I understand your point and agree with it, but outside the known cancers of the internet (Facebook et al) there's a lot of content generated by AI: news articles, blog posts, imagery, video and audio. On one hand it is remarkable that it is possible to generate all that with AI, on the other hand, it takes away the human factor from the equation and thus makes it the internet also dead, in a way. A machine is not alive, how well it tries to imitate life and humanity.

Of course the internet will not die, humans are far too creative to find solutions to problems like this. Thing is, you'll get, again, a splitting of content. The first one was the divide between broadband (exclusive) content, with loads of video and audio and really complex programming and coding, and the "slow" internet. That happened when cable, DSL and fibre got introduced, they were/are far more expensive than slowband internet.
The divide what is happening now is between the AI generated content and the human/hand made content. For example, it is easy to recognise an article written in AI, read: LLM's, that have a superficial character to the texts generated. The quality of a good article, photo, video, audio is characterized by the human flaws or unexpected twists and turns that humanity describes or characterises.

Let's just hope (and expect) that people keep on putting out their things on their own and enjoy the making of said content by themselves. Humans are notoriously lazy but also creative. Maybe that is the real divide?

I have over the air tv,but the programming (except for PBS) is so bad,I can't stand to watch it. More and more of it is just advertisements and reality shows,so I use You Tube for the most part. Networks,I think,will play the long game and eventually lock everything down.

Note that Nielsen’s comparisons here include only programming viewed on TVs and internet-connected TVs — it doesn’t account for mobile or web streaming.

That's odd. Streaming is streaming.

Programmer here

it’s not a simple matter of “writing leaner code”

the complexity of requirements has also changed and grown drastically

it’s humanly impossible to maintain programs counting millions of lines of code in high level programming languages (and “compile” to - ie automatically get translated to - billions of lines of assembler code) by hand and without automation

the software is bloated in part but in a much greater part the complexity of what it is required to do reflects it’s instruction set size

for example the Linux operating system kernel subsystem (so just the kernel that gets put into operating systems like Android, Ubuntu or some server flavor like Debian which contain billions of lines of code outside of the kernel) has 25+ million lines of code which contains enough code that if published on paper (with no margins) would produce a stack of paper 38 meters tall

that’s just the core of the operating system to manage CPU execution

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/

so quite a few things like that are contributing

historically, abstracting fewer lines of human readership code to produce more lower “level” code is how we used to manage this problem

we went from physically rewiring CPU circuits, to writing operation codes for general purpose prewired circuits, to writing assembler code to manage “memory addresses” which “compiles” to operation codes, to writing linguistic instructions to manage “memory” which compile to assembler code and finally, for the past 30 years, we have been using 4th generation high-level programming languages to define and model “objects” which compile to linguistic instructions which manage “memory”

and each time we make one of these kinds of abstractions, we do it to give people comprehension and audit control over underlying system components. Anecdotally (I lost the link) a programmer in the 70’s could not resolve a bug in his assembler program because of the complexity and - so the lore goes - he had to take LSD in order to be able to visualize the full program model (and solve the bug) but then with advent of higher level linguistic programming languages that level of complicated assembler programs simply went away as humans were not required to manually code assembler programs by hand

so yes we have a lot of bloated, inefficiently running software and part of the solution would be to offer better toolsets to manage that complexity with simpler human control system

historically, what happens with these technological quantum shuffles is that they solve the complexity of legacy problems (or problems already solved with legacy technologies) but the solution is more easily modified, elaborated on and extended by hand and so people use them to those ends and that introduces new, previously undiscovered complexities (which then are in need of an even higher level approach to manage and prevent from collapsing under their own weight)

really hope this makes sense to non-programmers... I did the best I could

Yeah. At the time, when I looked at data usage by apps on my phone and saw it chewing through my data allocation, I naively put it down to extremely inefficient programming by app developers. (And that alone would be enough for me to delete the app) - but later when I read about apps like The Weather Channel tracking users, then I realized that this was what was going on instead.

