Being awkwardly goaded by your boss to chant some weird company saying at a company holiday party is _exactly_ the kind of stuff that people make fun of after-the-fact by making memes about it (speaking from experience here... which is why this phrase in the article gave me pause in the first place).
There's not enough info in this article to know if it was seen as weird by the employees or not, but my point is that "they created a reacji of it" isn't evidence one way or the other for it being "popular".
The fire is OpenAI controlling an AI with their alignment efforts. The analogy here is that some company could recreate the AGI-under-alignment and just... Decide to remove the alignment controls. Hence, create another effigy and not set it on fire.
Same deal when Chrome opens mailto links in gmail.com in the browser instead of my default mail client. Stuff like this made my switch to Firefox even more of a no-brainer.
I am totally pro-Firefox, but your case is not about Chrome being a bad actor. For websites to be registered as link handlers, the user gets asked and has to accept (like camera access)[1]. There is no difference between Chrome and Firefox in this case.
You mean the same OS where the internet settings has a (default checked) toggle box for “Tell me if Internet Explorer is not the default web browser.”?
It's interesting that the author doesn't take the high road and mention things like this, Bitcoin mining, streaming video games (not entirely sure if the carbon footprint of that is bigger than downloading and executing a game locally tbh) as more effective ways to reduce emissions.
I am also confused about this wording but I assume it refers to the duckduckgo-app on android devices. It would be blatantly anti-competitive if google would refuse the ddg app in their app store, solely because they compete with them in the search-engine market -- there are legal mechanisms against this behavior.
Agreed. And there are laws against this sort of thing, and the regulators are slowly but surely catching up to the fact that they will have to start actually enforcing them.
It's not always a bad thing. The duck.com domain used to redirect to Google for a long time (they got it in a random acquisition) but now it's been changed to DDG instead. I'm pretty sure that this kind of analysis played a role there. (A more diversified ecosystem in search also helps with fighting SEO spam, which is by far the biggest actual threat to Google Search volume.)
That interview was bad. They're trying to make you feel bad for the Instagram founders because they were too stupid to realize that after you _sell_ your company you don't own it anymore. Also, per that interview, Instagram only became sustainable under Facebook.
> Instagram only became sustainable under Facebook.
That's an incredible leap to say IG couldn't develop their own ad network as a stand alone company. Hire a few people away from Google with options in a growing company the same way FB did.
If IG didn't sell they would have fully killed Facebook's relevancy by now.
Do you have a source that they refused any ads at all? There's a difference between having a few tasteful ones and overloading it like it currently is.
