Don't forget the Microsoft and the competing Open Office's twin XML formats.
Basically it's like a list of everything that was clean-sheet invented like ~ 1996-2007 used XML, then over the course of about 2 years it transitioned, and almost nothing invented after 2009 or so used it. It was like the whole software industry realized what a huge mistake and pivoted to JSON, all at once.
Ahh, is that it? I was wondering what on earth XSLT had to do with the RSS feeds as alluded to on the .rip site.
Google can do literally nothing to disrupt RSS since its only important use is in real feed readers, which Chrome isn't.
Surely free-tier ChatGPT can in 5 minutes make a replacement that you could use to parse an RSS feed and render whatever you want. I guess it wouldn't be at the exact feed URL, though the server could use User-Agent to cheat at that, probably.
By this standard, every desktop should still ship with a copy of Internet Explorer 6. Most of what made it "special" compared to say, the contemporary Firefox 2.0, was its huge pile of special sauce used only in corporate settings. That stuff had massive corporate penetration as well, but we moved on because ActiveX in the browser wasn't worth the security cost of keeping it around.
If there are important legacy things sitting around corporate environments that literally require XSLT to function, they've had over a year of warning in which to sort it out -- port it to something else, or, pick some alternative browser, pin its version, and set it up with a proxy that can only access your weird XSLT sites. They'll be improving their own security posture with that move, as well!
Random corporations' failure to plan doesn't constitute a need for the rest of the world to continue to maintain obsolete technologies for free.
It's being sold everywhere to people fed up with dealing with other people who waste their time. Because that really IS a problem.
Most (Note: Not all!) questions you get when you work in a "customer service" role come from lazy, unobservant, or dumb people. So pre-AI, a large business needs an army of people to answer the phone and do things like walking confused people through, step-by-step, how to reset their password. "Did you check your email? Did you check the Spam folder? Did you give it 5-10 minutes?"
So AI is sold with the promise that you can just put it in front of your human agents, and then you'll only need 1/5 the staff (let's set aside the unfortunate economic implications for the other 80%) because most people's questions are stupid and trivial to solve.
Problem is, the dummies can't identify and divert themselves to the bot up front, so the person who loses most (other than the CS agents who lost their jobs) is people like you or me, who only contact customer service when we are reasonably sure there is no way to solve our own problem on the website/the app/by ourselves. We have to argue with a bot which is prompted "You're about to hear from a dummy whose main problem is most likely that he hasn't read any of our ZenDesk support articles, can't operate our website or a computer properly... and he probably has an IQ of 75. Send him answers from the FAQ -- repeatedly if needed -- and try to get him to go away. Don't give up, and don't escalate to an agent unless very specific criteria are met."
FWIW, my question would have been in any decent FAQ but there wasn't one. It was simply: I have to return my keycard when leaving the room in the morning, but I need to store some luggage until the early evening. How do I get into the building and into the storage room? IIRC, the main door was just open at daytime, but the luggage room needed a keycard (really smart system, you clowns). The bot advised to just keep the keycard and use it for pickup. Of course it didn't work anymore after checkout time. Fortunately, there was a guard / service person when I came to pick up my stuff and I more or less knew that in advance based on previous days.
> the person who loses most (other than the CS agents who lost their jobs) is people like you or me, who only contact customer service when we are reasonably sure there is no way to solve our own problem on the website/the app/by ourselves.
Right, we know the White House owns that public IP, but this could be as bad as an unsecured, unmanaged device that is joined to a private network that is supposed to be secured, OR, on the “all the way good” side, that IP could be the exit for a completely throwaway, untrusted, isolated LAN segment meant only for some iOT device and which has no route to any other peer on the LAN side, and some civilian who has access to that for work brought in his laptop with a “free VPN!” Plugin and joined it to that network because it’s all he had credentials for.
They literally don't care. To them, either it's 1999 and your Macs should all be on desks at your physical office that you definitely have, or, you can "just" use Xcode Cloud[1], which is definitely fully featured and surely addresses the only possible 'headless' use case.
Plus, since the desperate are willing to do crazy-looking things like this, bulk-buying $6,000 premium laptops with batteries and screens, at enormous margins, Apple is even more incentivized to keep (not) doing exactly what it's (not) doing.
Not sure why you're throwing so much shade at people as though only poors would look at cars below forty thousand dollars. The 2027 Camry and the 2027 Escape both start at under $30,000. Tesla 3 is under $39,000.
Not everyone likes to blow 50-100 grand on an asset which loses 50% of its value in 3 years. Especially considering how much they're trending toward being so expensive to repair and unreliable that keeping it on the road after the warranty runs out is also expensive.
It's a thread about new cars. The price of a BYD car is a thing about cars, not about BYD cars. In fact, BYD is cheap compared to most comparable cars.
If a party was talking about running shoes, I wouldn't pipe in to say "I would never buy running shoes because I'm an amputee", because it's just completely outside the scope of the subject.
Cars are expensive and it's crazy, sure. But like, that's kind of just beside the point for the subject at hand.
Nobody uses that expression to mean they would prefer to spend more, unless it's in the context where the number is so low that it implies a safety or fraud issue. e.g. "I would never buy a 5 cent burrito"
There's little point in spending more than $ 40,000 - especially for the crap currently being peddled in the U.S. I bought a 3-year-old electric luxury SUV with significantly under 20,000 miles for well under that.
I mean, if you're rolling in money, and don't need it for savings or more important purposes, you do you. But I'm with GP. 40,000 is excessive. Even in our devalued 2026 money.
Basically it's like a list of everything that was clean-sheet invented like ~ 1996-2007 used XML, then over the course of about 2 years it transitioned, and almost nothing invented after 2009 or so used it. It was like the whole software industry realized what a huge mistake and pivoted to JSON, all at once.
reply