Both could be filtered out in theory (which they should do if they were smart, because amount of training data matters way less than quality or training data), but filtering AI created slop is harder, especially if you just slightly modify it.

<5min Germany

Honestly, this sounds great!

Funding.json is a good idea for a standard proposal and seems to solve most problems I‘d personally recognize with FOSS funding :)

Yeah, but I don’t know whether you’ve recently taken a look in one of the local newspapers— being able to select topics you want to read about may very well be worth the extra effort (also, fun of course)

iOS user here, uYou++ is quite good, but only a mod for the regular YT app, not a complete alternative.

YouTube is/ its ads are are extremely privacy intrusive and there isn’t really an alternative to the platform. Next to the comparatively obvious network effects all social media platforms rely on is also because YouTube on its own is not that profitable and probably only really makes Google money via the data collected on the platform. This means only platforms that have a gigantic ad network themselves and are able to monetize said data as well as Google can can actually compete with YouTube— and as you see, there are basically none.

Also, the whole blocking ad blockers thing is trying to fundamentally reverse the power equilibrium between the website (the server) and the person visiting it (the client); because for the last 40 years or so, the server had the purpose of delivering content to the client which could decide what to do with and how to present said content. This sharing of responsibility between the two comes in many forms, starting with simple things such as screen readers or a reading mode for the browser.

This is not necessarily the case.

You could only use this new system if the old one fails, ie. only for the say 10% of users that block ads, and so even if it were more expensive it would still be more profitable than letting them block all ads.

But I don’t think even that is the case, as they can essentially just “swap out” the video they’re streaming (as they don’t really stream “one video” per video anyway), bringing additional running costs to nearly zero.

The only thing definitely more expensive and resource intensive is the development of said custom software

apart from ne not having that much money laying around a the moment I’m not a fan of people having to pay for their search engine, as I’m of the opinion that such a fundamental tool to use the web should remain free

Yeah, I’ve recently switched to SearXNG instances on some devices, definitely seem to be getting better results

it sometimes seem to, most advanced searching still works, at least on DDG

Oh my god, I feel this so much… Also, I think that recently got even worse, as I recently found myself switching between DDG/Google and finding both extremely bad for my query

Seems to have become one of the fundamental rules of the Internet now, I approve 👍

This is crazy. I’m in exactly the same situation and have been thinking about getting a mobile plan with a Pixel 8 (where I would install GrapheneOS on) as those are getting cheaper with the Pixel 9 out not.

“it’s called free software, but copyleft licenses restrict what you can do with it, therefore it’s unfree!!1!” or so they say

I, too, don’t love the use of AWS/Cloudflare, while I get that you can simply replace AWS S3 with something else for backups, this server setup is innately based on using Cloudflare.

Most “modern” airlines don’t even own the airplanes themselves, but lease them. Even if not, calculating cost for vehicles you use over longer time as a business is most often done with a deprecation factor. Here both are combined as “Lease & Deprecation”

Interesting, that seems to be the reason for most. Under which circumstances if any would you upvote a perceived advertisement?

Would you upvote a well written advertisement that you think makes the company’s intention very clear to the reader? Would you do so if the intention not only sounded realistic, but also like they want to achieve something net-positive?

Or is it really just being an advertisement that makes you downvote?

Yeah, I don’t agree with the conclusion (like at all), but I still found the first 3/4 of the article very nicely put and definitely worth reading.

Why are there so many downvotes on this?

There was a race to the bottom for SSD prices that ended roughly in July 2023, leading to losses with manufacturers having to sell under production cost; this is why NAND/SSD prices increased since then and will probably only slowly start to decrease at the end of 2024. At the same time, there is very interesting technology in the making, I just read about SSDs with up to 1000 storage layers coming in the next few years. Same goes for HDDs, although less so and prices seem more predictable there; my focus for the next few years would be completely new storage methods competing with HDDs/SSDs, but I don’t think any of this will reach consumer markets at competitive prices until 2028. My prediction: HDDs will decrease like in the past years, SSDs will start really decreasing in price with the start of 2025 and it will take a few years for completely new storage methods to arrive.