I remember Netscape Navigator crashing, taking Solaris down with it. I could only imagine what it was like on Windows 9x. I don't want to imagine what Windows 3.x users endured. Windows 3.x was the OS where people saved early and saved often, since the lack of proper memory protection meant that a bad application (or worse, a bad driver) could BSOD the system at any time.
I once did an April Fool's spoof of netscape that displayed a wait cursor for 2 minutes then a bomb alert. For classic Mac, it was 90% accurate with only 1% the disk footprint.
In the main example cited by the article: how? It involves the use of surveilance systems by other people,These people may be unaware, disinterested, or even enthusiastic participants in this data collection. The same goes with data being collected by Google when the customer did not have an active subscription.
At best, we can only control our own actions. Even then, it is only possible to minimize (rather than eliminate) the use of their products without putting up barriers between ourselves and society. Consider email: we can use an alternative provider, but chances are that we will be corresponding personally or professionally with people who use Gmail or Outlook. The same goes for phones, only the alternatives available are much more limited. Plus you have some degree of tracking by the telecom networks. (I don't consider Apple or Microsoft much better on these fronts. Ultimately they have their business interests in mind and, failing that, their existence is ultimately at the whim of the state.)
Personally, I use it for a chronological feed of my subscriptions. It takes less time to find something worth watching, and it is easier to move on to do something else if there isn't anything worth watching.
Bookmarking or downloading interesting videos is also handy, since they aren't mixed in with my general bookmarks (in a web browser).
I wonder if the people who write these articles realize that they are doing more damage to their cause than good? At best, their lies come off as hysteria. As worse, their lies come off as conspiratorial paranoia. Either way, they are outright ignoring that these polices are put into place to address a very real problem with the status quo while failing to communicate what the very real issues with these policies are (nevermind proposing better ways to address the problem).
Once upon a time, people saw computers (then the Internet) as a way of lifting people up rather than pushing people down. They saw it as a way of equalizing people's access to knowledge, rather than subjecting them to a fire hose of information. They believed that it would encourage discourse to bring people together, rather than dividing people along ideological lines.
People are being given what they flock to. Again, what's the alternative outcome? What does the implementation look like to you? How is the prevention of dopamine driven content generation and willing consumption enforced? How do you keep conversations meaningful, and content "fulfilling" when that's not what most, what we used to call "normies", actually want?
Terminology shifted somewhere along the lines, because the nature of sites like Facebook changed. These sites were called "social networking" in the early days, since they connected people. These sites are called "social media" these days, which I assume is a reflection that the top-down nature of these sites are much more like traditional print/radio/television media.
The treatment of chat applications, online forums, etc. as social media has always felt strange to me for that reason. While the companies that offer those services may control the platform, control of interactions is limited to moderation and the content of those interactions is rarely created by a commercial interest.
> I don't mean we need one, just that tech is no longer fun
Or maybe the whole thing goes in cycles. For example: the 1980's were a fairly significant time for computer themed books for kids (teaching us how to program from a variety of angles). I don't remember that much kid oriented stuff in the 1990's, but then there was the panic of kids not knowing how to program in the early 2000's, which may have been where those shows came from.
Another factor is that a lot of kid's programming is recycled from generation to generation (either outright rebroadcast or developing new programming under the same franchise). That's really hard to do with tech oriented stuff. Even futuristic gadgets would appear to be dated.
Those are the key words. You have the option to walk away from one distribution to use another if things start getting bad. Such has happened in the past, either because of distribution maintainers making decisions that certain users don't like (think Ubuntu from Unity onward) or because of distribution makers maintainers making decisions that put them ahead of the pack (think early Ubuntu). Overall, it has resulted in a competitive marketplace.
And if things got really bad, people can either fork the offending software or (if they use Linux as a more traditional Unix environment) there are various versions of BSD. If you use Linux for desktop applications, there is even the option of switching to Macintosh or Windows since open source applications tend to be multi-platform.
Being a Windows guy is a bit different. They are sticking all of their eggs in one basket. There isn't a viable Windows-like alternative to Windows if Microsoft messes up. Heck, it is growing increasingly difficult to stick with versions of Windows that are out of support. While I won't go as far as calling this brand loyalty, it means one is pretty much at the whim of the brand.
I like to think of Microsoft software (also applies to other companies) as painting a room, but starting at the doorway as it's easier. Eventually you find yourself stuck in the corner with the rest of the room painted and that's all well and good until you decide you want to leave (assuming the paint is still wet etc).
> The professor just really liked tcc for some reason.
Perhaps, or maybe they just got tired of students coming in and claiming that their program worked perfectly on such-and-such compiler.[1] It looks like tcc would run on most systems from the time of its introduction, and perhaps some that are a great deal older. When I took a few computer science courses, they were much more restrictive. All code had to be compiled with a particular compiler on their computers, and tested on their computers. They said it was to prevent cheating but, given how trivial it would have been to cheat with their setup, I suspect it had more to do with shutting down arguments with students who came in to argue over grades.
[1] I was a TA in the physical sciences for a few years. Some students would try to argue anything for a grade, and would persist if you let them.
> My grandfather moved house relatively recently -- in full knowledge that the house he chose would benefit from car ownership, and in full knowledge about his age.
On the other hand, my grandfather was the exact opposite. He recognized that he would have to move from the country to the city in order to live in a place with adequate public transportation and easier access to medical care. Which he did, and he lived in his own home until he passed away. Likewise, in my university days, I rented a floor in an elderly woman's house. It allowed her to remain independent in a community where she had social connections (e.g. friends and church), health care was easy to access, and everything she needed was within walking distance. To many, renting part of their house out would be unthinkable, but the alternative would be living in a place where everyone is car dependent.
Unfortunately, some people aren't planning with their current or future needs in mind. Or they are unwilling to make compromises in order to address those needs.
reply