Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #181493 > unrolled thread

You are indeed a very wise owl :) Thanks once again for a most interesting article.

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  You are indeed a very wise owl :) Thanks once again for a most interesting article. "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-27 10:06 +0100
    Re: You are indeed a very wise owl :) Thanks once again for a most interesting article. Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-07-27 19:07 +0000
      Re: You are indeed a very wise owl :) Thanks once again for a most interesting article. "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-07-27 23:17 +0100

#181493 — You are indeed a very wise owl :) Thanks once again for a most interesting article.

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!

Why IS that?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#181494

On Jul 27, 2025 at 5:06:46 AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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? 

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181495

On 27/07/2025 20:07, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2025 at 5:06:46 AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web