Good job ifixit! This should be a cause for outrage. Pretending to support the right to repair while also softwarelocking repairs is not just two faced, but actively harming the consumers.
is the developer the most used browser (chrome) and its open source skeleton (chromium) on which most of all of the other browsers are based on (edge, brave etc)
has the most used video platform online, with no close second (unless you count porn, but i’d still argue its not close)
has the biggest share of devices relying on its platform worldwide (android)
has the most used search engine worldwide.
Alphabet has to be split up. Alphabet alone is deciding what shape internet will take in the future.
is the developer the most used browser (chrome) and its open source skeleton (chromium) on which most of all of the other browsers are based on (edge, brave etc)
Which was branched from Apple’s open Webkit base, but let’s all also forget about that.
They take the IP of others, spin it a bit and then block everyone. Burn them down.
They totally do though. You can ONLY use webkit on any iOS device. Chrome, Firefox, etc. they all are forced to use webkit on iOS. Neither Google or Apple are treating the web nicely, but at least you have a choice to use a different browser. Apple makes that effectively impossible.
Also you can’t really use Apple TV properly without an Apple device. Same with iCloud. Actually really any service they make only works properly with their full stack.
They didn’t do anything of the sort. We don’t need to endlessly recite the history of everything developed. If you want to call attention to it go right ahead but they didn’t give Apple a pass.
The inevitable fate of any useful software that’s not GPL.
When will people learn???
Edit: Ironically, KHTML was originally LGPL. So modifications to KHTML were required to be open source by the license, but Chrome itself isn’t required to be open source (at least as far as I understand it, I am not an expert here). Nevertheless, if it were stronger GPL, then it probably wouldn’t have been impossible to write features like DRM in chrome. So I would have been a bit of an idiot to say that KHTML isn’t GPL (because LGPL is a weaker version of GPL), but in effect, the outcome is the same - all because of that big fat L at the beginning.
It’s funny how small incremental changes over the years felt like nothing big was happening and then at some point we all woke up to a world where the largest advertising firm in the world basically is the internet for the vast majority of people. Everyone uses chrome and rarely types in a web address, they just type the name of the thing into Google and trust mommy to show them what’s appropriate. They’ve back doored the entire population into basically what AOL was trying to be 20 years ago.
“we are going to help protect your privacy” from WHO Google? Is it from you? Because it seems like we need protection from you most of all. Constantly being gaslit by mega-corporations is the new American dream. It’s okay because they love us, deep down, and we know that even though they don’t show it.
It’s funny how small incremental changes over the years felt like nothing big was happening and then at some point we all woke up to a world where the largest advertising firm in the world basically is the internet for the vast majority of people.
In a microcosm of the same kind of creeping normalcy, Bethesda charging a few bucks for horse armor in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was once a reach too far, until it wasn’t.
Now we have Star Citizen levels of grifting as well as ActiBlizz “buy a currency to get a currency that is leveraged as currency to get credit toward a currency in a battle pass” layer cake grifting.
Can you expand on the last paragraph? I am not a gamer, so although I understand most words in that sentence I really have no idea what you’re referring to.
Well, to put it simply there are these things called microtransactions, basically you want items in a game or extra lives or something like that, you can pay for them instead of earning them, sometimes they make it so that certain items can only be paid for, worse they make it so that certain items can only be paid for and will only be offered for a limited amount of time. If you miss the window to buy them now you will never be given another chance. Normally this is something cool like a tie in with a new movie that came out or something of that nature. Fortnite does this a lot, hope you got those Marvel characters when they were offering them cuz you’re not getting them now.
But as if that wasn’t bad enough there was another layer to it, one of the things you can buy with microtransactions, using real money, is a form of money that can only be used in the game.
So, what you give them a dollar, they give you 100 coins, and there isn’t even exchange rate? Of course not
There are various bundles where you can buy the premium currency as it is often called. Typically the more expensive bundles give more, and it’s not tiered properly, so let’s say $5 gives you 800 coins, but $10 gives you 2,000 coins, it’s to goad you and to always buying the higher amount, even if you only want that one item.
But it can get worse, they can set the prices so that you can just barely afford the item you want with that $10 tier, so the next year is 5000 coins for $20. And with that you can get enough coins to buy the item you want and have just a little left over, but not enough for you to do anything with unless you buy a lot of coins to supplement that amount, which can trick you into thinking that you’re getting a good deal when you are actually being fleeced pretty hard.
