He is. The guy has published an absolutely preposterous number of books and has at least one out this year. They also did a Fear Street netflix series somewhat recently, last year I think.
Was that based on a more adult (but still young) reading level? The name sounds familiar and I grew up on RL Stine until I found the deluge of books set in the forgotten realms (Dungeons and Dragons setting, for clarity, not written by Stine)
I love continuously pointing out that a public figure that so many refuse to believe has faults, does indeed have faults and is disliked by many for good reason.
People are gonna bitch about the stuff they don’t like, that’s why I’m cool with you also doing the same here.
Maybe it’s because I don’t use Twitter but I haven’t actually seen any of this in years. Every single mention of Elon Musk I see is negative. From my perspective, Twitter was trash long before he bought it, even if he’s made it worse and keeps twisting the knife. All this complaining seems like a deflection by people who are addicted and need to keep rationalizing their continued use of the platform despite it being increasingly intolerable to them.
I could never hear the name Elon for the rest of my life and I would survive just fine. Just remember, soon the internet will mention nobody but Trump as well. I hate it
I can’t speak for your experiences or for the stats on muskies so I can’t draw anything officially meaningful, but from my experience in my network of friends there are certain groups (mostly business-centric males) who still think he’s a champion of free speech somehow.
I definitely think it’s starting to unravel a bit but there is definitely still plenty of people out there.
Like I say, people are always gonna bitch about stuff and people they don’t like because it’s easier to vent about that than to vent about our other frustrations which are simply put just way more complicated than continuing to say “bad man bad” (not to be confused as sarcasm, I simply chose to simplify this phrase for simplicity sake)
And the site was okay before, I honestly think that people hate on twitter the way other people hated on reddit for years (before it went to shit).
Musk’s changes made the site unusable, it made me leave the site permanently, even though I don’t have a replacement site to follow the artists I like (except pixiv, but that site sucks to use in Europe)
My dad is unfortunately one of those who don’t believe he has faults, and as far as I can tell he doesn’t even spend much time in 𝕏itter, so yes, plenty still believe he’s infallible, and not just those who spend to much time on his fansite
My hubby went in for an interview and was told he got the job so he told his other prospective employers that he was no longer interested. Before he could arrange a start date, they ghosted him. He tried to call but it went to an outsourced helpdesk that told him they would create a ticket and he would get a call back. No call after several days. He physically went into the place and the hiring manager seemed flustered that he was there and told him they would contact him. After two weeks from when he was told he would get the job, he finally got a hold of the guy he interviewed with and was told they gave the position to someone else because he was “unreachable”.
Problems like this are the reason why I don’t hold loyalty to any company unless they’ve proven their competency. The ones that are good rarely hire because the employees don’t want to leave.
Was scared of the same thing happening to me, was ghosted for 2 MONTHS and was about to start at a different place when they finally reached back with a bunch of excuses. The same company says they desperately need more workers lol
Yeah that’s why I hold off on turning down other offers until the last possible moment when I know 100% the new gig is locked down. Then you inform them as gently and kindly as possible to leave the door open if it doesn’t work out. Usually the good ones won’t take it personally and are open to working together in the future if you decide to leave.
That’s terrible, I hope it all worked out, but absolutely never say anything until you’ve both signed a contract unless you’re looking for a counter offer, which is risky AF.
People pull out of informal agreements all the time, it’s not an employer thing - legal issues, real estate, appointments, competition prizes, dates…
It’s like putting your phone number on the wall of a bathroom stall. Maybe you won’t get a lot of prank calls, maybe you will. It’s a crapshoot.
The thing is, posting your public IP is like asking for a number of hackers to start probing your network for lapses in security. Not because you’re a juicy target, but simply because you put the information out there. That’s been bog standard for the internet for 20 years now.
Sure, IP addresses can be found through various ways, but having them out for everybody to see is just asking for more trouble than it is worth. You’re making yourself a target and creating more work for yourself if you’re constantly getting hacked because of it.
Like I don’t even want to do anything malicious and I immediately started up a traceroute.
So just put your phone number on the front page of Lemmy. Or are you practicing security through obscurity by not releasing it? /s
It’s not security through obscurity to not divulge information that need not be divulged. It’s not obscure if there’s lots of ways to find an IP. Like I said, it’s like putting a phone number out there. Like that one guy from 10 years ago who posted his phone number online and immediately regretted it because his phone just wouldn’t stop ringing. He wasn’t “afraid” until it totally fucked up his ability to use his phone. I’m just trying to be helpful. If you really want to put yourself on blast, go for it man.
