This is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.
I don't see that as particularly analogous. The average person will have had LLM technology in their own hands for years, whereas with DNA it was completely foreign to them and their only choice really was to trust the experts. And on top of that DNA testing matured and is very useful now.
I mean… that means you can’t hire people to get signatures for petitions for the very thing you’re trying to get passed. I think their point is pretty fair.
Money for advertising is already a super sized network effect, making it difficult to challenge incumbents unless you're already rich,
Look, it's a radical idea and on its face, all at once, is impractical at the moment. So I suggest rather than pointing out the myriad of holes like shooting fish in a barrel, you give it the benefit of the doubt and roll around the ways it could work in your head. And what your online/offline experience would be if it were even 10% effective.
It already is that effective in a lot of the world with stricter advertising laws, and as a Canadian I do find the levels of advertising in the us landscape to be jarring. So there are examples
Money is much easier to combine though. You can convince 1000 people to each donate $100 and now you have a sizeable amount to run a campaign. Convincing _and coordinating_ 1000 people to each talk to five neighbors is _much_ harder, and much less effective since the messaging will be all over the place.
Strict regulation of ads is one thing, outlawing advertising is another. There are places that don't allow billboards and other street-level advertisement, but that's a long way from outlawing advertisements in general.
I get that it's a nice idea to many, but I follow a general rule of adding extra skepticism if the problems of some approach are absolutely obvious and the response to pointing them out is "don't worry about, that'll sort itself out, let's just do it". Especially when the collateral damage might be huge and the energy feels like "this will save us".
> Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default;
No, it makes his mom the account owner. Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. It’s nonsensical. The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.
Which makes the phone numbers under her account hers.
> Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number.
It absolutely does mean that her number is actually your number. That you choose to share it with her doesn't change that; you can revoke that sharing at any time, or even cancel the line entirely.
(And of course, if both of you jointly own the account, then the numbers therein would simultaneously belong to both of you.)
> Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO.
Is the phone bill under the accountant's name and paid from the accountant's personal bank account in this hypothetical? Or is it under her employer's name, and paid from her employer's bank account? The answer to that question determines the owner of the CEO's phone number, and in neither case is the CEO himself personally the owner of that number.
> The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.
And if that assigned person was the son then it would've been the son's name that Google pulled instead of his mother's, and Google's ignorance of its own advice would've gone unnoticed.
You don’t know how phone numbers work… and you’re making really bad assumptions through your entire post. Just like shipping addresses are different than billing addresses, account owners are different than account payers are different than account assignees. Google is tying to account payers, not assignees. This is clearly incorrect to everyone else in this comment section.
> You don’t know how phone numbers work… and you’re making really bad assumptions through your entire post.
My understanding and assumptions are evidently no worse than yours.
> account owners are different than account payers are different than account assignees
For residential/personal phone plans, they are not. In my T-Mobile account there is exactly one person who can be designated as the owner, payer, and assignee for all of the lines on my account, that person being me. I can at most change the label on a given line, but that label can be literally anything.
> Google is tying to account payers, not assignees.
There is no notion of an "assignee" from any perspective that Google can see. There is only the account payer, which is one and the same with the account owner.
(If the payer is not the owner, then that's called fraud and is a crime in most countries.)
> This is clearly incorrect to everyone else in this comment section.
And it's also clearly incorrect by Google's own guidelines as quoted above. That's the entirety of my point.
We're obviously not going to change each other's minds, so this is probably the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. Last word's yours.
Your position is baffling. You think that Google, who maintains every search you’ve ever made, including correlating them across every Gmail account you have, and who routinely provides this search data to authorities, as well as sells access to this data is somehow more safe to use than a company based in Europe, who are funded off of a subscription model, whom are not VC funded even though you claim that, and who’s entire sales strategy is that they don’t sell your data or even retain it.
Nothing in the comment you're responding to says anything about me using Google search or Gmail. In other comments I'm simple comparing the use case of using google search with an obfuscated connection and without ever signing into a google account with the use case of having to sign into Kagi. In that respect, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're responding to another comment of mine please respond to that comment so I can better understand your point.
Nothing in any of your comments indicates that you are using an obfuscated connection to search Google at all. In that case there is little difference to using Google signed in or not, you are still trackable across numerous devices and your searches are correlated. So being signed into kagi has little difference besides them now being less incentivized to sell your information or track you in any manner.
Well we can’t if we have no clue what pylon is. And searching is absolutely no help because I’m not sure if you’re saying pylon is a replacement for railway, or slack, or some other part of the blog post.
We've been using Taskfile, which is fantastic and super understandable, but it's only a task-runner and as such wouldn't meet OP's needs. I hated `just` and did not find it at all intuitive.
Only problem I have with the article is saying that Ruby doesn't work on Windows is just categorically false. It's one of the easiest languages to install and use on Windows, even easier than C# and Java, and I'm a Java/Kotlin dev, so that's saying something. It's literally just a single exe/msi installer.
But you wouldn't want to be using Rake anyway, it's not really that good, and is only useful if you're working in an environment where you don't want to install anything and you hate Make. Then Ruby is very often installed by default with Rake and so you get a 'free' build tool. Rake was good 10 years ago, but not so much anymore.
Anyway, if you needed a specific kind of tool and built it then all the power to you. Can't blame you for not wanting to use the other options!
And so is .NET. Just install SDK from a single exe (or, on macOS, do 'brew install dotnet'), open VSCode, maybe get the C# extension. That's it. dotnet run, dotnet build, etc.
For scripting, there is 'dotnet fsi' for F# interactive. And you can also compile F# scripts directly into native executables with community tooling if you wish to make them full standalone programs.
What in particular tips the balance to Taskfile compared to just(file)? With one of my clients I’ve been using just for months, so I’m curious. Thanks!
reply