Do they? I haven't seen any research. My non-scientific experience watching people use Google tells me they mostly cycle through the ads at the top until they get to the right thing, or forget what they were doing and follow the first advertiser's funnel.
You're probably completely correct and know more about the actual day to day than I do, but it sure seems like most of the famous ones were kinda jerks about sharing.
package.lock is JSON only, Nix is for the entire system, similar to a Dockerfile
Nix specifies dependencies declaritively, and more precisely, than Docker (does by default), so the resulting environment is reproducibly the same. It caches really well and doubles as a package manager.
Despite the initial learning curve, I now personally prefer Nix's declarative style to a Dockerfile
> but I think most of us can all feel societal erosion happening and the decline of average IQs and the fact that a huge generation of growing young adults can barely read. Let's not pretend this has nothing to do with multiple epidemics like porn addiction, gambling, and general disregard of trying to better yourself because 90% of people are using 80% of their days staring at said TikTok creators
None of this is true, but boy, it sure does feel good to believe.
I wish you, and people in general, would be more willing to look for something like truth instead of whatever feels good at the moment.
I applaud the effort, but last time I tried this the major issue was the sheer amount of book data only available from amazon.com and scraping that is tedious to put it mildly.
You should also consider OpenLibrary and LibraryThing. Both of which have good coverage on WikiData which also aggregates identifiers.
In fact, now that I think about it, you could also contribute your work to WikiData. I don't see ISBNdb ids on WikiData so you could write a script to make those contributions. Then anyone else using WikiData for this sort of thing can benefit from your work
I haven’t created a ticket for OpenLibrary yet, but it’s on my mental todo list. I’ll create the ticket for multiple new extractors today.
I’d love to help improve other services. I plan on charging for Librario at some point, but I’ll offer a free version and offer free API keys for projects like Calibre and others.
Yeah, no kidding. I was alive 20 years ago, this isn't like talking about the 1800s, what exactly was different with the craftsmanship and ethics back then?
If you want to tell me that llms are inherently non-deterministic, then sure, but from the point of view of a user, a saw stop activating because the wood is wet is really not expected either.
also from the point of view from a user: in this example, while frustrating/possibly costly, a false positive is infinitely preferable to a false negative.
Yes, cutting wet wood on the sawstop sucks, but I put up with it. If clicking 'close' on the wrong tab amputated a finger, I'd also put up with it. However, I've closed plenty of tabs accidentally, and all my fingers are still attached.
I don't know where your quote is from, but trying to own the "default" web browser and tying it to your OS monopoly seems like a pretty great idea from a "making money" perspective, if perhaps not a legal or ethical one.
Legal problem, absolutely. But it is hard to spin bundling a web browser as an ethical concern - especially from MS's perspective. Everything they put in the OS is a component bundled with the OS. Some components being legally special and problematic would have been quite confusing to them when it first hit. Web browsers aren't special and there is an expectation that an OS can access the internet using a variety of protocols.
The ethical issue would be around making it technically harder for competitors to create a web browser. Eg, standard practice on mobile phones (which is worse than anything MS ever did and has always seemed fine to me).
It's from Joel Spolsky in that post linked by the grandparent, from 2006. And that's exactly what I'm saying - it was one honking great idea. Microsoft saw how central the web is becoming, and integrated it into the OS
As for legality, I'm not a lawyer and definitely not an antitrust one, but as I see it, an OS is almost by definition an amorphous collection of tools that users need to make proper use of their computer and nowadays I can't imagine an OS that doesn't come with a browser, so would argue that they were absolutely right in integrating it. If anything, I see much more merit in suing them for abusing their OS monopoly to go into the solitaire gaming space.
You're looking at it from the modern perspective. What Microsoft did was use their monopoly power to destroy a potential competitor -- the first step of the "EEE" trifecta.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but I don't think that they, or anyone, should be disallowed to Embrace new technologies. There has to be a better approach to antitrust.
reply