miridius

I tried it out for a while and yes, it really is as bad as the article implies. I gave it a fair chance for a few weeks and then went back to the old assistant (a task which which gemini was also completely unable to help me with, at one point even gaslighting me and saying I wasn't using Gemini).

It's kind of crazy to think about but it seems like Google is just somehow really terrible at AI

Personal preference I guess. I've tried Firefox many times over the years and always ended up going back to other browsers. I find Firefox doesn't render some pages quite right, the user agent stylesheet is odd, and the UI is less streamlined. Performance also used to be a problem although I hear it's caught up now.

I used to be a Chrome user but now I prefer chromium based alternatives like brave and edge (which incidentally, uBO will keep working on). Chrome is still required for work, but uBO change won't be an issue I think, there are plenty of other ad blockers that will work with MV3

If you read the whole thing, it's not wrong. It just highlighted a part that is wrong when taken out of context

Can I get a ChatGPT summary of this article please 😆

Would honestly be better than the current options

All first world governments have some degree of corruption from money in politics, but don't kid yourselves: USA is much worse than most

Hmm I don't think that's necessarily what OP is proposing. There are cryptos where transactions are anonymous.

Banks are already paying for servers to process and store information.

Yes

A few validators or collators (quite cheap for a private network) provided by several banks would cost a fraction of what they pay now

How? They'd be doing extra compute work for no reason (validating already valid transactions), and storing extra data (lots of hashes) for no reason, so it can only make infra costs more expensive. Plus the added complexity meaning you have to hire an extra team just to understand it.

Don't mix blockchain with the speculative world built on top of it. That's only an unfortunate use of the technology.

That speculative world as shitty as it is, is the only proven use case of the technology, if you take that away then blockchains are even less useful

All my points? That's a bit rich

You make a good point that PoS would solve one of the issues I raised which is electricity usage.

In theory it could also increase throughput and reduce costs, but: a) in practice that hasn't happened yet despite years of development, b) it's never going to be as efficient as a centralised system because of the extra overheads necessary to decentralise it, so that point still stands

All my other points still stand as well, plus the additional problems PoS creates to do with centralisation of power

Ok so firstly you're not the OP I was replying to, so neither of us know for certain whether they were talking about replacing the banking system with a decentralised currency vs keeping the existing centralised private banks and just having them use a blockchain as their database. I assumed the former because of their wording ("replace the banking system"), and because the latter offers no advantages that I know of.

Secondly if you think a blockchain would offer some advantages over other more efficient write only databases, I'd be interested to know what those are, because to me if you're not running a decentralised system then you're only getting the downsides of blockchain (such as it being single threaded, slow, and space inefficient) without any of the upsides.

For some background, I'm well aware of how both blockchains and crypto work, having been obsessed with them for a little while in 5 or 6 years ago like many of us were before becoming disillusioned. I've also got professional experience as a developer on both immutable databases and banking ledgers.