Could have applications in building a new kind of search engine even.
I'm just guessing how the maths would work, it probably requires a little more sophisticated system that that, such as starting sites at 50% and only increasing or decreasing the rating based on sites you already trust.
Perhaps some kind of fediweb that allows sites to rank other sites for trustworthiness. Then as a user you mark a few sites as trusted, and use their judgement to find more sites.
Got me thinking about how YouTubers get money. According to a quick web search, YT pays $0.01 to $0.03 per view. So if you release 10 videos a month, you made $0.10 per viewer. But Patreon memberships are typically around $5.00 a month, equivalent to $0.50 per view in the same scenario. Of course Patreon will take a cut, but it is still a lot more money.
So, if a lot of your viewers think your channel is good enough to donate to, ad money basically becomes an afterthought. In this case, the only advantage of YT over PT is discovery, i.e. the number of viewers likely to find your videos in the first place (but there's also more competition on YT, so...)
LLMs arguably disprove the validity of the Turing Test.