Fortnite is so bad because despite it being a good game, it does all of the above and targets to children who don’t know anything about money.
There are cases where you can buy one form of Premium currency with real money, so that you can buy a higher tier of Premium currency with the premium currency you bought with real money, forcing you to pay even more.
And this is one reason why modern games suck, the other reason is that everyone is using the same Engine.
That’s fascinating, it’s like microtransaction recursion. I actually want someone to say fuck it and pull the wool off and just create a legitimate gambling first person shooter… I would love that. I used to play counter strike a long time ago and love poker. Just have like an ammo buy in cost that forms the prize pool. Make it tournament style with a bounty a top 3 and just rake part of the pool for profits and all that money your going to have to pour into cheating detection.
I imagine one day these practices will be cracked down upon when the European Union comes out for blood, the European Union is actually pretty good at getting us new laws that help regulate the internet and Technology.
I don’t have a problem with a game that is based on gambling, I just don’t think one should be targeted to children, and I definitely believe that you need to be upfront about what you’re actually doing.
Sadly the European Union is a case of, the wheels of Justice move slowly, but they are moving. Only recently did they make loot boxes illegal, but loot boxes had already been abandoned by the industry in favor of something far worse, the battle pass.
Basically you pay a fee, and then you can unlock various features by doing certain missions, but if you don’t claim everything by the time the battle pass goes off of sale, then tough luck, and if you don’t get that battle pass, you are likely never getting a chance to get those features. So not only does it encourage you to buy a battle pass, but to play the game obsessively to make sure you unlock everything from the battle pass in time. And all that time there are bombarding you with ads for various other products that you can buy with micro transactions. It is Devious.
I play World of Tanks which has frequent battle passes. I used to try and grind earlier but then came a moment where I said fuck it, this feels like work and not fun. So now I just treat the base game as what I get. Any other reward is just a bonus. This change in mindset has worked quite well for me.
They gotta their digital peasantry, I mean users, from other feudal lords, I mean corporations, to maximize their power over them and ability to exploit them, I mean … No wait that’s right.
small incremental changes over the years felt like nothing big was happening and then at some point we all woke up
I (and many others I presume) has been saying Chrome is shit since the beginning. It didn’t feel like nothing was happening, it felt like we were slowly getting to the old days of IE and Netscape.
There are always a few that see this stuff coming, but they usually get looked at like a crazy person shouting about the sky falling.
It also feels like they really push a lot of the terrible on mobile first, get people used to concepts with the “that’s just how mobile is, it’s a different world” and then when most are accustomed to it they move to regular pc enshitification.
I do not like how websites prioritise the mobile view over desktop view even when it is on a desktop. You have a widescreen and want to waste all that horizontal space? Just ridiculous!
Yeah yeah, I understand it is less maintenance from a developer point of view, but still it is infuriating as a user.
This is why we need piracy/open source scenes. I’m sure the Nouveau people wouldn’t encur a copyright strike if say someone forked their driver and implemented it outside of the Nouveau dev team to then publish it somewhere it won’t get taken down.
I think we need illegal source code because of how the right of ownership has been steadily dismantled by industries at large and set as an industrial precedent in hardware.
Hell yeah! I think the public should have the right to inspect any software at any time. If you want it to go into my computer I think I should know if your sloppy ass spaghetti code is going to open me up to security vulnerabilities.
I can’t read German, but we have a similar legal system in the Netherlands.
Most likely, these people committed some crime during a previous protest, such as illegally entering private property or vandalism. Often they will get sentences that are conditional.
If there is evidence to believe they are conspiring to commit a similar illegal act, then the conditional part of the sentence gets triggered.
Nope, it’s actually only that the police has reason to believe that they might commit a crime.
No need for them to be prior offenders or anything. The police can arrest anyone at any time if they believe you might commit a crime. And even comparatively minor things like blocking traffic counts.
It doesn’t sound like it. Conspiracy means there’s documented evidence of a plan and motive to commit a crime. This doesn’t seem like it meets that standard.
Thanks. I have no clue about German law. Oddly even though America has a large German population historically, our laws are based on English, French and Spanish laws.
The difference in regards to a conspiracy charge is that you don’t need a conspiracy behind it.
