Yet the interface is fundamentally different, the output feels much more like bro pages[0] and it's within a click of clipboarding, one CTRL V away from extracting the 13th second screenshot. I've been using Google the past 24 years and my google-fu has always left people amazed; yet I can no longer bother to go through Stack Exchange's results when an LLM not only spits it out so nicely, but also does the equivalent of a explainshell[1].
Not comparable and I fail to see why going through Google's ads/results would be better?
DuckDuckGo insists on shoving "AI Assist" entries in its results, so I have a reasonable idea of how often LLMs are completely wrong even given search results. The answer's still "more than one time in five".
I did not suggest using Google Search (the company's on record as deliberately making Google Search worse), but there are other search engines. My preferred search engines don't do the fancy "interpret natural language queries" pre-processing, because I'm quite good at doing that in my head and often want to research niche stuff, but there are many still-decent search engines that do, and don't have ads in the results.
Heck, you can even pay for a good search engine! And you can have it redirect you to the relevant section of the top search result automatically: Google used to call this "I'm feeling lucky!" (although it was before URI text fragments, so it would just send you to the top of the page). All the properties you're after, much more cheaply, and you keep the information about provenance, and your answer is more-reliably accurate.
It is not specific to right wing grifters. Left wing grifters use the same talking points but with a different reason behind. Yet they want to censor the same products: one group based on puritanism & moralism while the other based on feminism & LGBT rights. Both extremes want the same thing.
Are there any examples where someone got "de-banked" or "de-payment-processored" because of misogynistic (but legal) content?
Two different people might both want $100 from you, but that isn't enough for an equivalence: I'm sure you'll agree there's an enormous practical difference between the one that does/doesn't think "knife stabs" are a valid tactic. Or even just between two where only one owns a knife.
> Are there any examples where someone got "de-banked" or "de-payment-processored" because of misogynistic (but legal) content?
You don't even have to express misogynistic ideas to attract that kind of attention; you only need to question the current mode of politically correct thought.
> [Super Seducer] came under fire by a number of video game critics; one described it as the "world's sleaziest game",[37] and another criticized the game for "normalizing rape culture"[38] Prior to its release, the game had its crowdfunding campaign suspended by Kickstarter. According to its press release, this was due to "inappropriate content, including but not limited to offensive or pornographic material", and "spamming or abusive behavior, offering rewards in violation of Kickstarter's rules."[39][40]
This is absurd characterization of the gameplay, but the entire concept of "pick-up artistry" causes strong prejudice.
Literal debanking etc., I wouldn't know. I haven't kept tabs on these kinds of stories for many years.
That said, Collective Shout is explicitly arguing that the porn content they're trying to censor via these tactics is inherently misogynistic.
And it wasn't, as far as I can tell, right-wing groups complaining about the Senran Kagura series several years back, either the games or the anime. Just look at the domain names that come up in searches if you try to look that one up; you don't get conservative forums, but you do get ResetEra and VICE, along with the usual "gaming news" rags.
I don't think it makes sense to label either group of grifters based on stated political affiliation; These groups are linked because they are both grifters.
The politics are just a costume that ingratiates the grifter with their target market.
I don't get why they're being called grifters. These groups - both left and right - probably genuinely believe this stuff is harmful and are following their beliefs to their logical conclusion. I don't think companies should bow to such pressure, but that doesn't make them "grifters".
"Grifter" seems like the new shorthand for "person I don't like".
The grift is they are asserting a power and authority over everyone else that is not warranted. That's why they sabotaged Valve, Itch.io and adult content creators using the payment networks instead of taking them on in court or at the legislative level where they would face many hurdles coercing them to their will.
Citation needed. The 'extreme' feminism & LGBT tends to revolve around identical pay, being able to walk down the street without getting assaulted or being able to work without being harassed or discriminated against.
Feminist groups also regularly try to get games banned from Steam, typically for sexism or violence against women. Eg.
> Women in Games CEO Dr Marie-Claire Isaaman has called on Valve to “act urgently” and remove the game from Steam, saying the game’s content “is not only vile and dangerous, but also actively promotes the dehumanisation of women and girls.”
> In “Irreversible Damage,” Abigail Shrier argues youth are being “fast-tracked” into medical transition — a claim experts say isn’t true and harms trans youth.
Anti-trans activities is the fascist agenda. Fascism should always be stopped. Saving democracy and lives of transpeople by stopping fascists is not controversial in any way.
When you start digging past their marketing material, you quickly discover that these organisations are just right-wing fronts, against trans-people, against abortion.
Here's a 38 minute video that walks through some of the recent major incidents.
Why should feminism be incompatible with right-wing politics?
How do I know what is or isn't a legitimate feminist position, given that the list apparently constantly changes over time?
I am constantly told that there are many different kinds of feminism and that my various complaints about feminism — based on actual interactions I've personally had with feminists — are not valid because they don't generalize across the whole thing (even if I point at well-known, established feminist literature and critiques thereof). Yet I also constantly see groups of self-identified feminists point at each other and try to claim that the others don't actually count as feminists because they disagree about some other issue.
I assume you accept the validity of more than two genders. Will you accept the validity of more than two kinds of political position?
>The 'extreme' feminism & LGBT tends to revolve around
There are countless statements from feminist authority figures that are impossible to reconcile with this claim. But HN is not the place to have this argument, or even to attempt to turn it into a discussion; and elsewhere on the Internet, I have repeatedly seen people persecuted as misogynists simply for collating such evidence.
