Nothing to see here, move on. And I'm not even a Ruby fan.

Hyperloops don't exist and will never exist, because they're infeasible. They're all scams. Stop platforming their proponents.

There seems to be a trend for "modern" websites to be made up of unsearchable, undiscoverable collections of pieces of text with no formatting besides a huge sans-serif font and extremely wide margins. There's no paragraphs and little headings. Most of what you see is generated text, and you struggle to find actual content because navigation elements, such as menus, are rare and have no visual hint about their nature or function. Often, they're generated as well (e.g. "things you might need", "in the spotlight", "featured"). Icons and colors aren't used, and pictures are just meaningless stock images that you have to scroll away.

Usually there's a huge title header that takes up two-thirds of the vertical length of your viewport, and there's no way to enumerate the content of the site, because all you get are vague links ("your municipality", "services for you", "house and environment"). In the end you have to use Google to search for anything, which can land you to an old, unindexed page that is no longer the current one for whatever you were looking for. This is especially true because another thing with modern websites is that URLs tend to be meaningless or short-lived, because sites are either "single page" or served by a CMS that changes every six months.

Finally, the concept of vertical scrolling is broken by useless, unusable tricks such as endless scroll or, for front pages, something fancier that makes the site look like a children's pop-up book (all of this coming from the same people who in the 90s told us that <blink> was a crime against humanity).

Maybe it's because of the "mobile-first" design of modern websites, but I don't think so, because typically the mobile version of said sites is even less functional, with everything that can't be easily implemented as a scrollable sequence of short text sentences being painful to use or just missing.

Companies have been successful in pushing lawmakers to give them privacy law bypasses for AI usage, and of course they will exploit AI everywhere they can for harvesting even more data from the customer.

Plot twist: North Korea deliberately leaked the phone as a trojan horse in order to spy the BBC from the inside.

Sounds like the government is giving big tech companies access to poor people's data for pennies.

AI is certainly a problematic technology, but what really is nightmarish is that such technology is the latest and most powerful lever in the hands of gargantuan tech companies that are devoid of any moral considerations and wield more power than any person or organization in the history of humanity has ever had.

Even more red tape and gatekeepers who get a say in who can communicate over the Internet and how hard it has to be. I remember when it was Microsoft who wanted to make internet protocols more complicated in order to get a competitive edge over the open source community; back then when their plans were exposed there was outrage. Nowadays Google and Apple basically are the internet, and they don't need to work in the shadows to subvert the protocols, because whatever it is that they decide for the day is automatically the "living standard".

Of course, by all means, but so long as it doesn't turn into an antiscientific witch hunt against people who do save lives. Lawyers also profit from lawsuits from patients, as does everyone who gets paid to solve other people's problems.

Everything is easy if you choose to ignore complexity.

How many of the projected new cancer cases involve patients with old age or pre-cancerous conditions that would have evolved into cancer anyway due to other factors? Statistics are hard to read.

I was a kid in the 80s and as far as I remember no one talked about Tron, or even knew that it existed. Maybe it had more mindshare among cinema enthusiasts than among its target audience.

A copy is a copy, I don't think you can argue that a certain kind of copy doesn't count for technical reasons.
Check the case of the Internet Archive, IIRC some time ago they lost a lawsuit over digital lending even though they had gone to great lengths to ensure that, at any given time, only a copy of the book that they were lending existed inside the memory of their servers. The judge wasn't convinced.

Copyright law gives an author a monopoly over his or her work. You can only copy that work either with the author's permission OR for a reason that qualifies as "fair use". I'm convinced that creating derivative works that compete commercially with those of the original author cannot qualify as fair use. Then again, IANAL.

Any work of art that the AI couldn't produce, hadn't the original artist's creations been copied in bulk to be used as an input.

Good luck demonstrating in court that copying the whole production of an artist in order to sell derived works of art is fair use.