In Germany, there are actually 18 different laws regarding this, since that part of the law is federated. So each state of Germany (plus the federal police and the federal criminal police) has it’s own law regarding under what circumstances they are allowed to arrest someone before they committed a crime and for how long.
Originally, these laws had two purposes:
Stop someone from committing a serious crime
Stop someone from doing harm to themselves
And as such, these laws used to have tight limits on when they can apply and for how long people are allowed to be arrested.
A case could be made for these laws. E.g. if someone announces online that they are going to shoot kids at a school, it would be totally justified to quickly bag that guy before he kills children. Waiting for a court order might not be fast enough to save the would-be victims.
But then they started to expand the reasons why someone can be arrested and for how long.
In Bavaria, for example, it’s enough that someone carries items that can be used for criminal purposes. And there they can jail people for up to two months without a charge.
There have been cases where someone was put in jail for two months for carrying items like crowbars or ropes in their backpacks.
It’s really something for the lawyers but it could be considered “Nötigung” (§ 181 StGB) and/or “Gefährlicher Eingriff in den Straßenverkehr” (§ 315b StGB).
Pretty sure if it’s in the StGB it’s a “crime” (Straftat).
In English, at least for the US, there are typically only misdemeanors and felonies, and both are crimes. There are also violations, but those are usually civil, not criminal (parking tickets, for example).
Yeah, in English (in the US, generally) we’d call that a civil violation. Or a civil action where a lawsuit is brought by a private citizen, like suing someone for damaging your property. It’s against the law, but probably not going to be prosecuted by the government.
But this is in fact how the police argues. Climate protests are terror attacks (since they disrupt traffic) and therefore this is justified.
Pretty sure the Bundesverfassungsgericht (basically our supreme court) will shut this practice down – just like all the other times Bavarian laws have been ruled unconstitutional – but Bavaria doesn’t care. They scrap the law and replace it with a similar unconstitutional version and wait 2 years until the Bundesverfassungsgericht rules it unconstitutional and so on.
It’s basically our texas or florida, depending on your pov. It’s a place with great nature, interesting culture but also very crude beliefs and you either like the culture or you dont. Most importantly, police is said to be a pot rougher over there and politics is pretty conservative as well.
Kind of. Iirc it’s a very controversial practice and whenever the police pulls it out in a public case it gets protested again (for good reason). Also, even if the practice is legal right now, there’s a lot of limitations to it. Obviously it’s nudging the ethical boundaries of police work either way.
Maybe they should arrest everyone that might protest against this before they arrest the other people that might protest against climate change. But then people might protest against that too. I guess everyone is under arrest! You’re all under arrest. Get in the hole!
This seems really short-sighted. Why would I go to How Stuff Works when I can just ask the LLM myself?
Maybe there’s just no possible business model for them anymore with the advent of LLMs, but at least if they focused on the “actually written by humans!” angle there’d be some hook to draw people in.
This reminds me of the short story “The Great Automatic Grammatizator” by Roald Dahl. In the story a machine is invented that can write great stories, but it’s creators go around buying the naming rights of authors so people will actually not their books.
I think I meant buy. I’ve edited the comment. That said, after rereading the story last tonight, the reason they buy the rights to authors names is to eliminate competition and maximize profits.
Humans aren’t much different. 99.9% of what we create is just a remix of existing parts/ideas. It’s why people spend 12-20 years pre-training on all the existing knowledge in the field they’re going to work in.
The thing is, the LLM doesn't actually know anything, and lies about it.
So you go to How Stuff Works now, and you get bullshit lies instead of real information, you'll also get nonsense that looks like language at first glance, but is gibberish pretending to be an article. Because sometimes the language model changes topics midway through and doesn't correct, because it can't correct. It doesn't actually know what it's saying.
See, these language models are pre-trained, that the P in chatGPT. They just regurgitate the training data, but put together in ways that sort of look like more of the same training data.
There are some hard coded filters and responses, but other than that, nope, just a spew of garbage out from the random garbage in.
And yet, all sorts of people think this shit is ready to take over writing duties for everyone, saving money and winning court cases.
It could be AI sport when we actually have an general purpose AI. That based on people working on llm and gpt, would take between 6 years and never happening.
It’s not easy to create a super ai who’s realistically smarter than humans in every aspect.
