Every organization seems to over-use spreadsheets. Fortunately, most people really do utilize a small feature set.

My org has been trying to shut off “the zed drive” (network mount) for like a decade and staff still hate Onedrive. If it was actually better, why would staff resist using it so much?

The Cyber Resiliance Act might actually do that. Because paying for support contracts covering every little piece of free software will be cheaper than the fines.

First time I have seen “digital anarchy” and I love it. Except it sounds like a punk-techno band. Lol.

If someone made a board with like 8 slots for ddr3 and a socket for a decent cpu, it would sell like hotcakes. Basically free ram.

Back to TUIs I go.

All part of the goal of turning personal computing into cable TV by making everything web app SASS.

America had to build the (atom) bomb to “beat the Russians to it”. Then the h-bomb, then the ICBM. Every time it was “we, the good guys need this first to save the world”.

Except, even ignoring the “good guys” part, its always easier to copy and steal than build something new from scratch. In every case, America just ended up handing the tech to Russia. You dont slow down tech by inventing it first.

Ubuntu used to be the obvious choice for reviving old systems that couldn’t run Windows

This is a clear case of AI slop not understanding the context. Lots of ink was spilled over the years suggesting people revive old computers with Ubuntu - EXCEPT, they were targeting Windows users. Ubuntu was lightweight compared to Windows, not other linux distros. This hasnt changed.

Easy install with drivers included and a rich guy willing to mail you installer CDs in a nice jacket for free. Every computer club in any school had a stack of them to give out.

Is it kind of weird to respond to every thread with this same claim? A CD iso with full gnome desktop and openoffice wasnt minimal at the time.

In the early 2000s, that wasnt particularily lightweight. I believe it came with openoffice and the full gnome desktop. That was not really minimal in any way.

Half of them probably already think data centres are a democrat scheme.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protectes [sic] but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Its pretty simple.

Hydrocarbons + oxygen + ignition releases energy, H20, and CO2.

Energy + CO2 + H20 can synthesize hydrocarbons.

There is plenty of interesting research how to do the latter - but it doesnt change the fact it just reverses a process we currently do by the tanker ship full. Why would anyone do that at scale?

It cant have a large scale application until we basically have free energy from some other source - and at that point, synthetic fuel is probably still a terrible way to store and use energy for pretty much everything except jet airplanes.

Should you care that the two companies that probably control the software running on most devices in your country are eagerly bending the knee to a new fascist government in a nuclear superpower?

Keep their customers happy… this was a company that tried to charge people more than the price of a new car for a personal computer in the 90s.

Do you consent to this shit? [ ] yes. [ ] ask me again later*.

• we reserve the right to change out terms at any time, including the pretense of the above question.

I think you might mean “partisan” rather than political. Ethics is always political.

To be clear, capitalism is fucking our world. Nothing about the technology can do that on its own. Its how it is being deployed.

We could have started with smaller LLMs, deployed strategically at institutions of higher learning for real societal value, running on renewable electricity… fuck it lets aim for a trillion dollar IPO promising to replace all doctors and engineers!