There are some things you can’t hide for the internet to work, such as IP addresses, so an IP address on it’s own is not privileged information. Announcing to the world that “this is my IP address” adds information and context which from a privacy perspective is privileged. If someone has an issue with you, they might target their focus to seeing if there’s a service running which is vulnerable at your IP, or they could initiate a DDoS against you.
If it's your only layer of security, it's not good. But when a website doesn't tell you whether or not an email account exists when you try a username and password, it's still obscurity (you're not confirming one way or the other) but it's still a useful level of security. IPs are generally not given out for a reason. Most people don't even realize they don't get hacked simply because they aren't targeted. That you even route local traffic via the internet is interesting to begin with and makes me wonder if you truly are prepared for a targeted attack. Maybe you decided it's not worth the effort but maybe you don't know how. I don't know. But nonetheless, you're making yourself more of a target.
A trip to shodan should be enough to convince you that ipv4 space is small enough that it really doesn’t buy you much to hide anything. Maybe a tiny bit of extra privacy by not associating an identity to an IP, but even that is pretty quickly blown away if you host anything identifiable. Which is the small web we’d benefit from restoring anyway.
The difference is a random IP is a random IP. You don’t know who it’s connected to. Once some says “This is my IP” you now have it connected to a specific person, and other specific people may want to fuck with the original person.
Bots already scan all open IP addresses for vulnerabilities, but hackers live for people who give up information for free.
Right, that’s the privacy aspect I mentioned. PII tied to your IP is now available, even if it’s just a pseudoidentity. But hosting anything also likely throws that out the window in the same way. Unless you have more users on your hosted service, but even then it narrows things down.
Let’s go a step further and analyze exactly what this graph is saying:
There’s only about a 20% distribution difference in the “never” sections between Christians and atheists. So on average, 4/5 atheists would answer the exact same as Christians. All this graph says is that Christians are barely more tolerant than people who identify as atheist. Barely is the key word. If anything, this graph proves that tolerance levels don’t fluctuate that much for the individual between differing religions.
But Bible thumpers need any win they can get, so they don’t read the data for what it is, they just see one bar longer than the other and declare victory.
I got that. I myself live in a hot climate where the cars turn into disgusting saunas when left 1 minute too long in the sun. Never have I ever even considered driving through someone’s yard to park in the shade of their tree, even when I knew the the alternative was returning to a steering wheel that’s too hot to touch.
Those whiny workers, feeling like they’re entitled to shade in the summer in the South! They should be grateful for their van without the AC! That’s shading them, isn’t it? Peasants.
100% yes. If an asshole parked on my lawn they can get fucked. Imagine getting your panties in a twist because I have some concept of personal property.
Stop playing repetitive, competitive, multiplayer games. Especially the battle royale style ones.
Oh you just played another 20 minute match where you died to someone out of nowhere at the end, possibly a cheater, shouted bullshit at the screen, didn’t win and didn’t achieve anything? Better re queue to do it again! Hey while you’re in the menus, do you want a new £15 skin? Do you want the battlepass QUICK BEFORE ITS GONE! THE SKINS WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY IF THE CONSTANT LOSSES DONT. I wonder why you’re bored and depressed with gaming.
The most popular steam games? Constant repetitive, competitive, multiplayer games. “I do the same thing with the same guns on the same map every day and I’m bored. Gaming is boring.”
competitive, multiplayer games. “I do the same thing with the same guns on the same map every day and I’m bored. Gaming is boring.”
Sounds a lot like football, except for the guns. Opposing team has new skins for every game, but the game loop is exactly same for every game, all the game. And the map, oh gods, the map! Notice the singular? Yeah, there’s actually just one map. Some background textures change, but functionally it’s always the same green rectangle with some lines drawn over.
My point, if I had one, would be that “boring, repetitive multiplayer games” are so much fun, for so many, that calling people to stop playing them is an exercise in futility.
That said, I find them un-fun, too. Mostly because I constantly get my ass kicked, but also because I enjoy slower, 4x and plot driven games more. To each their own.
tbh I’d rather play a game like this where every round is a new experience or a different strategy than play a half baked “RPG” that holds no roleplay, no stakes, no difficulties or no strategies.
I mean that’s more of an issue with the horrific monetization of those games, their abuse of FOMO, and shit matchmaking (and/or the player’s shit skill). There’s nothing wrong with the genre itself, some people just genuinely enjoy it. There’s a reason it’s popular.
See I tend to gravitate toward creative games. Minecraft is a little too open for me, but something like Satisfactory where “Here’s a few square miles. Build a factory in it.” can keep me going for months.
