In the end it was all because of Eve and that stupid apple, or maybe the snake. Why was there a tree in the first place? Also was it really necessary to make a universe? Now that’s where the trouble really started!

IMO the way to prevent such a scenario from happening is not by blocking Meta, but by inviting equally large competitors to join the fediverse. The described tactic can only work if you have close to a monopoly.

They’re right though. Top of the line software for certain domains (CAD, photoshop) just doesn’t exist for Linux. As much as I would want it to be.

Reality: most tech workers view it as fairly rated or slightly overrated according to the real data: https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2023/11/2023-11-20-image-3.png

The paper I showed earlier disagrees

I think the use case is not people doing potato study but people that want to lose weight and need to know the amount of calories in the piece of cake that’s offered at the office cafeteria.

It needn’t be exact. A ballpark calorie/sugar that’s 90% accurate would be sufficient. There’s some research that suggests that’s possible: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.01082.pdf

No paywall: https://archive.ph/2023.11.12-212740/https://www.ft.com/content/8fde56b7-2515-441a-9472-30c8aedcc200
Tbh, the article doesn’t really talk about the headline. Just some history and talk about Elon musk and Twitter. Not a convincing argument about social media in general.

What are you talking about?

There’s still the European Parliament. But yeah I guess he gets the job…

Tbh the other side is also anecdotal. There’s no stats here.

While cool and impressive, this was not a dense forest. Not dense nor a forest, which is way less ordered

I also agree bing is nowadays often superior to Google, they’re also better than DDG imo.

While it’s a good thing that Google gets serious competition, I don’t know if Microsoft is the best company for that role. In both cases the incentives are not necessarily aligned with the customer.

How is YouTube fucking over content creators?

Oh dang, thanks for the explanation!

I don’t get it

I’d say that a measurement always trumps arguments. At least you know how accurate they are, this statement cannot follow from reason:

The JAMA study found that 12.5% of ChatGPT’s responses were “hallucinated,” and that the chatbot was most likely to present incorrect information when asked about localized treatment for advanced diseases or immunotherapy.

What’s the reference?

Tbh the problem is not due to chat gpt but because Google doesn’t rank search results by correctness but something that is related to popularity.

This has more to do with how bad Google has gotten, such that you’re forced to add restrictions like Reddit to get rid of SEO sites and get useful answers. A proper working search engine would show these (and any that are found in Lemmy) high up by default.