These are the same folks that removed the very useful Google cache feature because people weren't using it any more. What they forgot to say is they hid the feature beforehand.

Of course they have more AI queries every day. They have full control over what goes to LLMs and what doesn't.

Really smells like some high-ups' bonus was tied to these KPIs and they're guaranteeing that they can't lose.

In that case at least they could point out that end users got better results with AMP than they do with news sites w/o ad blockers. The AI results are just wrong so often I don't really get it.

> The AI results are just wrong so often I don't really get it

They believe they won’t be wrong for long.

The results are not wrong, they are AI. Google wants that to become a distinct thing that is neither. What's a better answer for Google than one that generates more usage? If we all push in the same direction we can make AI work, we just need to accept we will need to hold its hand for a while.

I think this is sarcastic but man some people really do have some wild defenses for LLM’s so I can’t be sure lol

Your source clearly says that the likelihood of transmission is reduced, not eliminated.

‘“So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.‘

Extremely unlikely is a lot stronger than reduced. Calling it breakthrough implies that the norm is prevention. Obviously nothing is 100%.

I think it'd be pretty neat to be able to rebase my undo history on to a remote branch someone else is working on.

This is smart but also hilarious.

Speaking for myself there is one other factor that plays a huge part:

4: Nearly every time a stranger tries to talk to me it is to beg for money or sell me something (which is also begging)

In fact I'd say this is by far the prime reason I don't interact with people I don't know. I'm not a kid, however.

Surely parents can look at the sites and decide for themselves whether or not they are suitable.

I am certain that with even two minutes of thought you can understand why this makes zero sense.

I thought for more than two minutes before replying, so I guess not. What makes it difficult for someone who cares about what their child looks at online to determine for themselves what sites are suitable?

Hell, they have .microsoft. Why'd they bother?

But not so wrong that they could get their account back in 10 minutes.

I've been wondering if I should be interrogating my friends before allowing them access to my wifi. "Have you or any of your family members ever been banned by Google?"

Those cookie banners aren't required for conversations -- a persistent session cookie would be enough (if you don't want to make the user sign in every time). The cookie banner implementation is a burden companies choose to place on themselves (and then to burden their users).

I both agree and disagree, but the banner itself is, and isn’t really the point.