But what about the “depose” part?

Yeah, what the fuck, he grew a unibrow within a few days??

Someone that has their own morals, and thinks killing is bad?

Can we guarantee they’d report him if there was no financial incentive?

The system really doesn’t give a fuck about your or anyone else’s morals, let’s not pretend otherwise. That’s why they put a bounty on the killer, after all.

Have you actually looked at that list? It’s incredibly inconsistent and chaotic. “Story structure” is not some objective universally measurable thing in the first place, and nobody in their right mind would claim that originality can be realised only in story structure.

Overall this is a weird and pointless topic that you picked to argue about.

So they take the risk of watching a movie that is somehow familiar to them ahead of watching it, and that might also be bad.

I use W10 and I’ve gotten two full-screen ads for W11 in the last two weeks.

John Cage - 4’33’’ megamix

Chiquita and Nestlé come to mind. Within tech industry, I’d say Amazon and probably Microsoft are worse as well, and there’s probably a ton of potentially even worse companies lurking in the shadows outside the top of the economic food chain.

I’m worrying that whatever gets sold (Chrome or Android) might end up in the hands of someone even more scummy than Google.

Yeah, totally makes sense, “they” attacked IA one month in advance before the elections, knowing that IA would spend around a month rewriting and improving their site code until the Save Page option would be enabled again (unless IA themselves are a part of the plot???), so that news articles could be “edited on the fly” (with what result?) until the election day, while other similar web archiving services such as archive.is would keep working just fine.

And that’s more or less what I was aiming for, so we’re back at square one. What you wrote is in line with my first comment:

it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines

The point is that there isn’t something that makes AI inherently superior to ordinary search engines. (Personally I haven’t found AI to be superior at all, but that’s a different topic.) The difference in quality is mainly a consequence of some corporate fuckery to wring out more money from the investors and/or advertisers and/or users at the given moment. AI is good (according to you) just because search engines suck.

AI LLMs simply are better at surfacing it

Ok, but how exactly? Is there some magical emergent property of LLMs that guides them to filter out the garbage from the quality content?

If you don’t feel like discussing this and won’t do anything more than deliberately miss the point, you don’t have to reply to me at all.

they’re a great use in surfacing information that is discussed and available, but might be buried with no SEO behind it to surface it

This is what I’ve seen many people claim. But it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines. Why is that information unavailable to search engines, but is available to LLMs? If someone has put in the work to find and feed the quality content to LLMs, why couldn’t that same effort have been invested in Google Search?

it is quite literally named the “land of the blacks” after all that is what Egypt means

Egypt is from Greek and definitely doesn’t mean that. The Egyptian endonym was kmt (traditionally pronounced as kemet), which is interpreted as “black land” (km means “black”, -t is a nominal suffix, so it might be translated as black-ness, not at all “quite literally land of the blacks”), most likely referring to the fertile black soil around the Nile river. Trying to interpret that as “land of the blacks” should be suspicious already due to the fact people would hardly name themselves after their most ordinary physical characteristic; the Egyptians might call themselves black only if they were surrounded by non-black people and could view that as their own special characteristic, but they certainly neighboured and had contact with black peoples. And either way one has to wonder if the ancient views of white and black skin were meaningfully comparable to modern western ones. On the other hand, the fertile black soil most certainly is a differentia specifica of the settled Egyptian land that is surrounded by a desert.

Tbh these really are low-usage features, I didn’t know about any of them, aside from the snoovatars that I’ve always found stupid. So I don’t think anyone could be pushed away from the site because of this.

OTOH, if they’re low-usage, why remove them? Do they spend too much bandwidth, CPU, whatever??

Indeed, according to anthropologist Robert L. Hoover, “the killer whale [orca] was regarded by the Chumash as a benevolent creature which drove schools of porpoises and whales ashore where they could be utilized by man.”

Hmm, “1200-600 CE”?

https://samblog.seattleartmuseum.org/2018/08/whale-effigy-charm/

Looks like it should be 1200-1600 CE (or AD).

I never said I follow the law, I’m just wondering what the law says ;)

Honestly much of your reply is confusing me and doesn’t seem to be relevant to my questions. This is what I think is crucial:

Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.

What does being “the legal owner forever” actually entail, either with regards to a physical book or its scan? And what does that mean regarding what I can legally do with the cached file on my computer?