I mean you can go both ways. If godot fell behind then it would be argued that it’s not it’s primary language. IE I’m not a huge expert on how the languages work. but I’d imagine godot would be less efficiant when using the languages that it supports, but wasn’t built for.
That’s like competing in a reading contest with your second language, versus an opponent who only speaks the language.
I believe burners are still feasible, it’s been several years since I’ve done it, but at least as far as I know trackphones let you buy them with cash, buy a card for service with cash. Some stores with policies try to comply with a law that never passed, but I’m pretty sure that option is still around. But yeah using other peoples phones, payphones etc… is always a possibility as well.
I mean it’s also 2026… you can drive 3 cities away, buy a burner phone with cash. Make a call, smash the phone with a rock and throw it in a dumpster. Then it’s down to scary facial recognition tech assuming the store you bought it from has security cameras.
Of curriosity is there much to hate on her, or is it just the normal right wing “comic is woke” and she charges for nudes?
My thoughts also… who the hell posts more than 50 times a day… well that’s twitter isn’t probably paid for with our tax dollars anyway.
Or, perhaps just less “politically motivated people”. With musks constant butting heads with his own AI when it keeps calling him out on his BS, and he’s constantly retraining it and trying to “remove the woke virus”. I think basically you give AIs access to sources, let it prioritize experts in their fields, and you wind up with the classic “reality has a strong left wing bias”. factor.
Sorry I meant android/iphone apps and browser extensions. It would seem to me that’s the easier part with all the work done on making the client.
would it be also plausible for say vaultwarden to make it’s own client and just completely fork over if bitwarden becomes less open?
*doesn’t charge you an extra subscription to be able to play games online. obviously games themselves may make their own choice on whether to charge you to play them online.
Exactly that’s how it was before the begining of this year, now everything new is being produced exclusively for data centers… so now it’s just us trying to outbid eachother for years old hardware.
I mean that’s largely true, but it’s not like PC hardware isn’t currently relevant to the current system as well. About 2-3 years ago I went all out and built my son a 3 grand gaming PC (divorced dad energy), about a month ago I looked up the parts. The exact same build that’s now 2-3 years more outdated components, would run about 5 grand now.
So yeah… while I’ve been largely out of consoles for a while now. gaming hardware in general is pricing everyone out right now as data centers are bidding everyone up…
I don’t think marketing was wave’s problem… nobody understood what the hell wave was. I used it for a few months… and I can’t tell you what the hell it was.
I think so, I don’t remember how long that was. But I do distinctly remember the era where it was shoved down everyone’s throat, which I have to say stuck with people far more. Telling people that they must use it, generated so much hatred for it it was insane.
I remember when they offered 1GB, was at a time when I think the standard hotmail was like either 10 MB or 100 MB, and they made the announcement on april 1st.
Then did it via an invite system.
You know now that I think of it, I wonder what would have happened if google plus had used a similar playbook to that. Seems like with gmail google knew the “exclusivity” was a selling point. Facebook grew big via similar strategies (only these special college students can get it, ok a few more colleges can), meanwhile google plus was "HEY, USE GOOGLE PLUS NOW, Oh you aren’t using it yet, we made your youtube account a google plus account now, so now you have an account please use it now!
While social media in general is toxic. I do feel design wise google plus was leaps and bounds ahead of facebook at the time. Circles is IMO the feature that would have made social media actually semi-useful. (IE post your video game content to gamer friends, fun activities to friends, and not putting any job risking content to bosses etc…).
I can give you they had different ways to get to that position. As much as I hate IE, I do have to admit it was ahead of netscape for quite a significant time. But yes google used less monopolistic practices to get in there, beyond like spamming you whenever you went to google. I will admit even now edge does worse in the monopolistic practices "I see you went all out of your way to download another browser, are you sure you really want to switch to it, have you at least given edge a fair shot? Please try it out for a bit longer. (and of cousre it’s worth noting now edge is basically a skin of chrome),
But how they got there wasn’t what I was talking about anyway, The point is web pages now cater to chrome, as that’s what makes up over 60% of the total usage, with about 20% being safari (of which you can pretty much assume almost all of that is mobile), and almost everything at the top is running chromes engine.
So in short, if you are designing a page.
Does it work on blink engine, that covers 76% of users, then does the mobile site work on safari, that covers another 20%,
Point is a monopoly is a monopoly, even IF the reason they are there is purely good. The point of the article is just noting that to not use chrome’s engine, browsers have to take the time to make things work, because the websites themselves have little incentive to do so. for such a small percent of their userbase.