Yeah, this is why I can’t really take anyone seriously when they say it’ll take over the world. It’s certainly cool, but it’s always going to be limited in usefulness.
Some areas I can see it being really useful are:
generating believable text - scams, placeholder text, and general structure
distilling existing information - especially if it can actually cite sources, but even then I’d take it with a grain of salt
AI tools can be very powerful, but they usually need to be tailored to a specific use case by competent people.
With LLMs it seems to be the opposite, where people not competent for ML are applying it for the broadest of use cases. Just that it looks so good they are easily fooled and lack the understanding to realize the limits.
But there is a very important Usecase too:
Writing stuff that is only read and evaluated by similiar AI tools. It makes sense to write cover letters with ChatGPT because they are demanded but never read by a human on the other side of the job application. Since the weights and stuff behind it serm to be similiar, writing it with ChatGPT helps to pass the automatic analysis.
Rationally that is complete nonsense, but you basically need an AI tool to jump through the hoops made by an AI tool applied by stupid people who need to make themselves look smart.
generating believable text - scams, placeholder text, and general structure
LLM generated scams are going to such problem. Quality isn’t even a problem there as they specifically go for people with poor awareness of these scams, and having a bot that responds with reasonable dialogue will make it that much easier for people to buy into it.
The thing is, the LLM doesn’t actually know anything, and lies about it.
Just like your average human journalist. If you ever read an article from not specialist journal on a topic you are familiar with - you know. This seems actually where LLM are very similar to how human brain works - if we don’t know something, we come up with some bullshit.
But yeah, the quality of what is passing as journalism now is often ridiculous. But the only way to combat this is by having editors that are knowledgable about topics. But it seemed editors were the first people laid off, when internet articles became a thing.
24 hours news cycle of online media creates junk journalism on new level. Good journalism needs time and can’t spit out news articles every minute of the day. Editors won’t help, because it’s just not possible to do good journalism on that scale. But jeh - in general with AI, the jobs will shift more to editing. Which will be extremely soul-draining, going though tons of AI generated bullshit
Even medium human writers can comprehend their work as a whole, though. There is a cohesiveness even to the bullshit. The LLM is just putting words down that match the prompt. It’s rng driven, readable Lorum Ipsum.
If the results were still edited afterwards, there may be some merit to the output, but any company going full LLM isn’t looking for quality. They want to use it to churn out endless content that they simply can’t get from even a team of humans. More than could be edited even if they kept editors on staff.
but any company going full LLM isn’t looking for quality.
That is true for 24h news cycle of online media, regardless LLM.
Yes, that was my point. Setting up your company to put out more content than can possibly be processed by humans is a glaring sign of their values - ie quantity far above quality.
I’v read writing worse than GTP. I had to help someone write an essay - and I just wrote it for him in the end, because he absolutely lacked the skills to write a long meaningful text. At at the same time - genius of a percussionist.
Ok, so do you wanna talk about your terrible writing partner in school? Or “yellow press”? Or maybe the topic of the article, which isn’t journalism in the slightest? Or how about my point, which was, again, that even bad writers have context, as opposed to an LLM which is just filling in the arbitrary patterns it’s programmed to delineate. Readability is not what I’m talking about.
Dude, what’s with aggression? We just having a conversation that floats along. I’m talking about general LLMs capabilities to write text - which are in my opinion comparable to human writing, since again - a lot of people lack the same things LLMs generated texts are lacking. And I had some examples. No idea what made you so upset.
You brought up several different, unrelated topics and pretty much ignored anything I said to disprove something I never claimed. That is frustrating to deal with.
Except you are the one who responded to me. And if there is a point you made I overlooked - I will gladly answer it. I also didn’t disprove anything - just voiced my opinion. I’m not interested in a debate club and winning arguments, just sharing opinions and trying to understand others.
The top comment is about how LLMs don’t comprehend what they’re writing, and your first comment (as I read it) was about how LLMs work how human brains do. My point was that they don’t and why, not about how good or bad humans or machines are at writing, which is what you kept bringing up, hence the frustration.
My first comment is, that there are enough humans out there that don’t really comprehend what they are writing and often also make shit up as they go. I was not talking about the underlying mechanism, which is rather speculative since we have little idea how complex functions of the brain - like text generation, work. Just making a humorous light hearted comparison.
