Sure, but what does that have to do with this picture? The bridge looks deteriorated on that leading edge because 75 trucks have crashed into it at speed.

Or counting has gotten better

I’m not sure how true this perception is in more recent years. Many popular sites, with enormous traffic volumes that could drive digital impression ad revenue, are instead pushing subscriptions or other monetization models.

For instance, the New York Times makes — by far — more money on digital subscriptions than digital advertising. Digital advertising revenues are also declining for them.

Another example is Spotify, where ad revenue from their ad-supported tier did not cover their operational costs and now represents around only a tenth of their revenue compared to subscriptions.

The exceptions to this are generally search and social media sites, where the product for sale on these sites are the users themselves. They’re just advertising platforms, which of course make their money from digital advertising.

So I’d say one issue with digital advertising is that it often does not pay the bills for the site owner. Its value is tied to its ability to convert visitors to buyers, but it has to be ramped up to such an extreme level it instead only creates bad experiences.

I go through significant efforts to block digital advertising at multiple levels. Yet, I do not find it difficult to discover new things to buy (from both small and large businesses).

For myself, I suspect most of that is supported through online communities related to my interests and hobbies. Those purchases feel more informed and often more intentional too.

What if we just got rid of digital advertising altogether in the US? How many issues of privacy, health and personal finance would disappear or be greatly reduced?

It’s hard for me to imagine what that would look like or the downsides other than to the digital advertising industry itself.

JSON Problem Details

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9457

• It has a specification, so a consumer of the API can immediately know what to expect.
• It has a content type, so a client sdk can intelligently handle the response.
• It supports commonly needed members which are a superset of all of the above JSON examples, including type for code and repeating the http status code in the body if desired.
• It is extensible if needed.
• It has been defined since at least 2016.

This specification’s aim is to define common error formats for applications that need one so that they aren’t required to define their own …

So why aren’t you using problem details?

Its use looks contrived to me on the linked GitHub page. The comparison with @ and # is flawed because those symbols are part of the resource name, whereas here the symbol is superfluous. It’s like adding a 🌐 in front of every web URL.

Proof of work, which becomes computationally expensive to scale, along with other heuristics based on your browser and page interaction. I believe it’s less about clicking the box and what happens after you’ve clicked the box.

I remember when I was growing up

You can basically stop right there. You were young and naive, viewing the world through the rose colored glasses of youth.

The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It’s minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn’t require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.

With Gemini?

Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK.

No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation.

This has already happened and continues to happen.

It cannot tell you since then a human would become aware of this information.

At the same time, you’re forcing it to extract this information. Yet you haven’t told it the timeframe within which to answer.

Obviously, the solution it has come up with to satisfy your request within these constraints is to answer very slowly. So slowly that the answer won’t be revealed until it can be certain that humanity will already be extinct.

Given that it provided us with the first word in 30 min, we should all be very concerned.

Those companies aren’t “the Internet.” They’re products connected to the Internet.

The OP argument is like saying the Internet is dead because Netflix is down.

Doubtful. By far, most servers responsible for Internet traffic are not running crowdstrike software.

This incident was a bunch of fortune 500 companies caught with their pants down.

I assume these people are Trumpers.

That’s a pretty bad assumption.

My guess is they did testing but the build they tested was not the build released to customers. That could have been because of poor deployment and testing practices, or it could have been malicious.

Such software would be a juicy target for bad actors.

If an intern can release to prod without extensive testing there are bigger issues.

Given the scope of the potential impact, if anyone can release to prod and have that deploy to all customers without some form of a canary release strategy, then there are still issues.

8+8=16 is absolutely S tier

The relative number here might be more useful as long as it’s understood that Google already has significant emissions. It’s also sufficient to convey that they’re headed in the wrong direction relative to their goal of net zero. A number like 14.3 million tCO₂e isn’t as clear IMO.

“Up to 20%” is meaningless for a headline and is pure click bait. It could be any number between 0% and 20%. Or put another way, any number from no time at all to a horrifying more than an entire day per week.

Why not just state the average from what is probably a statistically irrelevant study and move on?