As pointed out already, LFS is a cookbook, and you learn most by having an idea about how you want to tune your Linux system.

So at points you want to dive deeper, you do — and go off the beaten path.

It requires a desire not just to understand how bits and pieces fit together, but how you can make them work even better for yourself and what is and is not customizable?

Arguably, even if building it today is easier — back when I did it in 2000, you sometimes struggled to find where the canonical source code of the package is, not to mention compilation errors, linking errors, etc. Only then did you get to configuring the init RC system, choosing between them (no systemd yet), etc.

But a requirement is — IMO — that you are strongly opinionated about how a system should serve you, and look for opportunities to tune it.

I believe their complaint is between "agents" and (them not having) "agency" — by definition, agent is something which has agency.

If you want to use "distinction & choice", you'd need a new word for an "agent" too.

I actually like the appropriatelly directional "harness".

Were they? Did Concorde provide return on investment? When was the break-even expected? Sure, if we look at it as R&D subsidized by governments of UK and France, then yet, it was profitable.

In particular, the problem with it was that it could not get to supersonic speeds over urban areas, which significantly limited routes where it made sense, and the range was not good enough to cover longer distances.

I agree an argument can be made that not all the worst outcomes include restricting public access, but focusing on niche extremist groups (who might also get access to it through government programs by some of them being government employeed) is not a good argument to protect the public.

Governments having unbalanced power can more easily lead to authoritarianism, and thus risk to the public.

At this point, I worry a lot more of billionaires Musk, Altman, Thiel etc then of goverments in general. Thrir project is to get all power and if they succeed, it will be way worst then what we have seen so far.

There's plenty of things to worry about, and plenty of people to do the worrying.

False dichotomy.

Liability when it happens?

Don't all water companies do it?

And while it may point at what we could do with Google and the likes, the risk profile is still a bit different (make many people ill or die vs "unknowingly" stealing some money).

My comment was meant to be sarcasm. I see that didn’t come through.

It did partially, which is why I have the second part — even if we applied the same rule, it's not really apples-to-apples.

It isn’t. But it should be.

I find online advertising crooked as hell. Google charges by the impression and knowingly allows huge percentages of fake impressions. How is that anything other than fraud?

It’s not because it’s online advertising. And that sucks.

I am not disagreeing it's outright fraud. I am disagreeing it's the same thing as water company not testing the water they distribute on purpose (or hiding the negative results).

The more these small devs realize their ad spend is going to bots, the less they'll spend. Like the OP.

Once the word gets around, even small non-techy businesses will pick up on it.

> ...this is Microsoft we are talking about.

Exactly!

More seriously, it not just about building a compliant web browser engine, it is about tracking the dominant browser engine which introduces their own "standards" along the way too.

Microsoft could have easily continued to invest in maintaining their browser engine, but it would have to be comparable to what Google is doing, and yet they'd always be perceived as "behind" due to non-dominant position they have.

I'd say strategically they do not want to invest in tech that's not winning (in marketshare), so when they are not dominant, they'll instead adopt and extend (not just web browsers, look at WSL too).

One thing to keep in mind is that your brain's hardware heavily influences your experience and thus your brain's development.

Eg. whether you are male or female, tall or short, your limbs can make you run fast or not, your eyes can see well or not... all of these influence your experiences, your brain development, and who do you feel "you are". Try really removing all of your sensory inputs from your past, your body ability and disability, and do you think you end up the same person?

> Websites instead of apps on mobile is something that basically always sucks

I find it's the opposite: on my computer, I want native apps, but on the phone, it is very hard to manage a large collection of single use apps because I do not have a keyboard to quickly navigate between them.

If you are on an iPhone you can add a website to the Home Screen and it functions as a dedicated app essentially and the opened instance is treated separately from safari

It is the same on Android.

Uhm, I am saying that I do not want a 100 apps (website-based or native) on my phone because this is hard to manage without better human-computer interfaces like a big screen and physical keyboard.

So I am not sure how making a web page into an app actually helps me?

When they are a web page I frequent, typing a few letters in the browser URL bar gives me the URL to click on and get there.

You can type into the search bar to search for apps on your phone. I don’t really bother with things on my home screen

At least on my up-to-date Pixel phone, home screen search bar only searches the web (by default).

I'll just throw this out here: https://www.webosbrew.org/rooting/

I believe I did have to connect it to the network to get it to some web page or other, but after that I had full control of it.

My LG TV is a bit older, though (2021 or so).