So TL:DR, chrome is like internet explorer was before firefox. It does some things outside the standard, and because it’s the modern day “default”. sites sloppily code to work with it, and other browsers are left carrying the bag because if tiktok doesn’t work on firefox, people will view that as a firefox problem. Even if firefox is the one actually following the standards when tiktok and chrome aren’t.
Honestly to me I’d actually want, smart glasses in a form where I can actually control every bit of the data etc… (though I can also see the problem of others having it.
Same vein that I like having security cameras around my yard, that I can access from anywhere. BUT big caveat… I don’t use any of their built in networking, actually my router only gives them local internet access just in case the camera manufacturers did something shady, they only connect to my frigate system.
Something like glasses and AI I pretty much feel the same way. Something like glasses that record, and an AI that indexes all the information, alllows me to go to a computer and say “did john smith ever tell me his birthday”. and be able to discover that even for in person conversations would be an insane QOL tool. But only even remotely worth considering if that data isn’t going to every other company.
I mean I thought putting the first statement of “lol, lets use AI to get an opinion of how good AI is at reducing shootings”.
so yeah the joke I was intending to do was to point out that, if someone asked AI if it was good at stopping school shootings, AI would tell you it isn’t. Which makes it ironic that someone who claims that they trust AI in important roles, can’t seem to trust AI telling it it’s not good at those things (or at least not ask it).
lol, lets use AI to get an opinion of how good AI is at reducing shootings
what direction is the trend going in school shootings in the united states, more or less frequent over time?
The long-term trend in the United States is that school shootings have become more frequent overall, especially since the late 2010s and during/after the COVID-era years. Multiple major datasets and studies show a substantial upward trend over the past 25 years.
A few important nuances:
The exact numbers vary depending on the definition used: Some databases count any gunfire on school property (including after-hours incidents, accidental discharges, gang-related events, etc.). Others count only targeted attacks or mass-casualty events. Even with different definitions, most datasets still show an increase over time.
Some notable findings from recent research:
A study in the journal American Academy of Pediatrics found that the 2017–2022 school years had dramatically more school shootings than the previous two decades, with 2021–2022 reaching the highest level in their dataset.
KFF reported that student exposure to school shootings has nearly tripled since 1999, with the sharpest increases occurring during the pandemic years.
The broad K-12 School Shooting Database showed a peak around 2023, though 2024 and 2025 appear to have declined somewhat from that peak.
So the short version is:
Over decades: upward trend (more frequent). Very recently: there are signs of a modest decline from the post-pandemic peak, but rates remain historically high compared with the 1990s or early 2000s. how likely is it that the use in AI is reducing school shootings?
There’s currently no strong evidence that AI is already reducing school shootings in a measurable national way. The honest answer is that researchers are still in the “possible tool, unproven impact” stage.
What does seem plausible is that AI may help in a few narrow areas:
identifying threatening posts or communications, assisting school threat-assessment teams, sorting large amounts of tips or reports, flagging patterns humans might miss.
Researchers studying threat assessment think technology-assisted systems could potentially help identify credible threats earlier.
There’s also evidence that many attackers show warning signs beforehand — threats, writings, online posts, or concerning behavior — which is exactly the sort of pattern-detection task AI is often good at. One review noted that roughly 75–80% of school shooters communicated intent before attacks.
But there are major caveats:
Experts repeatedly say school shootings are rare and difficult to predict accurately. False positives are a huge problem — you do not want systems incorrectly flagging ordinary students. Many AI school-safety technologies (facial recognition, social-media scanning, behavior monitoring) have little rigorous evidence proving they actually prevent shootings.
Some researchers warn AI systems may introduce bias or over-policing concerns.
And there’s another side to this:
AI may also be creating new risks. Recent investigations and studies suggest some chatbots can, under certain circumstances, provide harmful or violent planning information despite safety guardrails.
So overall, the current evidence points to:
Potential modest preventive benefit through threat assessment and monitoring, but no demonstrated large-scale reduction in school shootings yet, and possibly some offsetting harms from unsafe AI behavior.
If you want, I can also break down:
which anti-shooting methods currently have the strongest evidence, whether armed guards actually reduce shootings, or how “threat assessment” programs statistically perform compared to other approaches.
He’s mad because he’s going to miss being able to watch playgrounds without violating his restraining orders.