People shouldn't be paying to opt out of ads, websites should be paying their users for what they're exploiting them for.
"More competition" meaning less access, people having to pay for multiple different services instead of having it in one place.
The competition should be about having the best platform, not exclusive content. There's no reason why the same show couldn't be on two different platforms. And available globally. Practically, all you really need is more local servers for where there's more traffic.
For personal use, but corporations trying to profit off of it could be fined 100% of their assets if need be.
I have inside pockets added so that I can deal with the wire issue. Makes for a better place to carry the phone anyway.
AI's going to kill us off by doing what we do better than us. Consuming resources and producing waste. And we're already pretty good at it.
It is just a tool, if a writer can use it, why not? But without the writers and the involvement of humans to verify and edit the work, might as well just have the public use their own AI units instead of paying a studio for something they didn't put any hours into.
In 2003, the World Wide Web was still in its infancy. Dial-up connections were still the default and YouTube, Facebook, and Gmail had yet to be invented.
I'd argue it had reached its prime. Websites were just websites then, not data harvesting machines.
Trees replace themselves. So yes, forests store carbon, rather than specific trees. Also, dead trees don't just evaporate into the atmosphere. Other species eat them, etc. Over time, more and more carbon will be stored somewhere, if it's left alone.
@query
@lemmy.world