Now, I periodically review the breakdown of data usage by app on my phone. Anything that uses more data than it should, I delete. Basically anything that uses more than my browser (the app I use most often) I will delete. This is not a complete guard against privacy-violating apps, but I figure that it at least will help me identify any big red flags.

I do use it as a drop-in replacement for Windows (and I don't use Mac). No dual-boot. So, I use Linux exclusively for everything I do.

That said, I 100% agree with the issue of fragmentation, that was raised by the author in the article. I spoke to a software developer one time, and he expressed frustration with the idea of developing software for Linux because of the need for different versions for different flavors of Linux.

That being said, there is a huge amount of different software made for Linux - in some ways even more than for other platforms. For example, want to program in just about any programming language? There's almost certainly a version of it for Linux. The same can not be said true of Mac or Windows. Another point supporting that is even with the different package managers around, pick just one - Synaptic for example - and browse it. There's probably a lot more available there, and for free, than there is reliable freeware for Mac or Windows.

Lastly, one thing the author did not consider mentioning was the relatively common usage of Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distros. I don't have figures for this, but I have noticed when installing software, that if a software is made for Windows, Mac and Linux, instead of making 5 different Linux versions, some developers opt to make one Linux version, and in that case it's usually Ubuntu-compatible. So, I'm wondering if, over time, Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distros will eventually become a sort of "standard" Linux for developers to develop for.

People are careful with their time considerably more now especially when it comes to so many additional forms of entertainment provided by smart phones, social media, mobile games, etc. If I have 1-2 hours of my life available to burn on a particular day and I'm faced with an archaic form of TV entertainment riddled with annoying commercials and low quality programming -- well then guess what... I'm definitely not going to tolerate it.

This is coming from someone that has long ago cancelled their traditional TV in favour of streaming.

I'd say a big problem is ads and poor-quality programming. Competitors like Netflix etc have moved with the times; traditional TV hasn't.

I almost never watch traditional TV anymore. I don't see the point of it when I can watch Netflix whenever I want, it saves my place for me in what I'm watching, and there are no ads. I literally don't have time to sit down and watch TV at a specific time when a specific show is on, nor do I have the time to bother setting up recordings, even if it's automatic after the first time. My point is, I'm busy, TV should be available when I want it, I should not have to arrange my schedule around what's on.

Interview Q&A and Programming solutions.

That's why they used it in the MKultra experiments, creating false memories, triggers, split-personalities, etc.. Also why a lot of cults used it in the recruitment/programming phase

TiVo said consumers still think pay TV is too expensive and would prefer to pick their programming on an a la carte basis.

Which is true. So what else did they think would happen? People would find a lot of change in the couch cushons and return to be fleeced? We quit over 10 years ago. Last week I got a notice from Google YT asking me if I wanted to sign up for 500 channels...Ummmm,why? I remember having 500 channels and there was nothing worth watching 90% of the time and the programs that might have been worth watching were 50% ads. What a waste of time and money.

And I have no experience with them! I use linux for personal use, I like the way you can tweak things, and the philosophy behind it, plus the fact you own your own device. So I have next to no programming experience, besides adjusting some veeeery basic scripts and like half a followed course on python. So you're exactly the type of person the type of person like me would be tempted to copy-paste bash scripts from ^^

So, if you want to revisit the good old days of MS-DOS computing and programming, have fun!

Nopers. Not doing that. It is an interesting idea though.

Tipping Point... as in night programming, daytime programming isn't like that.

Edit: Daytime programming is like early 2000's Headline News, they read the news and that's it then put it on repeat.

It's crazy the stuff they're coming up with and also the speed at which it's happening. I've gone from basic programming on a Commodore PET to watching movies encoded in DNA in a little over 30 years.

No tv here. We gave up over 10 years ago. The programming was horrible and stuffed to the hilt with ads. I spent more time muting ads than I want to think about. I mostly ended up watching PBS anyway. Oh well.

