As a concept, it's intriguing. In practice, a lot of pieces need to work out just right for this particular instance of the idea to gain traction.
IMHO a few factors need to be met:
* Truthfulness -- granted that many topics have opinions and schisms.
* Reliability (self-healing articles?)
* Ease of use -- I think this needs the most improvement. Search is iffy and navigation unfriendly, IMO.
If nothing else I think the growth of something like a competitor is beneficial on its own. A single "source of truth" is nice, but that's not the age we live in, for better or worse.
1. As a sporadic viewer of the newer Simpsons, the quality appears to vary. How can any show remain consistently humorous through nearly 40 years of content? And across how many writers, over time? That being said, it's fair to expect quality. I wonder where the funding and viewership is coming from presently (if those remain related).
2. This is not strictly related to the article content, but I hope I'm not the only one disturbed by the low quality of writing coming from even AP. I don't try to look for nits to pick but this article is a good example. E.g. "triumph tinged with perfectionism." -- This is poor wording. I think I understand the meaning -- that perfectionism, which has downsides, has removed something from what is otherwise triumphant. But it is not written clearly. Another: "Nancy Cartwright arrived at her 1987 audition expecting to read for Lisa Simpson. She had other ideas." -- This reads like a line AI wrote. There are other examples scattered throughout the content.
I guess it's not really important, and I guess there's no reason for me to be picking on this article. But this is a top-of-the-line publication (in theory) and a relatively high-visibility article. I know writers are under pressure to produce content. But there are plenty of writers who perform well under pressure, and editors exist for a reason -- what does it imply that AP, among others, is disinterested in the quality of their own articles?
Everybody's got a party and if you leave, you ruin the party -- apparently. Isolated "walled gardens" are a kind of Intranet. Ingress requires buy-in (sign up, log in, identity proof, human proof); leaving means breaking out to the more transparent, connected internet, which is a big problem when data is dollars.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. More and more patterns seem hostile, antagonistic to the user, and it seems like it's an adopted practice that's taken as a standard. I hope I'm wrong.
> Hasn't the ISO to install W11 now gotten too large to be burned to the biggest DVD?
No.
The Windows 11 media creation tool still officially supports creating a DVD installer from ISO image for Windows 11 (including the latest 25H2 release), alongside USB drives etc. The requirements for the DVD version are still the same 8gb of space it has been for a while. As of today, the ISO is 7.2GB.
Virtually everyone uses a bootable USB thumbdrive or similar today though, and page you download the ISO from heavily encourages this, and is trivial to make with the Installation Media tool Microsoft give you.
I'm not sure I understand the claims being made. I'm curious if this is experiential / anecdotal or if widespread.
I think OSS is OSS always...being able to audit it makes it (reasonably) reliable, at least in the sense of security. I can look at the code, run checks, etc. That alone doesn't guarantee things can't crash and burn, but it's a great start compared to a closed-source solution, even if that solution stands on its promises, as reputation in software is an iffy prospect today.
I'm not aware of any SoTA outside of Veo and Sora. I've found the two of them mostly comparable for one-off use cases. Veo3 might be a bit "crisper" in some uses but this is anecdotal...I'd also be curious if anyone else has a similar experience.
From Wikipedia: “The complete, unexpurgated, and definitive edition, edited and transcribed by Robert Latham and William Matthews, was published by Bell & Hyman, London, and the University of California Press, Berkeley, in nine volumes, along with separate Companion and Index volumes, over the years 1970–1983.”
Sometimes it seems you can "remind" the more established models, and this will bring the context back into focus (just from personal experience) but why that would work, I can only guess.
What methods have you found to brute-force through the problem?
I know I'm not alone in maintaining a strong feeling that we've "gone the wrong way" with tech in a lot of ways, as the meme goes, and forgotten (societally) that tech is there for us rather than the other way around.
I like your approach - take a light touch using technology; use tech where it helps and ignore it where it doesn't.
(The challenge of course is when you can't or aren't allowed to ignore it, its own challenge).
IMHO a few factors need to be met:
* Truthfulness -- granted that many topics have opinions and schisms.
* Reliability (self-healing articles?)
* Ease of use -- I think this needs the most improvement. Search is iffy and navigation unfriendly, IMO.
If nothing else I think the growth of something like a competitor is beneficial on its own. A single "source of truth" is nice, but that's not the age we live in, for better or worse.