There is nothing wrong with this news. In fact, it is good news.

We develop technologies, and then we are not supposed to use them? It was obvious that certain jobs had an expiration date, and dubbing is clearly one of them.

If we had to stop progress, we would still be having silent movies, otherwise the person writing the intertitles would lose its job. Or even no movies at all.

deleted by creator

I wish I had the same stonks though…

Your message pivots on the notion that supporting Israel is inherently wrong, which introduces a bias, making your argument logically flawed.

I can criticize HP for its poor technological performance while maintaining my support for Israel.

Consider NSO Group: by your logic, it’s a technologically advanced company with questionable ethics. I find this logical because, although I’m intrigued by the technology behind Pegasus and recognize its technical excellence, I disagree with how its spyware is used. This distinction between technological skill and ethical standing is vital.

Regarding HP, according to your logic, it is deficient both technologically and ethically. Thus, it’s justifiable to criticize it on technological grounds, moral grounds, or both. But for what concerns me, my support for Israel does not factor into my view of HP, as I would only consider boycotting HP for its poor products and services.

If any boycott against HP is generalized as an anti-Israel stance, then HP will continue unaffected, and no boycott will succeed. Hence, it’s vital to boycott HP for its actual failings, not because of a political agenda pushed by a few, which could sabotage the effectiveness of the boycott.

I believe in evaluating a tech company based on its technological merits and customer service quality, rather than its political connections or decisions.

However, if the boycott shifts to a political basis, specifically regarding Israel, it aligns the act of boycotting HP with the stance of supporting Hamas/Palestine, a viewpoint that is definitely not universally accepted. This politicization could render the boycott ineffective, as it then appeals only to those opposing Israel, not those focused on HP’s technological and service shortcomings.

I believe that the grounds for boycotting HP should not be linked to its association with Israel in any manner.

The legitimate reasons for boycotting HP lie in its substandard customer treatment and the gradual decline in the quality of its products and services.

When individuals boycott companies due to their ties with Israel, it only intensifies my inclination to support those companies.

We should focus on HP’s bad technology, not politics. Bringing politics in just confuses the main issue.

Is this a “World News”?

I partially agree. They created a monopoly because they offer the best search engine service. You can’t be accused of making a monopoly if your competition is embarrassingly bad and no one wants to use any service but yours.

What they are doing now, regardless of how they gained this monopoly, is ensuring that every cow that feeds on the grass of their field yields profitable milk.

They are still going to pursue it, just under a different name and rolling-out timeline. What they changed is only the way they are announcing it publicly.

It’s going to be “DRM for the Web, but with extra steps”.

The timing couldn’t be better. For me, the only thing missing from Firefox for Android (or, even better, Mull) was a translation feature; otherwise, it was perfect. The lack of translation was the only reason I found myself opening the Chrome app, and I am eagerly looking forward to no longer needing it.

I was once a fervent supporter of Google, but now see it moving towards Apple’s approach. This shift doesn’t feel like the result of malicious intent on the part of Google’s engineers, but rather a change driven by non-technical roles (business, marketing, …) aiming to boost revenue margins. When these roles lead a company’s direction, you can already hear the ticking clock of its fate.

He doesn’t identify as old.

The demo is showing some cherry-picked examples, but it is definitely on a good track. I can’t wait to see future releases with more consistency.

I’ll stop using Internet before I even consider whitelisting YouTube.

AI writes better than that.

Okay, then let’s hypothetically say Israel forms a terrorist organization that doesn’t overlap with the Israeli government itself, would they then have the right to attack Gaza? This organization would essentially be in the same position relative to Israel as Hamas is to the Palestinians.

The way you debate reminds me of someone who might have abandoned their education prematurely. Are you going to complain to the teacher because you cannot acknowledge that your reasoning is flawed, incomplete, and biased? Your approach to this discussion is quite frankly, absurd.

Your narrative would hold if it weren’t flawed; it’s an oversimplification. Let’s take your perspective where Hamas is the bees that stung Israel, and now Israel is retaliating against the land harboring the bee nest. (I use ‘bees’ here to distinguish from my earlier wasp analogy).

If your neighbor disliked the bees as much as you and agreed the nest was a problem, then certainly, destroying it with care to avoid collateral damage would be wise. However, the situation changes if your neighbor is a beekeeper who shields the bees in his home to protect them from you. If those bees become aggressive and harm your family, naturally, you’d first request the neighbor to remove the bees. Should they refuse, you’d have every right to seek external help. But what if the authorities do little, leaving you to suffer the stings while your neighbor faces minimal consequences? Rather than passively endure this, you might feel compelled to act independently to prevent future stings and deter the beekeeper from maintaining this threat.

Are you focusing solely on the casualties involving children? Does that mean any location with children is off-limits for retaliation, providing a shield for adversaries because children are present? This is not a simple game of hide and seek, nor is it your idealistic world where a slap is met with a turned cheek.

It’s a common misconception that supporters of Israel are indifferent to the death of children or any civilian, for that matter, and you seem to be perpetuating this narrative. You choose the most objectionable point about an opponent to make an accusation, and, much like someone obstinately arguing without listening to reason, you consider yourself morally superior and in the right.

What, in your opinion, would be a suitable response to an attack from Hamas? Would peaceful protests, international condemnation, or sanctions suffice?

If you’ve discarded your spine, don’t assume everyone else has done the same. An entity without the ability to react appropriately can only succumb.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

What did you expect? Do you think that hitting a wasp nest with a rod just once means you’ll only be stung once because you only hit it once? There’s no rule stating that the wasps must respond with equal magnitude. If people are now getting hurt, it’s because someone provoked the wasps. The notion that reactions must be proportionate to the offense is quite naive.