For desktop and laptop computers, Microsoft’s Windows is the most used at 69%, followed by Apple’s macOS at 17%, and Google’s ChromeOS at 3.2% (in the US up to 8.0%), and desktop Linux at 2.9%. In addition, 5% is attributed to “unknown” operating systems - which are likely forms of BSD or obscure varieties of Linux.[4]
From Wikipedia. Not sure when the numbers are from exactly.
Apple has been slowly growing for years. Google took a little with their Chromebooks but they never really took off. Linux continues to grow steadily but is still pretty rare in desktop environments.
It looks like Linux could potentially make up 7.9% of total systems? 5% seems awfully high for bsd, so ‘obscure varieties of Linux’ likely makes up the bulk of that 5%, right?
Those have to be old. Last I saw chromeOS had overtaken MacOS a few years ago due to Google’s huge push to give chromebooks to schools during the pandemic for remote learning. www.bbc.com/news/technology-56116573
According to current data from research firm Gartner, ChromeOS’s market share dropped considerably from 2020 to 2022, with just 6.8% of the worldwide PC market in 2022
So seem like it has bombed since that article.
Your article suggest it was a boom due to lockdown. Maybe that’s faded as kids go back to school.
it's also notable that Microsoft has no realistic mobile OS of their own, and a huge amount of what used to be done on a desktop OS is now on mobile. Operating an ecommerce site for instance, 65% of the traffic is from mobile phones, even browser vs apps.
I'm not so sure how it's either of those things. I mean yeah, it's annoying (especially if it's popping up while you're playing a game), but I don't feel like it's crossing either of these lines. If you click "Don't switch", it goes away, and it's not changing anything without your permission. I've never seen it pop up again on my devices. I forget where in the settings it would be, but I seem to recall there being an option to disable suggestions like this, as well (although an argument could be made that this should be opt-in instead of opt-out).
I know this community has a (largely justified) hate-boner for big tech companies, but not every annoyance is a crime. If anything, I'm just glad to see that they're at least respecting the user's consent these days; in the before times, Microsoft would just revert all your shit to what they wanted, whether you liked it or not, permission be damned. I lost track of how many WinXP updates would reinstall that Bing Bar (or MSN or whatever they called it back then) without asking me.
Unless there's another angle that I'm not seeing, I don't see how this is that much of a problem. If anything, it's a good advertisement for Linux, though.
I think this sentiment come from the long history of Microsoft repeatedly breaking and then failing to address antitrust requests. At this point people just assume bas faith.
I remember maybe a decade ago how it seemed a big deal anytime they used their OS monopoly to fuck with 3rd parties alternatives. But yeah, I don’t think every popup and annoyance is a crime. There’s a fine line they walk to still push their first-party garbage.
I’m not even remotely a legal expert and I don’t know what type of popup that is but I think the anti-competitive piece is “could Google use the same technique to push the user to switch to google search on Edge or not?”.
If this was an ad from a web page OP had opened or from the game and if clicking “Yes” only directed the user to a site with instructions on how to switch default search engine on Chrome, then yes, obnoxious but probably fair. Google could strike a deal with the game developers to push their search engine to Edge users or buy an ad. Someone writing a new browser or search engine will probably have considerably less money than Google but could reasonably do something similar to try and gain market share.
On the other hand, if that popup comes from Windows itself and especially if clicking “Yes” directly changes Chrome’s settings, then this is Microsoft using their ubiquitous (on desktops) OS to nudge more users to switch a competitor’s browser to their own search engine. Google, or even less a new competitor. would probably not have the same type of OS-level access to switch the settings of a different browser.
Less on edge, but google goes father actually. Google pays Mozilla to make google search the default aearch engine. You could argue thats worse then creating a notification to switch (but doesnt actually do it yet till you allow it to)
In the case of firefox, its not going to a specific site, it would be that way when installed. Its like saying mocrosoft should just outright overwrite the default search engine on amy browser without asking you vs asking you via popup, unless youre saying that the former is better.
Not at all. The difference here is that Google agreed that with Mozilla themselves. They don’t overwrite the browser settings when you open Google. I agree with the sentiment that Google should have less influence and alternative search engines should get more space, but Mozilla itself, Google’s competitor, is who agreed to have their search engine as the default.
It also comes to mind that Microsoft, again, insists on asking you to change to Bing on Edge every update, even if you already picked a different search engine.
But thats the perspective on the business to business difference. To the end user, its the default regardless, as they didnt have a say in that transaction. It would be on the same bout on those who hate preinstalled codecs and applications, which law wise, led to the creation of Windows N editions.
