BananaTrifleViolin

The article is very biased - it basically suggests young people are unwilling to read, that AI is a good thing and that the wikipedia contributors are being unreasonable. It goes on to talk about how AI has “extracted value” from Wikipedia in an unquestioning way - no mention of compensation to the project, just talking about what a triumph Wikipedia is a source for AI to train on.

The “Simple Summaries” situation is less to do with the summaries and more to do with the risk of AI slop being introduced into Wikipedia unquestioned. The summaries were unchecked and unverified, which add a real chance that wikipedia started serving up inaccurate summaries and undermined it’s own reputation.

In addition that idea that younger generations don’t have the concentration span to “read a wall of text” is pernicious and patronising nonsense part of a general media bias against Gen Z and Gen Alpha. There seems to be this barely questioned narrative that they have short attention spans and are unwilling or even unable to read, just because they grew up in the era of social media like Instagram and latterly Tik Tok.

I’ll give a better hypothesis for why younger generations spend less time on wikipedia: the big tech giants like Google have stolen all the information people have put on there and serve it up in their own summaries on the search engine (preventing click throughs) or through their own AI slop engines. They don’t want people clicking through to Wikipedia, they want them clicking through to an ad. The problem is not Wikipedia, and the problem is not Gen Z or Gen Alpha; the problem - as is frequently the case - is the tech mega-corporations who steal everything (including wikipedia) and sell it back to us with ads or via AI slop.

Both sides announced this to boost their share prices as they’re both growth stocks. Growth stocks are a trap - no company can keep on growing forever.

This announcement is a sign the AI boom is probably soon to end. Nvidia quietly announcing the $100bn deal isn’t going to happen, is Nvidia trying to reduce it’s exposure to the bubble popping. Unfortunately for Nvidia, it’s already way way too deep into the mess, and the vast majority of it’s value is speculative. The question is have they damaged their core business by chasing the AI bubble, and what liabilities will they be left with if their customers go bankrupt and don’t pay them for their product.

No because time is just time. Time in the moment is a perception of enjoyment and pleasure. That is a choice to be present and take enjoyment in what you’re doing. You don’t need to trade time for time you already have, you just need to use the time you have in the way that makes you enjoy it.

Wow it really is heading towards crisis point when you have people saying “keep feeding the beast or it’ll eat us”.

The Microsoft strategy often seems to be “It worked well, but we completely redid it because we need to justify out existence. Now it barely works with new bugs”

My guess would be the unrest in Iran and the regimes attempts to shut down the internet in that country to prevent organisation?

I game on Linux but these are all FOSS and multiplatform:

• DosBox-X - For my older Dos/PC games
• UAE - For old amiga games
• ScummVM - for my old Adventure games (preferred over Dosbox)
• Wine/Proton - for the vast majority of my gaming on Linux now
• RetroArch - a good all-in-one tool; it uses Libretro as a backend which is basically a distribution method/API to give access to other emulators like Dosbox, ScummVM etc.

There are also dedicated open source engines for old games like OpenTTD for Transport Tycoon Deluxe, and OpenMW for Morrowwind

My rebuttal is “your mom is a b***h”. Cut contact as soon as you can; you don’t need someone like that in your life. She doesn’t value other human beings, and she doesn’t have empathy for the suffering of others. She sounds like a nasty person to be around and all she will do is bring you down - either through her constant negativity or though her hatred of others.

You don’t need to rebut her words - she is an adult and has made her choices - you just need to accept she is not a good person and move on as soon as you can.

It’s not about the item whatever it is, it’s about your reaction to it. This was something your spouse got you to show you that they love you; they bought something they thought you would want and need because they see you using this item all the time. It doesn’t matter that they know you like using old things - for them the thing they got you is an expression of their love for you, and your reaction (lets return it, I don’t want it) is like rejecting their love and is insulting.

I don’t know how you said it to your spouse but the way you’ve described it here your reaction sounds like it was entirely factual and emotionless. It may not be what you’re saying but how you said it that is the issue. Did you acknowledge how kind and thoughtful the gift was? Did you acknowledge what it means to get a nice gift from your spouse before saying that actually it’s not something you’d use?

Instead of seeing it as a tit-for-tat exchange and the same as you gifting t-shirts, you need to understand that this was a personal gift from your spouse. You also need to acknowledge you’re difficult to get gifts for because you like old things. You’re not the bad guy for wanting to return the item, you’re likely the bad guy for how you’ve gone about it and hurting your spouses feelings in the process. It may be that you’re not an emotional person or have difficulty reading other people including your spouse - that’s fine but you may need to acknowledge that you’ve hurt their feelings even if you didn’t realise or mean to, and apologise - that may help a lot. It would also be helpful to tell them how your mother-in-laws gift has sentimental value and you didn’t want to replace it. It may still be that you end up returning the item - but it’s far less important that your relationship with your spouse.

The a specious quote. That implies that all gain can only be at a cost for someone else. Instead of the conservation of mass, we’re talking the conservation of misery. It’s nonsense.

So interesting rabbit hole: Aldi was originally 1 company but split between two brothers into Aldi Nord and Aldi Sud (Aldi North and Aldi South) in the 1960s in Germany. The two companies share the same Aldi name, and work somewhat together but are separate and have their own territories. They are owned by the families of the original owners, and they do not compete directly against each other.

Aldi Sud covers southern Germany, eastern and southern Europe, the UK, Ireland, Australia and the USA. In the UK Aldi has got a reputation as a good employer, a discount supermarket that offers quality, and is the fastest growing supermarket. All the competitors now do “price matches” to Aldi to try and keep up. Aldi in the USA, Ireland and Australia are seemingly run very similar to the Aldi in the UK and of course in it’s base in Germany.

Meanwhile, Aldi Nord covers northern Germany, the Benelux countries, France, Spain and Portugal amongst others. It seems Aldi does not have as good a reputation in some of these countries? I can see stuff about aldi being dirty, with poor products and poor customer service. Not sure how true that is, but that is definitely not Aldi’s reputation in the UK where I live. Clean, good quality and happy staff is my experience.

So when you see Aldi in the anglosphere part of the internet, it’s all about Aldi Sud. Also total random aside but the 2 companies do compete in the US: Aldi Sud runs Aldi, while Aldi Nord sort-of-owns Trader Joe’s (it’s a “sister company” owned by the owners of Aldi Nord).

EDIT: Also in the UK, Aldi and Lidl are very similar in quality and style. Although Lidl does more fresh baked goods, and I personally prefer it but Aldi is nearer for me so I shop there.