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”

I think it’s really matured in the last few years. I’ve used linux on and off for the last 20 years, but things only tipped in favour for me at least about 2 years ago. For me it’s a combination of the polish of KDE, and the maturity of Wine/Proton for gaming. Before that I was dual booting but spending most time in Windows because I’d get in the habit whenever I started playing a game.

So I think despite the jokes, now really is the “year of the linux desktop” because it’s finally tipped over to being an all round 24/7 good choice for most people.

More likely he’ll become bitter and blame Biden. If only Trump has gotten in sooner!

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.

From what I’ve seen there has been some confusion over the state Lutris as the last version was seemingly 0.5.18 in Dec 2024 and “nothing since”. However version 0.5.19 is available as a tag within the github repository from Feb 2025, and they’re working on 0.5.20. It sounds like there is some issue with the 0.5.19 git, and development overall has slowed down as the lead dev is working full time.

I think a lot of this shows how open source software is so dependent on a small number of active people keeping projects going and there isn’t money flowing into otherwise very important and popular projects.

I like Lutris but I think Heroic is probably more fully featured than Faugus at present.

Faugus is an UMU-Launcher. UMU Launcher is essentially a open implementation of the Steam Runtime Tools and Steam Linux Runtime, which can run independently of Steam itself - it essentially aims to be Proton as you get in steam, without needing steam running. It aims to be a single shared implementation to simplify Proton fixes and implementations which are otherwise fragmented and duplicated - each game gets fixes applied individually by each of the existing games launchers in their own projects. It’s a laudable aim, but it’s not clear whether it can achieve it’s aims as Lutris, Heroic, Bottles etc are still doing their own things. So at the moment it’s another launcher?

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.

This is certainly a part of the problem. The other side of the coin is “why bother when it’s going to be streaming”. It’s a perfect storm of a terrible experience in cinemas and easy access to streaming in the comfort of your own home. At home I have a perfect view on my big screen TV, can control the lighting, the temperature, the food, and the audience. Cinemas feel like they’re in a death spiral - they make less money so they pump in even more ads and increase fees making the experience worse, which puts off even more punters, so they make even less money.

Hollywood is largely to blame as the article mentions briefly - the 90 day exclusive window for cinemas to show films created an incentive for people to go out and see them, made the cinemas and the studios lots of money, and made movies “special” - they were an event like going to the theatre or going out for dinner. Now going to the cinema feels more like an event such as catching dysentery.

Since the pandemic, the studios have devalued their own product. If you want to see a movie, you just have to wait a couple of weeks and it’ll be available to rent to stream from home. It costs less to rent a movie than go out to the cinema with a much better experience, and Hollywood gets a smaller cut of that. But lots of people don’t even bother with that - for the vast majority of movies you might as well wait until it ends up on a streaming service like Netflix, where Hollywood makes even less.

If Hollywood wants to save itself, it should listen to the cinema chains and extend the exclusive period back to 45 days (or even 90). If you want your product to be premium, it needs to be a premium experience.

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.

There are 9.8m people in London. If everyone was pouring the dregs of their coffee into the surface water drainage it’d be an environmental mess.

Contaminated fluids including dregs of coffee belong in the sewage system, not the surface water drainage system. This is literally the same as pouring coffee into a river or a lake - that’s where the surface water system is designed to run to directly, untreated. In London, that’s the Thames receiving that directly.

I agree pouring coffee into a bin was bad advice, but pouring coffee into the gutters is also wrong. She should have taken it with her and poured it down a sink or toilet.

There are two drainage systems under the roads. One is the clean surface water drainage which is designed to take rain water quickly and freely to nearby rivers and water courses - that is where she poured her waste water. The sewage system is separate and is for foul water - that is what sinks, toilets etc drain into - and should drain to sewage treatment plants to be cleaned.

The gutters on the sides of the side of streets do not connect with the sewers, so people should not be pouring contaminated water down them. It’s basically the same as just pouring coffee directly into the river or a lake.

That is not correct - the surface drainage system should be regarded as separate from the sewage system, even though both run under the roads. There is the surface water system and the foul water system. It’s true that in some places surface drainage may go into the sewage system but that is the exception rather than the rule. Surface drainage is usually designed to move as rapidly as possible into nearby fresh water to prevent flooding.

Surface drainage water is allowed to drain freely into water courses, rivers and lakes, completely untreated. The sewage system is for contaminated water (from toilets and sinks etc) and is designed to go to treatments plants where it SHOULD be treated. It is true that that treatment is not happening, and when there are storms the sewage system can be overrun with water companies currently getting away with dumping contaminated sewage into the rivers which is a scandal.

I disagree; the whole purpose of the enforcement officers is to enforce the environment act. This thread alone shows why - it seems few people are aware there are 2 totally separate water drainage systems under the roads - the clean one for rainwater drainage, and the dirty one for sewage.

People seem to think if you pour something down a rain by the side of the street it will reach the sewers - it will not; it will run with other surface water untreated into the water courses, rivers or lakes. The sewers are totally separate and drain to treatment plants where the water should be treated before being released into the water system.

Unfortunately the article skirts over that whole element of the story. Its making this woman seem like she’s a victim instead of educating herself and others.

It’s irresponsible; the rain gutters are for clean surface water wash off and drain freely into water courses, rivers, lakes etc untreated; they’re totally separate from the sewers even though both systems run under the roads. Organic liquids should be disposed off via the sewage system - so down a toilet or a sink - where the water should be treated before being released back into the water table.

If everyone were disposing of contaminated water in the surface drainage system we’d be in big trouble.