Our conversation is a nice illustration how, maybe we as humans aren’t as good at understanding text - as we might think. (Again - that is a light hearted comment and not some profound complex observation).
To be clear, I’m not talking about underlying mechanisms, either, but the approach to the task. A human writer, even one bad at writing and not understanding the topic, will approach the writing with a goal and write to that goal and topic. They can even research if they so choose, but even if they are just making things up, there is intent and context there.
An LLM doesn’t have any of that. It literally just generates words that match certain patterns, with no actual purpose or goal. It may have been programmed with a goal in mind, but it doesn’t have one of its own. It can’t reason, it can’t research, it can’t make decisions. I think that is an important distinction that people who are just saying “Who cares? It’s all bad writing anyways” are missing.
To be clear, I’m not talking about underlying mechanisms, either, but the approach to the task. A human writer, even one bad at writing and not understanding the topic, will approach the writing with a goal and write to that goal and topic. They can even research if they so choose, but even if they are just making things up, there is intent and context there.
You never made an experience of having to writer for a topic you genuinely don’t care about, where you just string along words, vaguely related to the topic to make specific word count? I’m not arguing that all human writing is like this - people are definitely capable of writing text with purpose and context, at least some. But that is not all human writing.
It literally just generates words that match certain patterns, with no actual purpose or goal.
And exactly that was my point, that humans often do the same. Not all the time. But it definitely happens, especially in professional writing where you maybe have to write about a topic you don’t understand or care about.
It can’t reason, it can’t research,
And again, there are tons of people out there that can’t do this things either. It’s like a very intelligent chimpanzee is smarter than a very dumb human. So are LLMs better at generating text than quite a lot of humans.
I mean I would say maybe “regurgitating their training data” is putting it a bit too simple. But it’s true, we’re currently at the point where the AI can mimic real text. But that’s it - no one tells it not to lie rn, the programmatic goal of the AI is to get indistinguishable from real text with no bearing on the truthfulness of the information whatsoever.
Basically we train our AIs to pretend to know, not to know. And sometimes it’s good at pretending, sometimes it isn’t.
The “right” way to handle what the CEOs are doing would be to let go of a chunk of the staff, then let the rest write their articles with the help of chatgpt. But most CEOs are a bit too gullible when it comes to the abilities of AI.
I’ve graded papers from students who obviously used chatGPT to write them. They were a pass at best. Zero critical synthesis of ideas and application of them to the topic. I’m sure chatGPT has its uses but people really overhype its writing ability. There’s more to writing than putting words in the right places.
It doesn’t know the limits of it’s knowledge or indeed know anything. It just “knows” what an answer smells like. It even “knows” what excuses are supposed to look like when you call it out.
2- the more content you have the more organic traffic you’re likely to attract from Google;
3- displaying ads on your website makes you money.
Websites full of LLM generated content are just the natural continuation of MFAs (Made For AdSense) and there were lots of tools on sale back then in the 2006~2008 period that promised to automatically create websites for you and fill them with randomized content that is optimized for AdSense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't AI generated content not copyrightable? Therefore nothing is stopping someone from taking all their content, rebranding it as "how stuff really works" or something, and then start stealing their business & ad revenue.
I left Firefox for Chrome about 12 years ago because Firefox had a major RAM leak. I went back to Firefox about 5 years ago after verifying they fixed the big and have never regretted it. People should use Firefox.
No. It’s a Kickstarter that might ship next year. The headline should have been “Bike tires made from NASA’s bizarre shape-shifting metal might be available to buy next year if the crowdfunding campaign isn’t a scam”
No. It’s a Kickstarter that might ship next year. The headline should have been “Bike tires made from NASA’s bizarre shape-shifting metal might be available to buy next year if the crowdfunding campaign isn’t a scam”
The second I see the words “kickstarter or indiegogo” I already know whatever I saw may as well be unobtanium
If it makes its way to a storefront then I’ll consider it, otherwise I’ll just move on and keep my money
Tbf if it’s indigogo, it’s a scam. If its funding is flexible, you might as well just throw your credit card into the trash bin. If it’s on kickstarter, you might at least get some product an few years late (or it’s just a normal pre-order with some extra steps and more expensive)
I never looked at their campaign, but did just read over it for fun. I didn’t do any further research and just assume no lying in the parts that can be checked without having knowledge about their specific products / industry.
