Bananasplit_00

The idea that this is to comply with the DMA doesn't make much sense. The DMA, if anything, would require them to make it easier to change the browser. Not harder. 
 
This is just Microsoft trying to block programs from making it easy for users to change their default browser. They want it to require as many clicks as possible. 
Firefox and Brave found a way to set themselves as the default without having to go through the defaults app settings page (where Microsoft asks you multiple time if you are reeeally sure you don't want Edge as the default). Instead in Firefox and Brave you just had to click, inside the programs, "set this as my default browser", similar to how it worked before Windows 10.
Microsoft doesn't want to make it easy for users to change. They will say that they do it for security reasons, but that is bullshit. They time and time again try and make it hard to change. Even if there was some legitimacy to their security argument (which I personally don't think there is), it's pretty clear that security isn't their driving motivator. It's control and making people use Edge (and Bing) that is. 

"But sir, this is completely different!
 
See, that browser was Internet Explorer. This is Microsoft Edge."

"Hey Siri, turn off the lights"
 
*phone catches fire*

"Hey Siri, turn off the lights"
 
*phone catches fire*

"Hey Siri, turn off the lights"
 
*phone catches fire*

Slight disclaimer: arXiv is a preprint server. Those papers aren't peer reviewed. 

every airport tv showing an ad instead of the flight times......

Utter BULL SHIT. If you ask me. All these greedy companies are doing is giving me a reason to NOT buy their product.

Amazon Go with its Walkout technology that was introduced a while back, where customer with an Amazon account can simply walk in, take what they need and walk out has ended. The shopping experience may be convenient as you won't have to wait for the check out line, but it actually
Amazon is going to replace their Walkout technology with what they called Dash Cart, which is a
Gizmodo (article link)

*** Thread cleaned ***
 
Pointless bickering removed. If you have issues with any post, please report. Any other posts are considered backseat moderation and thus removed on sight.

Only thing I can think off is using some finishing compound for car paint. Might work, it's ment to remove what's left after cutting which is what you did with the paper towel kinda

"You're missing out on:
 
 
 
76mp 5th camera
 
 
 
 
 
 
"

it's for work, so... dont store anything personal in it?
 
i've had to use some shady-ass password managers in my IT days because of project manager preference for whatever fell into their inbox... and it's never been a problem.

Neat, then it's mostly my phobia for needles that's getting in the way of me getting one 😂
That sounds awful, I can already hear most powersupplies coil whine along with tinnitus 💀
 
Got pretty close to doing the small magnet in my finger some years back but the primary source of the magnets was ebay and I wasn't old enough to drink so I'd have absolutely nothing decent for painkillers 😂
 
Might look into it again, in a not potato and scalpel in a shed way this time

F U Microsh*t
That's the only appropriate reaction to anything Microsoft does

I am still struggling with the fact that they made "new teams" and updated the "old teams" but left the "old teams" installed as separate application where, whenever I need to run the Teams, it first turns on the "old teams" asking me if I want to use "new teams". But whenever I search for "Teams" in Windows search, it opens the "old teams" all over again. It's unnecessary annoying mess.
 
The worst is, the in-browser version works way better and smoother.

I have more and more issues with AI generated websites.
 
Does somebody know if there is a ublock list for AI content frams? I am sick of looking something up just to notice after a few seconds that it's AI gibberish. 

I think it's also worth mentioning that humans can be really shitty journalists too. 
Some websites not being recommended to use a sources on Wikipedia is not a new thing. It was a thing long before AI. The problem here is in my opinion not that AI is being used. It's that quantity is being prioritized over quality, and CNET not bothering to make sure the content they publish is of high standards. If your articles contain a lot of factual errors then you are not a reliable source, regardless of who or what wrote the article. If the AI didn't make mistakes then it would be reliable. A human making lots of factual errors would also be an unreliable source. 
 
 
Speaking of reliable sources, futurism.com is a pretty sketchy site that is highly opinionated and has a strong anti-AI agenda. In fact, if you go to the talk page for this change you can see several of the Wikipedia staff saying that futurism is a bad source. 
I think it's kind of funny that they are celebrating getting CNET removed from the list of reliable sources when they themselves aren't seen as reliable. 

Summary
 
CNET, once considered one of the major technology-focused news outlets, has been heavily criticized for falling editorial standards since it's acquisition by Red Venture in 2020. After years of dealing with AI-generated articles and other "advertiser-driven" decisions, Wikipedia's editors have had enough and are removing CNET from their list of reliable publishers and are categorizing any article published since November 2022 as unreliable. Some editors are going further and pushing to have content from any outlet owned by Red Venture automatically marked as unreliable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
 
Quotes
My thoughts
Enshittification claims another one. Journalism is the absolute last place that AI should be deployed to.
 
Sources
https://futurism.com/wikipedia-cnet-unreliable-ai

Does this look like something a neutral site would say in their comparisons?

They are just a meme

If i was setting up a new personal email for myself today i would go for Protonmail

For those like me who read the OP and didn't understand what was going on, this is what happened:
 
1) Some guy wants to buy an airplane ticket because his grandma has died.
2) Air Canada lets customers fly at a low price if the flight is booked because of death-related things with close family members.
3) The guy asked the chatbot how to get the reduced price and was told to buy a regular ticket and then apply for a refund afterward.
4) The guy booked the full-price flight and then when trying to apply for the refund was rejected because that's not how you should do it. What he should have done was call them and book the flight in a special way that would have made the flight cheaper upfront. 
5) The guy decided to sue Air Canada.
 
Unfortunate situation but luckily it seems like the guy was compensated for it.
 
 
 
That's what I find the most interesting in all of this. Air Canada tries to argue that they aren't responsible for what their employees do. 
 
The story involving a chatbot is kind of irrelevant because it seems like Air Canada would have had the same position if it was a customer representative who gave a customer incorrect information (which happens quite a lot I might add). 

Companies are liable for bad advice and actions of employees, chatbots are no exception 🤦‍♂️
 
Not even a good try.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they tried to cross-examine a chatbot, though?