Concerning an apparent coordinated effort it might be more complicated than that. The EU and Australia have always been on the verge of sweeping censorship. Look up "Zensursula" [1][2] and the censorship list that was about to be introduced in 2008 and that, for legal reasons, was illegal to even be looked at by journalists. Back then there was significant public backlash and also indirect cristicism by the US government [3].

Today there is no such criticism from the US because censorship is something that is also of an interest to the christian backers of the current government.

When the cat is out of the house, the mice dance on your dinner table.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...

3: https://web.archive.org/web/20100123181634/http://www.abc.ne...

I decidedly disagree with about everything you said regarding Microsoft. The Microsoft monopoly is the most life sucking cancer the corporate world has ever experienced. Compared to that the entire existence of Apple is merely a footnote. Don't mistake your stupid phone for the world.

I sunk my twenties involving the sh*tshow that was Microsoft antitrust. No, Microsoft shipping IE by default is pretty benign compared to what Apple has been doing for far longer than whatever Microsoft ever did. In fact, one can make an argument that Windows was really an open platform for developers based on Today’s standards.

I'm not talking about laughable little stunts like IE. I'm talking about the ongoing cancer that is eating up billions from little companies all the way to big corporations. All of that is ongoing, and they squeeze their prey for everything they have. They are the most disgusting and damaging disease you can imagine.

Once you start using even a small fraction of their tech it instantly metastasises throughout the entire organisation because of lock in and "open standards" that weirdly only work with their own tech. If the MS tech creates a problem the solution is to pour more MS tech onto the festering wound.

You apparently have been so insulated from how actual companies have to deal with tech that you think your little forays using computers are what everything should be measured by. All you have is a developer and hobbyist point of view.

If it's open source, where are the sources? And how do I make my own from those sources?

While Chrome users should feel a shiver going down their spine.

Why would they? They're obviously on the 'right side of history'. \hj

Chrome browsers don't send a specific handshake. But while browsing other sites they help gather enough evidence for this being a human operated piece of software.

Maybe someone should vibe code the entire MS Office Suite and see how much they like that. Maybe add AD while they are at it. I'm for it if that frees European companies from the MS lock in.

There is Libre Office https://www.libreoffice.org/

Good idea. My country spends over billion dollars on Microsoft licenses annually, which is more than 200 euros per capita. I think billion dollars a year spent on dev salaries and Claude Code subscription to build MS office replacement would pay itself back quickly enough.

Even better - train a model on MS source code leaks and use it to work on Wine fork or as you said - vibe coded MS office. This would be hilarious.

You'd probably like the way Thomas Mann uses language then (not parentheses but subordinate clauses, or nebensatz).

> On the other hand, I only learned (my native) English grammar by studying another language.

This is one of the reasons why Latin is tought. You learn transferring a gramatically hard language into your own, having to learn the ins and out of your own language's grammar. No grammatically complex situation in your own language can fluster you afterwards.

Agree. That's how / why students best learn grammar: for / through a practical purpose. (Deciding the practicality of Latin must remain an exercise for the reader.)

For how long? Months?

4 years, 11 months, and 3 days. Guaranteed. So not an issue right now.

There's an entire subreddit called LLMPhysics dedicated to "vibe physics". It's full of people thinking they are close to the next breakthrough encouraged by sycophantic LLMs while trying to prove various crackpot theories.

I'd be careful venturing out into unknown territory together with an LLM. You can easily lure yourself into convincing nonsense with no one to pull you out.

Agreed, which is why what GP suggests is much more sensible: it's venturing into known territory, except only one party of the conversation knows it, and the other literally cannot know it. It would be a fantastic way to earn fast intuition for what LLMs are capable of and not.

Fully automated toaster-fucker generator!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362

Man, I think about that comment all the time, like at least weekly since it was posted. I can't be the only one.

I think we have to add that one to https://news.ycombinator.com/highlights!

(I mention this so more people can know the list exists, and hopefully email us more nominations when they see an unusually good and interesting comment.)

> [...] I'm a native English speaker that studied writing in university [...]

As a native English speaker who studied writing at university, do you think "who" should be used with people while "that" should only be used with things or the other way round. Or should I just not care?

Edit: missing things

I think you might intend to compare 'that' and 'which'? Common advice is to use 'that' with people and 'which' with objects, though that isn't necessarily followed and omits many nuances.

Use 'who' with people especially, often with other living beings ('my dog, who runs away daily, always is home for dinner') or groups of them ('the NY Yankees, who won the championship that year, were my favorite'), but never with objects unless pretending they live ('my stuffed bear, who sleeps in my bed, wakes me every morning').

If you care about these things, the Chicago Manual of Style is a large, technical, highly respected guide aimed at publishing. Fowler's Modern English Usage is more focused on usage. A short and beloved guide is The Elements of Style by Strunk & White. You can find all on the Internet Archive, I'm almost certain.

Whom among us has not misused whom.

>Common advice is to use 'that' with people and 'which' with objects, though that isn't necessarily followed

Well played.

Elements of Style is reviled by modern linguists and writers.

Some don't like it and many do, and it's been assigned for decades. Just a few years ago I looked at a website that collects college syllabi and it was one of the most assigned books.

It gives clear, practical advice in a very accessible style and format. If you have any comparable substitutes, I'm all ears.

You should just not care. Both are acceptable, "that" is a little less formal and probably more common in everyday speech.

Thanks. Is that true only for American English or other areas too? I've only noticed this the last couple of years on HN. Before that "who" and "that" were used more carefully. Or at least I had the feeling it was. Sometimes I wondered if it's just whatever people's autocomplete happens to spit out first.

It's true for all of English, even historically. Ignore the grammar police. The differentiation between "who" and "that" in this particular context is extremely low on the list of things you'll ever need to worry about.

> Or should I just not care?

This, unless you're being tested on it. Maybe the safest bet is to avoid it. "As a native English speaker that studied..." oh wait shit lol, it's actually quite hard to avoid.

"I'm a native English speaker, and I studied writing in university. This experience has led me to..." There. English, what an uncomplicated, uncluttered language!