Only because the desktop market will shrink.

I think most people’s computing will go to phones, tablets, or phone/tablet-like devices (like Chromebooks or the Macbook Neo) that don’t really count as desktops. I think the PC hardware market will shrink.

What’s left will be PC enthusiasts and gamers clinging to their existing hardware, and TBH I can see 15% of those moving to some linux flavor as Microsoft basically sunsets desktop Windows.

Business workstations will be stuck with Windows forever, though.

Wow. That is one sloppy header image.

There’s never been absolute freedom of speech, anywhere on the internet.

There is something you could say that will get you shunned from any community.

That’s my response to “but free speech!” That phrase means you’re trying to say something that will generally inflame Lemmy instances, so specify what you wish to discuss if you want to be pointed somewhere better.

This. This is what the US petro lobby paid for.

They could not possibly be in a better financial situation now.

The message is “Games need to get cheaper to make, not shittier and more expensive.”

And asset reuse can be a great way to do that. Or a trap.

uBlock Origin is the gold standard, but you need something that supports the full version. Plain Chrome (and most forks) are not good enough.

Firefox, Helium, and/or Orion would be my top picks.

On top of three letter agencies, basically every cybersecurity expert that publishes a “basic tweaks” article recommends uBlock Origin.

Yep.

Cool niche content gets sparser and sparser as attention of more popular opinions snowball, and the “hero” posters holding single communities afloat burn out.

Mark my words, Lemmy (and Piefed) will meet Voat’s fate (amongst other Reddit clones) unless something changes. It’s happened over and over again, and creative filtering like Piefed is doing or “open” Federation as is Lemmy’s focus isn’t going to fix it. Neither will posters. They need more fundamental structural attention/UI changes, in the code.

Oh my god.

I can’t unsee this now.

I did use a spoiler! I think:

edit: Is it not showing up in a particular UI?

I found this amusing: all the American LLM systems I fed the translated text to for a take refused to reply, calling the topic “prohibited.”

Stepfun3.5 (locally) had no problem, and surprisingly, neither did GLM 5 over their web UI; it went and double checked the Chinese translation, in fact, and said it’s “difficult to square with international human rights norms,” along with any LLM’s usual hedged approach. I’ll put the conclusion slop in a spoiler, but here it is:

### 5.2 Major concerns and criticisms

1. **Language and education: heavy assimilation bias**

   - The law’s strong emphasis on Mandarin as the national common language, and on unified teaching materials, is widely seen by outside observers as **curtailing minority-language education**.  
   - BBC and other analyses note that it mandates Mandarin-medium education from pre-school through high school, replacing previous policies that allowed many subjects to be taught in Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongolian, etc.【turn1fetch2】  
   - While Art. 15 formally says minority languages are protected, the **practical effect** is likely to be further erosion of those languages as living languages of education and public life.

   This raises serious issues under international human rights standards on **minority language education and cultural rights**, even if Beijing argues that Mandarin improves job prospects and national unity.【turn1fetch2】

2. **Ideological uniformity and freedom of expression**

   - The “five identifications,” the obligation to love the CCP and the motherland, and the restrictions on parents transmitting views “not conducive to ethnic unity” (Art. 20) go far beyond typical anti-discrimination or hate-speech rules.  
   - They effectively **mandate a specific political and historical narrative** and can be used to penalize dissenting views on history, politics, or religion.  
   - This is hard to reconcile with robust protections for freedom of expression and belief, even if one accepts that every state promotes some national narrative.

3. **Potential for misuse and overreach**

   - Concepts like “undermining ethnic unity” or “ideas not conducive to ethnic unity” are broad and can be interpreted flexibly by local officials, especially in a context where the judiciary is not independent.  
   - The combination of:
     - vague prohibitions,  
     - extensive supervision and reporting obligations, and  
     - penalties for failing to stop “wrongful” behavior  
     creates a strong **incentive to over-enforce**, for fear of being accused of laxity.

4. **Impact on minority communities and identities**

   - Policies promoting “mutually embedded” communities and Mandarin dominance can improve mobility and opportunity, but they can also **dismantle concentrated minority neighborhoods** and weaken the social base for distinctive linguistic and cultural practices.  
   - Scholars and exile organizations argue that this is part of a longer-term **“Sinicization” campaign** to reshape minority identities around a CCP-defined Chinese nation identity.【turn2search0】【turn2search1】

   That’s why many see the law as **“legalizing assimilation”** rather than simply promoting equality and unity.

