xor

I mean the Marshall plan more or less rebuilt the entirety of Europe…

Ah yes, because the EU has never done anything before

Chezmoi with auto-push is the way

Technically, Greenland is a Danish autonomous territory

none of them help an average person*

*except the trains, vaccines, 2 new types of computation, cultured meat, wireless charging, stem cell treatments, neural interfaces, gene editing**

**and whatever unknown advances are unlocked by those and the other technologies

What am I, rainman? Regardless, I’m not sure what that has to do with whether “technology has peaked”

In the last ~10 years humanity has developed:

• electric cars
• mRNA vaccines
• cars that can (more or less drive themselves)
• convincing human language text/speech synthesis
• reusable space rockets
• precise gene editing
• prosthetics that directly connect to the nervous system
• robots that can walk across inconsistent terrain
• commercial quantum computing and quantum cryptography
• cultured meat
• biometrics
• computer vision
• virtual reality
• optical computing
• wireless charging
• stem cell treatments
• neural computer interfaces
• drones
• maglev trains

New technologies tend to have long lulls while being developed, followed by a rapid series of developments when those technologies become viable and in turn provide the base for new technologies.

Yeah, there’s always grifters and technologies that turn out to not be useful, but there’s also always tons of people working really hard to create new advances for the benefit of mankind. Capitalism is definitely flawed (understatement) but relative to say, feudalism, continues to be a very efficient way to allocate resources when used in a well managed economy.

Lol

So, to summarise, you have no actual evidence, you’re insulting me for not coming to the same conclusion you came to just based entirely on vibes?

Given that natural language interfaces are pretty ubiquitous (you almost certainly have Gemini/Google Assistant or Siri on your phone by default), I think “it’s self-evident” is not a compelling argument here

Okay, so would you like to now elaborate on what that research was, and why that research proves that it’s so impossible for me to be correct that it’s reasonable to call me an idiot? Or is it just the case that you hate AI, and thus merely thinking it’s possible that people may use it as a browser interface means I deserve to be insulted?

What an eloquent and well researched argument you’ve put forward

I think there’s some alt-text generation for websites that don’t have proper accessibility, though not certain if it’s released yet

Not entirely clear, but my best guess is that it will basically have an MCP implementation so that the browser can be controlled directly by an LLM

I think that’s basically what e.g. the chatgpt browser is. Despite the… hostile… response on the fediverse, I suspect it will end up being the way a lot of people interact with the internet in a few years.

The implementation challenge currently is that they’re extremely vulnerable to prompt injection.

That’s for startup ideas

Sure, but you do still have to actively go and spoil your vote - just staying at home muttering “I showed them” doesn’t count as participating

Well even if you believe political parties shouldn’t exist, you should still participate in your democracy. It’s not like the system goes away if you refuse to participate, so you might as well work within it

Sorry, but vote splitting categorically is a thing. You can say “they won’t do better”, but on a fundamental level that just is how FPTP systems work. I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but here we are.

As a counterpoint, my country had a direct referendum on voting reform a while back. So yes, you absolutely can change a two party system by voting for one of the two parties.

You’re right, the right wing parties will do better

Is that the change you were going for?

The way you get to positive results is through grassroots movements (including within major parties), protest, and voting in a way that gets you as close to a good outcome as possible. Mamdani’s victory is a glowing example of that strategy working.

I think it’s also worth noting that the independent candidate (Cuomo) was not the 3rd party candidate - since Mamdani and Cuomo were the 2 viable candidates, Sliwa’s votes moved to the nearest viable candidate.

Lots of people seem to think that 3rd parties are defined by lack of party nomination

The issue is that voting for third parties doesn’t make third parties viable in first-past-the-post systems. I, for example, would love if my country had a diverse parliament, but I continue to vote for the saner major party in my constituency because if votes are split between them and the party I’d really like to be in power, then neither of them will be.

Tactical voting is the symptom of two party systems, not the cause.