Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "David B." Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: You are indeed a very wise owl :) Thanks once again for a most interesting article. Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:17:25 +0100 Lines: 78 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net npCPrZXhHZrQhYxmXTK0sgBOO3X0KBqx/+/u+YPk7wyE4Y9svI Cancel-Lock: sha1:uWv0ObwUp+49/djXWYSnWfIZ1ms= sha256:9ZrngV1/tutJoeFVvT/8t+i2ewTTpq9inGrgk97wMF4= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com uk.comp.sys.mac:181495 On 27/07/2025 20:07, Tyrone wrote: > On Jul 27, 2025 at 5:06:46 AM EDT, ""David B."" wrote: > >> On 27/07/2025 09:11, David B. wrote: >>> Today's Blog by Howard Oakley is well worth reading! >>> >>> = >>> >>> When The Economist publishes two articles, one of them a leader, about >>> the same issue you know it needs to be taken seriously. In its edition >>> of 19 July 2025, one of its leaders is titled To survive the AI age, the >>> web needs a new business model, and a longer article in its Business >>> section states AI is killing the web. Can anything save it? Both are >>> well worth the effort of creating an account to read them. The leader >>> states crisply that “the danger is that, as answer-engines take readers >>> away, they are removing the incentive for content to be created,” >>> concluding that “if nothing changes, the risk is of a modern-day tragedy >>> of the commons. The shared resource of the open web will be over- >>> exploited, leading to its eventual exhaustion.” >>> >>> The problem lies in what it so appropriately refers to as Google’s >>> change from being a search to an answer engine, a subject further >>> explored by the Pew Research Center’s timely report of their study >>> summarised here by humans. That demonstrates that Google “users are less >>> likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the results”. >>> >>> These themes are central to my previous account of PageRank and >>> plagiarism. As with others who publish original work on the web, I’m >>> used to sites that copy entire articles, such as MacMegasite. Within an >>> hour of its publication here, for example, that had stolen the whole of >>> Friday’s Mac article, word for word. >>> >>> More at ..... >>> >>> https://eclecticlight.co/2025/07/27/last-week-on-my-mac-🦉-no-ai-content/ >>> >>> I posted this as a comment, but I doubt it will appear:- >>> >>> "An excellent article, Howard, which I will share with folk I hope will >>> read it. Thank you. I have no doubt that everything you say and do is >>> done so in good faith. >>> However, you have used and have recommended a product called EtreCheck, >>> made available by a 'Will 'o the wisp' character that you know >>> absolutely nothing about. I think you have been too trusting in that >>> regard. Perhaps it is now time to take a closer look at the developer of >>> the product." >> >> >> Sadly, *MY* comments are not reproduced! > > SKOCKING! OH THE HUMANITY!!! > >> Why IS that? > > Maybe because he does not want to host comments from a clearly deranged > person. Like you. > > Maybe he does not want to join you in stalking the author. "Take a closer > look" indeed. > > Maybe - as I said a few days ago - EVERYONE KNOWS WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE. > > Now that Howard is ignoring you, how long before you start stalking him? He > is obviously involved in the "EtreCheck conspiracy". Right? I’ve read just about every Blog post Howard Oakley has posted since he started in 2016. > BTW, EVERY piece of software that you - and everyone else - use, is written by > people "that you know absolutely nothing about". So why are you STILL sliming > ONLY EtreCheck? Why not mix it up and go after Thunderbird? He wrote this .... https://eclecticlight.co/2021/04/14/optimising-performance-with-etrecheckpro-and-ulbow/ It rather beggars belief that he would trust software from an unverified source.