5. **Extraterritorial reach and foreign criticism**

   - Art. 63 claims jurisdiction over overseas organizations and individuals who target China with actions undermining ethnic unity.  
   - From Beijing’s perspective, this is a defensive move against foreign support for separatist or critical movements; from outside, it looks like an attempt to **export censorship** and intimidate critics abroad.

---

## 6. Overall judgment

If I step back:

- **Legally and institutionally**, the law is a significant step: it elevates “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” into a fundamental legal principle and tries to align every part of the state apparatus around that goal.  
- **From a development and stability angle**, it strengthens tools for reducing regional inequality and managing ethnic-related risks, which could enhance social stability and long-term development—**provided** implementation is restrained and rights-protective.  
- **From a human-rights and pluralism angle**, it clearly **prioritizes unity and commonality over diversity and minority rights**. The language and education provisions, ideological requirements, and broad prohibitions on “harmful” views will likely deepen fears of cultural erasure and political control, especially among Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and other smaller groups.【turn1fetch2】【turn2search0】【turn2search1】

So my view is:  
- As a **state-building and governance instrument**, it’s coherent and ambitious.  
- As a **framework for genuine ethnic pluralism and minority rights**, it leans heavily toward assimilation and control, and is difficult to square with international human rights norms, even if it formally commits to equality and non-discrimination.

If you’d like, I can next map out specific “trade-offs” (e.g., unity vs. diversity, development vs. cultural rights) in a table or draw out a comparison with China’s earlier autonomy-based system.

I’m not a tankie. I’ll make fun of Sam Altman as an idiot all day long.

…But it is interesting how Chinese open-weights LLMs, for all their obvious gaps and kool-aid of their own, seem to be quite “uncensored” compared to American ones.

It’s… not a good sign.

The results are awful though. Over the past few years, I can hardly even think of a single search where SEO quickly brought me to “the page I was looking for”; searches end in either a wall of spam, or me getting frustrated and more directly finding what I already know I want. Smaller sites I used to love have withered and died, buried from the lack of earnest traffic. Malicious URLs rise above the businesses they are copying.

In other words, what does it matter if SEO is “improved” if the results are junk? It’s clearly not working better, unless one’s a scammer, or a corporation that benefits from the consolidation.

Bender’s Big Score, the first one. I was thinking of the scammer aliens, who have that same attitude SEO folks tend to carry.

No, you’ve got a point… Actually you’re right. To an extent.

I should have qualified my post.

But I’d argue the “bad” part of SEO is just too tempting. It’s clearly winning out, across the entire internet, unless you can look at me with a straight face and say “Google search is fine.” Or that discoverability of genuine services is fine. It’s definitely not; it’s a miracle any legitimate business is surviving from web search anymore, amongts the sea of attention scams and corporate behemoths.

In other words, the I feel like the “honeymoon” where we could trust SEO to happen ethically is now behind us.

That would’ve been interesting.

Gah, what if he had made it to Moscow with an army and possibly that? What then? It’s wild how close he got.

When the Digg beta launched, we immediately noticed posts from SEO spammers noting that Digg still carried meaningful Google link authority. Within hours, we got a taste of what we’d only heard rumors about. The internet is now populated, in meaningful part, by sophisticated AI agents and automated accounts. We knew bots were part of the landscape, but we didn’t appreciate the scale, sophistication, or speed at which they’d find us. We banned tens of thousands of accounts. We deployed internal tooling and industry-standard external vendors. None of it was enough.

I love how the SEO industry pretends they’re anything but a caustic cancer leeching off literally everything.

“Oh, but discoverability of small business!” Yeah… I’d punch you if I saw you, SEO jerks. The Futurama movie was right.

Maybe they’re going for “destabilize the U.S?” You know, like the U.S’s explicit war goal for Iran?

Except one

That one though.

Man, that was a day. I was refreshing the ISW page every minute. And I figure that proves it could happen, as with a slightly different dice roll Prigozhin could’ve made it to Moscow with an army.

I don’t buy that. No way they “open up” iOS to be more OSX-like, as that would spoil their cash cow (the App Store).

I hate to sound so cynical, but I just don’t see any incentive for Apple to do that.

Eh, but will they? There’s a whole lot of OSX legacy Apple would have to throw away.

I mean, I guess they could; they’ve done it before with architecture transitions. But this is different in that stuff on existing devices would stop working, whereas Intel or PPC Macs keep chugging along as-is.