First things first: It’s kickstarter, not IGG. It’s not using flexible funding (as that’s only on IGG, if they still allow it). They have a working prototype. That’s nice!
Having won all these awards is nice, but without knowledge about the specific awards, this information is useless. They seem to have a contract with NASA which gives them access to materials and technology. That’s a plus. They also seem to have a real working prototype.
$25k as a target is very low for product development. But they may be an established company and may get extra funding from other sources, so it might be a campaign to check the market and do some PR. Remember how I said many Kickstarters are essentially preorders? They’re not quite there yet in the product development cycle, but this might explain it with other funding besides kickstarter. But this should be researched further before backing.
The whole campaign feels more PR and sales as I’ve seen with the last campaigns that I actually backed (or at least checked because of an interesting “product”). I can’t help but it somehow reminds me of something…
Also after all this talking about space technology, they say it wouldn’t work on earth and needs to be adapted (so no space technology anymore, but still space technology?). I get that they need to do this and that its a bit unfair to point at it, but did chuckle when I read that. Especially when they continued talking about space technology right after.
I was wondering the whole time, whether their tires really last “the whole lifetime of a bike”. I usually change tires, because they’re worn out and the profile is low. Modern tires are quite good at preventing a flat. So the upside of this tire for me would be… no checking if I need to refill some air. They prevent this by making this part of the tire exchangeable (and if it works, $10 is fine as it’s still cheaper than a regular new tire). But then… it lasts the lifetime of your bike, but not specific parts of the product.
How easily can you get access to these spare parts after the campaign? How much trash are they really saving? And as they’re saying their approach is more environmentally friendly - did they research all the new materials used and their production?
So, for me it’s a product I wouldn’t back on KS. It’s a product, that would require me to get spare parts to be used meaningfully. It needs to be established on the market for that. Otherwise it’s nice in the beginning and then it was a waste of money.
Oh, speaking of money - I didn’t check yet how much id have to pay for a ti… WHAT? $500 for two of them? 2 Full wheels are starting at $1,300 and can be up to $2,300 $5,000 depending on your choice of material?!
I can get a fully featured, brand new luxus eBike for that!🤯 Nah, not gonna happen. Talk about the environment as much as you like. A full set of good tires with anti-flat technology for my bike starts at around 40-50 bucks (non US, but shouldn’t be that different in the US?) and lasts a while. I can get 10 sets of tires for the price of this starter set and I’d probably get a few more when I have to pay for a few Tread replacements in between. Talk about the lifetime of a bike. LOL.
This is just Kickstarter scam #362646683 that takes people’s money and then… well, profit that’s it. They won’t ship products because they don’t have products, they don’t have anything
I’m also greatly concerned by the Chromium engine supremacy on the Internet.
There are interesting privacy-focused Chromium-based browsers but I still refuse to use them. Google shouldn’t have a near-monopoly on web rendering engines and on web “standards”. Firefox is the only proper competition I can get behind.
Songs of this vintage should be pirated out of principle IMO.
The artist has made their money from it and lived a good life - no record label should be able to line their pockets with the profits of a dead person’s work from my perspective.
More than that, these need to be in the public domain. This is our shared cultural heritage being held hostage, and 99.9% of it doesn’t even earn anyone anything at all.
Copyright should be 30 years. Long enough to extract any reasonable economic value from the work, but a time scale that gives balance to public benefit.
Well I’ve gone from being entirely indifferent to strongly disliking Google. I am actively and somewhat successfully in the process of de-googling. I encourage my friends to do the same, with some success. I think the writing is on the wall. Google seems to have no desire to maintain any sort of goodwill or positive feeling amongst the general public, whom it clearly views as a naturally occurring resource rather than a customer base. Nobody can predict the future but I don’t have a good feeling about the future of the company. Perhaps they will be able to diversify, but their recent actions show both that they deeply misunderstand their product and also that they lack good ideas about how to progress and evolve as an organisation. Fuck Google. All my homies hate Google.
The hardest part of ‘de-googling’ is the stranglehold it has on email. Between them and microsoft, I’ve only seen a few companies (small to medium size) that don’t use one of those two as the email. It’s mind-boggling. If either of them ever got testy, they could bring entire sectors down just by using the information stored in emails on.
technology
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.