Even in the linux space, people have differing opinions on preinstalled stuff, and goes deeper with hard line options like no propietary preinstalled stuff and only FOSS
Weren’t we talking about companies being anti-competitive? So the competitor dynamics matter here. Also, I don’t recall Firefox ever asking you to return to Google or returning to it unprompted if you change your search engine.
They matter between companies, but the pop up is an end user interaction, which also matters.
The topic is a anti conpany to company, and a milder consumer interaction event.
The situation between mozilla and google is pro conpany, but can be seen as more anti consumer as it has a default.
Treating the dealing between companies and consumers as one single entity is not a good way to look at it. By that logic, ISPs are good companies because they coordinate to not compete agaisnt each other when of course that is far from the case. Yes they do matter, but how the power ends up in the consumers end also matters.
I see your point but the deal between Google and Mozilla doesn’t prevent people from changing default search engines or even nags them to change back. Firefox even has multiple search engines integrated by default. The only thing that it does is make it so Google will be the preset. So, really, I don’t see how the user is being harmed.
Couldnt you say the same thing about this situation, choice is given to you as two buttons with your approval.
The difference is, one asked for your approval at an annoying time, the other picked one for you by default, and you have to change it to something else after.
One is not respecting the user who already made a deliberate decision to change from the default. To be fair, if this appears once it’s not a big deal. But if they keep nagging, then it’s disrespecting their users and their choices, to get an advantage over the competition.
I can see many many examples of how bad Microsoft and Google can be. However this one I honestly don’t understand: how’s Google supporting Mozilla’s competing product anti- competitive? Are they forcing Mozilla to do things they don’t want in return?
I am a Firefox uaer and on every install on a new machine (or phone) I switch the default search engine to duckduckgo. But for good or for bad Google is the search engine most people use (and would use on FF too even if it wasn’t the default). I don’t think Google needs to force Firefox 3%-ish market share to use their search engine.
It’s about it being annoying or not. Microsoft is in a market position where they can leverage their different departments to heavily upsell you on other services. They have an unfair advantage that shifts the entire market to their favor, thus making it hard for any competitor to keep up or even enter the market.
E.g. they use every service / product they have to integrate Bing, they artificially limit the use of their chat bot to Microsoft Edge, they show Bing advertisements when you visit their competitors sites, they allow you to use Teams for free under certain conditions (if you already bought other products), they use their foot in the door with Microsoft Office / Windows go upsell you on Azure, …, Game Pass, …
I can go on and on. Some of them aren’t necessarily bad on their own. Some are. It paints a pattern of what Microsoft used to be. They actively used their position to try and create market conditions that would break their competitors or make it at least hard for them to even compete. About 15 years ago a lot of folks believed Microsoft had changed and were playing fair (in certain bounds), they invested a lot into open source and were generally a more friendly company. What we are currently witnessing is them going back to their old ways of doing things. Slowly tying everything back together. Probably under the assumption that this time the governments are sleeping and not really regulating it anymore. A lot of that is happening in the somewhat non-regulated cloud market anyways.
People can be pissed that multiple different companies are doing things wrong at the same time. The problem is our government has lost its teeth for regulating large businesses
Way to completely and utterly miss the entire point of ethics. Does it HAVE to be illegal for it to be bad when it is WORSE than what they’ve already gotten in trouble for in the past? Why must I have to point at a law in order to say it shouldn’t be?
If you even begin to hate MS, why are you defending them with piss-poor logic?
Things were a little bit different in the late 90s though. Windows had a 97% market share and a massive deal with pretty much every computer maker to only put Windows on their pre-built machines. They had a true monopoly in a way that doesn’t exist today.
They also made IE free and bundled with the OS when every other browser at the time you had to buy. On top of that, they made it so that windows would slow down and malfunction if you uninstalled IE, and made installing any other browser a complicated process.
Today you can freely and easily install pretty much any browser you want. Chrome has the hugely dominant share in the the desktop browser market now, despite Edge being bundled with Windows.
On top of that, Microsoft doesn’t have the massive stranglehold on OS market share that they used to. In the desktop space, MacOS is about 1 in 6 computers with Windows holding 71%, mostly in the enterprise sector.
And this doesn’t even factor in that the majority of web traffic is mobile now, where Windows doesn’t even have a presence anymore.
Market share matters a whole lot less than people pretend… Yes, “monopoly” requires it, but in reality, in the real world where real things happen, you do NOT NEED a literal monopoly to start suffering from the same problems!
Jeeze, it’s like you people want to no-true-scotsman yourselves in to a future where corporations literally own you and your time…
I wish they went with the winrar model. Winrar just nags you once when starting. Windows keeps trying to trick you into giving them your data and signing up for a subscription.
lemmy.world
Top