rob299

meaining it's about a 50-50 split in the us. i'm still not really concerned. when you have only two smartphones, ad no one wants to make a 3rd commercial smart phone that is not based on andriod, resualts like this are bound to happen.

It might not or mightt be true, I know a lot of artist hate it, you'd be hard pressed to not find any that does not like ai, not saying that no one out of these groups could not appreciate it. I do think ai can be great, but it's all over the internet, that people just don't like ai. Might even be 50-50 60-40 who knows, but it's still a noticable amount.

I am totally ok with disagreements. I think people like to learn from others, even when they might just simply be wrong at times in the public opinion.

This is the best thing to happen to for internet, since the fediverse. or since hd video was made available for free streaming uncapped particularly by YouTube

and now more people can experience this. I consider this a win for all. Internet prices will go down. Did we lose anything from this proposal? I don't think so. but time will tell as of course the rules had only just now passed.

wait, then how do youtube's ads on smart tvs generate money? something doesn't add up because on smart tvs you cannot click the ad in the same way or even at all.

wait what??~~ what??!! the fediverse has been nothing less than supportive of a lot of these marginalised groups. as soon as I saw the headline my jaw dropped. where.is.your.evidence.?

Chrome wasn't the problem, more or so Google being the defualt search engine everywhere you go except windows, and the degraded search experience on Google. Google chrome itself is actually a good fast speedy browser. whether it's the speediest is debatable. but it is a good one.

also Google Chrome is pre installed on Chromebooks and Android phones. while Chromebooks aren't as.. popular, android phones particularly dominate sales charts.

absolutely, so lets say for instance, a bot posts an article, what stops people from discussing that tech news arcticle in the comments, and a bot might not get every piece of news, so users can then creat posts to fill in those blanks. I guess an argument could be made that less people would make posts, but then if there are no bots at all, there that chance that at some point that people just stop using Lemmy and go back to tradition social platforms because they feel there isn't as much content.

so when you look at it on both sides; bots, or no bots, both have their potential bad sides. but also potential benefits.

I'm going to try the block all bots setting myself. perhaps it isn't as less active active when the bots don't just sometimes come in and post an article here or there. I'm gonna do a small personal test to see if it feels any different in a good or bad way over all.

another thing i'm confirming right now is that I don't want there to just be bots. I was just saying that sometimes bots can help start conversations when people aren't posting. when done right, it seems to work. sure it isn't always done right, but there have been times when it started good conversations with real people in the post.

I get that standpoint, if that's all you get but on this community, you get bots and also real users here that also creat posts, combine the two then factor in the conversations that form in the comments.

eh, isn't safari using WebKit, wasn't that made open source at one point.

wait wait chill let me explain my thoughts process of my that statement to you

sometimes a bot might post an article, sometimes a real person. regardless, if the article is relavent, then real people might join in to discuss the article, which on this community this happens.