It’s very easy to make everyone you agree with sound incredibly reasonable when you don’t have to give any examples of when they showed their true colors.
I believe it's a general consensus. I thought it was just me but I also thought it couldn't be just me. We've been reading for years how Google results have sucked and specially the past 12 months it seems to have gotten worse and worse. Meanwhile with ChatGPT, I no longer need to use Google-Fu to find my way around stuff, which is good because the past year it feels like no amount of decades using Google were helping me find any results. It does feel like the fall of AltaVista but without the company going under.
Tried on my simple 60Hz PC screen and also on my phone with OLED screen and sadly, it's just a flickering image. Will try later this week on my friends' retrogaming setup. Looks promising
I read somewhere Google makes $350 per year off each user. Divided by 12 months that's a bit less than $30. In a way, you're paying $20 less than you would by using Google, while keeping your privacy etc. Seems great when you take into account the fact with Google you're the product.
I've been using Windows 10 for the past year and a 4 months now, after some 10 years 100% on Linux. I had to disable a weird setting which would forcefully update and reboot the computer when it considered to be "Not Active". I believe it was called "Active Hours" and by default had no way to turn off: you had to choose some hours of the day when you're supposedly not using it. Lost some work like this and had to do some tinkering, not sure if register or otherwise. Or maybe I just disabled automatic updates I guess.
So, in conclusion, no, an OS taking control off my hands forcefully is not user-centered, no matter how much in programming circles updates are seen as "crucial". Nothing is more crucial than the computer being predictable to its owner.
I believe if you look further and deeper you'll reach the conclusion the real issue is how awful copyright laws are and more importantly, how absurd is the current economic system. Glorified markov chains are not the culprit here.
So the current movement where artists "shame" random joes for using a cool technology has only one possible outcome which is to push said average joes into being politically active in defense of AI. No one seems to want to properly organize and file a class-action, just twitter bickering.
If I remember correctly, 7 introduced stupid "transparent" UI and removed (or attempted to bury) the color-scheme editor. This is a particularly brain-dead move, because from Windows 3.1 until well into the 2000s you could create your own system-wide color scheme that would be honored by all properly-written applications. So I used a charcoal scheme (what today is trumpeted as "dark") for a decade... but then right before the rest of the planet realized that inverse (white background, black text) color schemes are stupid, Microsoft REMOVED the ability to set up a "dark" one.
Then there is the baffling (and still present) fuckery of the user directories in Explorer. There are all kinds of shadow copies of your user directories that are "forbidden." WHY? WTF is all of that shit?
I think they also removed (or, again, buried) the ability to organize your programs into groups in the Start menu. WTF are they thinking? I want to put all of my graphic-editor apps together. I want to put all of my audio apps together. Then I want another group for my office/productivity apps. But NO! MS thinks I want everything in a giant, disorganized pile. Or I want them organized by VENDOR name. What the ever-loving shit would I want that for?
There are little regressions everywhere. Another one is in Explorer. Originally, Explorer would show + signs next to directories that were not empty. I think it was Windows 7 where they stopped showing those... unless you happened to roll the cursor into the left pane of Explorer; then they would suddenly appear. WHY? Are we supposed to sweep the cursor across every pixel on the screen, looking for hidden goodies? Absolutely retarded.
And eventually MS abandoned the universally-understood + sign in favor of a stupid TRIANGLE to disclose additional contents. The + sign is fucking UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD to mean "additional." WTF is a triangle supposed to mean?
I'm so glad the world has largely moved on from Windows, because it is a disgrace. I'm just bummed because I want to use MS Flight Simulator, but it would require me to buy and set up an expensive Windows system. NO WAY. Looks like X-Plane for me.
> because from Windows 3.1 until well into the 2000s you could create your own system-wide color scheme that would be honored by all properly-written applications
That was possible since the very first Windows version.
I believe you. I just didn't use Windows until 3.1, at least that I remember.
You could also set up system-wide color schemes in Unix GUIs. Only the vaunted Mac forced a hard-coded inverse color scheme on people for what, 30 years?
I mentioned this at WWDC in a user-experience forum in the mid-2000s, asking why we couldn't have user-defined color schemes on the Mac. You should have heard the whining and moaning from the Mac programmers, who no doubt considered themselves "elite" compared to Windows programmers. It was pretty pathetic. All Apple had to do was create a proper system of color registers during the transition to OS X. But nope. They hard-coded color names into the UI. Amateur hour.
I'm not shocked that the transition to even another hard-coded color scheme has suffered from problems; particularly on iOS, in Apple's own controls. But the fact that every app developer still has to manually cater to a klugey color-scheming system in the UI is embarrassing.
I used to be from the romhacking community back in the 2000s and due to usage of Windows, open source/foss wasn't even known to most people. The culture of Windows programmers is way more focused on freeware/binaries.
Still waiting to this day for FuSoYa to release the source code of Lunar Magic.
About a central database of binary parsers, I've been wanting this for ages too. The closest I ever found was augeas, but that's for configuration files.
> About a central database of binary parsers, I've been wanting this for ages too. The closest I ever found was augeas, but that's for configuration files.
I'm working on something, that is a open template format for binary file formats. It is usable today as a universal file extractor, with some bugs and limitations.
Yeah that’s a mysterious one. Such an incredible achievement, and it enabled so, so much creativity, and free (as in beer) to all as far as I know. I hope FuSoYa does open source it someday.
Not comparable and I fail to see why going through Google's ads/results would be better?
[0] https://github.com/pombadev/bropages
[1] https://github.com/idank/explainshell