Just reading the article shows she wilfully entered into a 3-year relationship with the man, who was married, he didn't coerce her into it, she thought it would help her career and then it ended up hurting it when the network decided not to use her anymore after they broke up.

She has told her lawyer, who is preparing a legal complaint against Fox News and Payne, that she stayed in the relationship because she believed he would help her chances of landing a position at the network, according to the sources. Instead, the woman is alleging, after she ended the affair her appearances were drastically reduced, the sources say…

I just have a problem with actively engaging and then suing later because it didn't turn out how you wanted it.

According to the sources, the woman told her lawyer that from March 2015 to March 2016 she made several unsuccessful attempts to discuss her situation with Payne with former Fox News executive Bill Shine, who was head of programming at the time. Shine left Fox News on May 1.

This is the actual concerning part, nobody wanted to talk to her, and it's possible it's because the anchor told them ahead of time and they chose to back him, but I don't know.

The Eagles, in that line, are telling us that chasing after those highs and lows is never going to satisfy. Whatever that first rush was, a sudden rock stardom you could neither understand nor necessarily survive, the siren call of your first alcohol- and butyl nitrite-fueled binge on Bolivian Marching Powder, or whatever it is, you can't satiate an appetite like that. The're telling us you have to go much more basic than that. Love, maybe. A really good dinner with the people you enjoy, I'm thinking. An Eagles show that, yes, you may have to quit your job to go to. It's not a warning about life becoming progressively more dull as you get older. At all. If anything, they're telling us to break out of our mindless programming and to live more deeply, to go where we really will find those highs and lows, and yes, maybe to see more live shows.

Exponential explained via rice: https://www.daniweb.com/programming/software-.../495652/grains-of-rice-on-a-chessboard-python

Seems like Apple has decided to make their business priority the sales of cables and dongles instead of computers and devices.

It's pretty sad, because up until now Macs have been a solid choice for day-to-day programming/computing, but the new Macs are a nightmare of low specs and having to carry 60 dongles everywhere you go. They need to build a special ouija board to talk to Steve Jobs or something.

Sorry to tell you guys but we do not want ads, period. We don't care whether they're relevant or irrelevant.

Also:

Short-form programming optimized for presentation on mobile devices.

Interactive and personalized methods of viewing sports and other live events.

Integration of professionally produced content with virtual reality or augmented reality services.

Services that encourage consumers to combine professionally produced content with their own creative content and share the results on social media.

Greater choice, convenience, and value in programming bundles.

You can provide all of these things already if you want to, you don't need to merge for that.

You know what customers want? For companies to actually compete with each other to provide better service. Customers don't want enormous monopolies charging 1000% markups of for services. Of course this is not about what customers want, it's about what big corporations want, and politicians usually oblige sooner or later. So much for free-market competition.

I'm patiently waiting for Google Fiber to get here to ditch these assholes for good.

Edit: Formatting

Ditto. Even some of the more technical and better moderated reddits, like /r/science and /r/programming, are starting to see their share of memes and shitposts and the political BS spill over to them.

That's not really a fair comparison. The franchise in 1987 was nothing like it is today, in either scope or scale. Back when "Star Trek: The Next Generation" launched, you had four relatively successful movies based on a television show that was, from the network's perspective, a failure and that had been off the air for nearly twenty years. Now, "Star Trek: Discovery" is launching in an environment where the franchise has been around for 50 years, has had eight more movies, and over six-hundred hours of television programming. It's a completely different set of circumstances.

As I said, I hope I'm wrong, I'm just not getting my hopes up.

No doubt. But, it's still not free labor. Also, the maintenance will be expensive and that will have to be factored in. Robots also require preventive maintenance, they are not something that you want to let run until it breaks. Prior to my stint as an engineer for GE Healthcare I was a field engineer for Applied Materials in the semiconductor industry. Probably 25% of my job was programming and maintaining simple robots.

This strikes me as slightly bogus. That said, If anyone could manage to setup a business system so one line of code could kill it all, his or her business has a lot more trouble than lousy programming.