It keeps you on there site. Same reason Twitter banned links and has grok now, the longer you stay on the site the more likely you are to look at or even click on an ad on that site. If you google something, then quickly scroll past the first couple ad links and click on the first non ad link you are maybe only staying on Google for 1 or 2 seconds. If you get an “ai overview” at the top and start reading through that then you’re maybe spending 10-30 seconds reading through that. That’s another 10 seconds that the ad was displayed that Google can go to there ad customers and say people were looking at it longer.

Another reason more motivated by user experience is also that the AI has a better “understanding” of meaning compared to typical search algorithms. Say you search “Starbucks price at closing” when you meant “Starbucks stock price at time of market closing” an AI would be more able to discern that meaning as opposed to a traditional algorithm which may show you the closing time of the nearest Starbucks, or the price of one of there drinks etc.

That may be true for small or mid size startups that are reliant on VC money, but we’re talking about Google and Microsoft here, they already have there money printers going and don’t need VC money.

They had just as much control with the old search algorithm, though. They could still pick and choose what you see on the search results with their opaque algorithm. The only difference would be that instead of only showing some regime captured media outlet they could generate there own narrative on the fly, but it’s not like there’s a shortage of sycophantic media written by actual people they could pull from.

The bank (Morgan Stanley) has a bullish target of $410, which it breaks down into five buckets: $75 a share for the EV business, $160 for in-car software services, $90 for robotaxis, $67 for energy storage, and $17 for Tesla as a third-party supplier to other companies.

If you have money in Morgan Stanley funds watch out, if they have this bullish of an evaluation that probably means they’re buying and that you have exposure to the whims of a psychotic man child, or at least more exposure then the rest of us living in trumps America .

Careful there keir, this is the exact kind of “anti-semitism” that ya’ll kicked Jeremy Corbyn out of the party for.

The part about the women having surgery and the guy getting laid off is pretty bad but the concept of downsizing doesn’t seem dystopian to me. If anything its a good thing to move to a more dense living situation with shared amenities like parks and pools then living out in suburbia with a big house with a bunch of rooms and amenities that need to be maintained by you while they are rarely used.

Plenty of people live very happy lives in smaller situations. Studies have shown that satisfaction with your living situation is more closely related to your house size relative to your neighbors then the absolute house size. Ie if you have 1000 sqft but that’s above average for the neighborhood then you’ll be more satisfied then the person with a 2000 sqft house in a neighborhood of 3000 sqft houses.

lack of sanely sized options

I don’t get this, like they still make sedans. Go to a toyota or honda dealership and there are still plenty of small affordable efficient cars.

I agree we should definitely tax them but that’ll only go so far. Even if we tax them people have shown there willing to spend a lot more money for an suv . People view them as a status symbol and cultural signifier and will pay a lot since a part of there identity is based off it.

Strict regulation making it so a majority of people just can’t buy one would be the only way, but thats unpopular and fox News would have a field day about “the liberals are coming for your truck”

Still cheaper then the extra car payment for getting a car twice as big as you need for rare occasions.

I think the bottom right one is supposed to be sympathetic and more making fun of the catch 22 of the car arms race caused by all the other panels.

deleted by creator

while consumers constantly say “where’s my small car?”

On a Honda or Toyota lot, there are still plenty of small affordable, fuel efficient cars to be bought in the US, people just aren’t buying them and are choosing to pay twice as much for an SUV

meat so cheap it’s the best option for consumers vs plant protein

It’s not, the cheapest diet there is is rice and beans, and you can buy those at literally any store that sells food. Beans are half the price per grams of protein compared to chicken, way less compared to beef and pork. .

People aren’t driving big cars and eating meat because there are no other options or it’s too expensive. There are plenty of other options, and its more expensive to buy an SUV or eat meat, they choose to because they like it and don’t know or care about the climate costs.

Time to go back to shiting on Bernie for being a straight white man

Nah that’s New Orleans, and you would’ve known that if you studied your Lil Wayne.

So do you have to basically ai spam applications if you want a job now? Cause it seems like companies are using ai to filter out 99% of applications so there’s no use into putting manual effort to adjust resumes and write cover letters if a human isn’t going to read it.

corporations producing the vast vast majority

Care to give some citations? Cause a large chunk of greenhouse gas emissions can be chalked up to individual choices. Eating meat (14% of ghg ) and driving (16% of ghg in us) being the top two. I guess you could argue it’s the auto corporations fault for lobbying congress against investing in public transport, but no one is forcing you to eat meat.

I understand corporations are the biggest problem for the planet but you can’t just put it all on them and not look at the ways your lifestyle is also contributing to climate change. Even if we nationalized every major polluting company and somehow got them to net zero we’d still have a problem if everyone is driving a huge pickup truck everywhere and eating beef everyday.

Expropriate* your lunch money.

Para baseballum

Yeah, I’m staunchly for legalization of all “vices” but I’m not going to pretend that they’re harmless and aren’t valid reasons to want to get rid of them besides being a kill joy.

Why are you so hostile? Every other “refutation” your giving is half name calling and half obscenities.

EDIT: looking at your post history it seems your this way to nearly everyone. Your a combative entrenched ideologue who is convinced they know everything and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Usually see this in tankies but I guess anarchists can be convinced of the infallibility of there ideology as well. I’d recommend reading some zizek and examining your relationship to your ideology. Any way just going to block you now since you seem opposed to any constructive conversation.

It’s difficult for you to understand anyone risking their lives without a commissar standing behind them with a gun pointed at their head.

It’s not for me, I recognize that there are committed partisans who will risk there lives for the cause, you seem to be, or at least claim to be, one of them. If you are, I recommend volunteering to defend rojava, they look like the sdf could use you about now and they’re probably the closest thing we have to barcelona on this planet right now. I’m saying that’s not most people. There were tons of people volunteering to fight the fascists in WWII but they were not the majority of troops, a majority were drafted, because if the allies stuck to an only volunteer force they would’ve lost. Is it difficult for you to understand that most people, even if you explain it to them well, aren’t going to want to die for anarchism or any sort of ideology for that matter? If you don’t you really need to touch grass.

Oh, look… here comes the military expertise you gained by playing “Civilization” games again.

Idk where you are getting this from, seems sort of a projection since you keep bringing it up and are the one using video game terms like “spawn”.

What examples of “unsupported” movements do you have?

There’s one literally in the sentence you quoted, the October revolution. The allies flooded aid to anyone opposing the bolsheviks, the right, liberals and a lot of the Socialists opposed them, the best they got was a temporary de facto ceasefire from the central powers. Against all this they won the civil war, i wish they hadn’t, but they did.

Even the original modern revolution, the French revolution succeeded for a while despite every nation in Europe opposing them and was only taken down by napoleon’s ego. They didn’t do all this by relying on a democratic all volunteer force, they did it with the levee en mass and a top down military hierarchy.