1 BC should be renamed year 0. Then the years 0-99 are the 0th century, the years 1900-1999 are the 19th century, etc.
To avoid confusion between new style and old style centuries, create a new word, "centan", meaning "100 years" and use cardinal instead of ordinal numbers, for conciseness. Then the years 1900-1999 are the 19-centan.
Imagine Ladybird is developed and is successful. Lots of people use it to read websites.
But then Badcorp takes the code and builds their own varient with extensions. Badcorp is big and has lots of market share. Lots of people use Badcorps's browser, and because lots of people are using it, lots of web developers code for it, including coding for its extensions.
Soon, lots of websites -- including Badcorp's own websites, and they have lots of popular ones -- use the extensions in the Badcorp browser.
Then people still using Ladybird can't use it for most websites. They have lost something.
What if BadApple takes BSD and forks it. Then they make their own BSD with extensions that only works on their own shiny fruit hardware.
What have the original BSD users lost? Absolutely nothing. BSD still exists, it’s still maintained, and people can still use it. They can also use fruit BSD if they want.
The big difference is: how important is the software for interoperability?
With an OS core, interoperability isn't really important. Existing BSD users presumably weren't too interested in buying shiny new Macs to run their BSD OS on, so Apple using BSD as the core of their OS really didn't affect them. Moreover, existing BSD users didn't need to interoperate with the new MacOS users. An OS isn't some kind of network protocol. BSD users could work with MacOS users just like users of any other OS, using existing network protocols and other standards.
The poster child for the BSD/GPL argument on the GPL side is usually Microsoft's "embracing and extending" of Kerberos. It's a network authentication protocol, licensed with a BSD-like permissive license, and Microsoft infamously forked it, creating their own proprietary extensions. This resulted in only non-MS users not being able to fully interoperate with MS users.
We do already see cases now where web developers write websites targeting Chrome-only browser extensions instead of sticking with standards. In theory, if this happened with Ladybird, it should be possible for the original devs to simply add their own versions of these extensions, but how feasible that it I'm not sure. Currently, there's Chrome-only extensions which apparently haven't been implemented by Firefox for some reason, so maybe it's not as easy as it sounds.
I note form the demo that there's a "Flat" button that looks like normal text. This is a mis-feature and should be removed; controls should look different from things you can't interact with.
I think the point is that for every Mr Beast view there are many more views of content by smaller creators, and whilst Amazon or a major network could definitely buy exclusive agreements with Mr Beast et al (and many leading stars already save a portion of their content for Patreon subscribers), they can't do that with the long tail. Plus if Mr Beast did end up exclusively on a network, YouTube's recommendation algorithms would surface other creators instead.
That's even more true in much smaller niches. Amazon and the BBC actually did pick up a couple of the top narrowboat YouTube channels (and offered them more money and viewers than YouTube ever did) but if you want to search for videos on a particular boating location or how to fix a particular issue or just to have enough content to binge watch to live the lifestyle vicariously without the expense and complications of owning a boat, only YouTube will satisfy you.
Thats not how statistics work. The average number of crimes per person is going to be the same so the crime per capita is the same as the amount of crime an person should expect to experience on average.
You may be thinking of a median or mode, which can differ based on the shape of the distribution curve.
Dumbfuck-oriented design. As neilv's comment[1] puts it:
> The Microsoft Word way has always seemed to support styles more like they were grafted on as an afterthought, without wanting to disturb the least-knowledgeable users, to the point that knowledgeable users have to tiptoe around all the UI that breaks styles.
Also, in 2009 someone suggested re-implementing Eurisko[1], and Yudkowsky cautioned against it:
> This is a road that does not lead to Friendly AI, only to AGI. I doubt this has anything to do with Lenat's motives - but I'm glad the source code isn't published and I don't think you'd be doing a service to the human species by trying to reimplement it.
To my mind -- and maybe this is just the benefit of hindsight -- this seems way too overcautious on Yudkowsky's part.
Machinery can be a lot simpler than biology. Birds are incredibly complex systems: wing structure, musculature, feathers, etc. An airplane can be a vaguely wing-shaped piece of metal and a pulse jet. It doesn’t seem super implausible that there is some algorithm that is to human consciousness what a pulse jet with wings is to a bird. Maybe LLMs are that, but maybe they’re far more than is really needed because we don’t yet know what we are doing.
I would bet against it being possible to implement consciousness on a PDP, but I wouldn’t be very confident about it.
