Skip to content

‘You can’t pause the internet’: social media creators hit by burnout

Technology
118 51 0
  • Financial 'stretch' for UK to join Europe's Starlink rival

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    19 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Open-Source vs Closed AI: What Businesses Must Know

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    139 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 311 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.
  • 238 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    P
    I was so confused when I saw your comment until I reread my own. It really is top notch technology I guess!
  • 21 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    N
    Both waiting and not Both alive and not Both lying or not Both existing or not
  • The weaponization of Waymo

    Technology technology
    26
    1
    148 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    F
    Not a warzone. A protest. A protest where over twice as many reporters have been assaulted and/or shot than waymo cars have burned.
  • (azazoaoz)

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet