Because like with everything else people have been applying AI to, it's not going to stop at "I used it to book my flights" and it's going to turn into "we used it to book every flight and now we are reselling them at a massive markup so we can then use it as an excuse to spam you because you signed up for our 'service' and that counts as 'consent'."

dunno about that, tickets are non transferable generally. I'm cynical it is more to do with the 'buying experience' and the opportunity to up-sell, introduce tempting offers, and confuse with navigation patterns and such. Agents will breeze past all that, meaning the money the airlines make will reduce.

Scalping seems unlikely. Airline bookings are non-transferable.

Roblox is played exclusively by children. Children have the taste nuance of insisting chicken nuggets with ketchup are the epitome of cuisine.

I take it they aren't a huge Colin Furze fan, unlike yourself?

That would be correct.

Concrete is not very water proof on its own. It's also quite hard to prevent cracks from forming, even with reinforcement.

There is a lot you could do, like neoprene barriers on the skin of the fuselage, sacrificial anodes, spray sealant on the poured concrete. But at that point, you might as well not even have the fuselage and just build a regular, ol' concrete bunker.

Concrete is used as a moisture barrier inside walls if it is specifically built for that purpose. Without it, soil moisture damages the walls. Yet concrete is still electrically conductive and can cause galvanic corrosion, although not as bad as direct contact with soil.

It depends on how it is built and whether the constructors are aware of the problem.

I guess, to be fair, £4000 he spent on the fuselage is a lot less than he'd spend on building the arch and other scaffolding to just build a concrete bunker from scratch.

It always kind of weirds me out just how much of the inside of The Pentagon is dedicated shopping space. I mean, I get the full food court and maybe the barbershop. But the full-sized CVS? The candy store? The local chain specialty bundt-cake store with the punny name? The souvenir shop in the central area, away from the souvenir shop where the public tours go. It feels like it's trying to say "America's defense rests on exporting commerce" without knowing it's actually trying to say that.

The are ignorant of their own disease.

HTML is SGML. You know that while doctype things you're supposed to out at the start of the document? That specifies the document schema of HTML at a specific version for the current SGML doc.

Yeah, hence my question. What would HTML and XML look like if they were based on this thing that's apparently superior to SGML instead of being based on SGML?

Plus don't be this guy, dictating every text message, email, and YouTube reply. Folks around you will appreciate you for Internetting quietly.

Being new, largely untested code paths in the browser, it's very possible for it to have buffer overflow defects that could be exploited to execute arbitrary code on your system. So, basically, literally anything could happen.

Because it IS futile. Occam's Razor shaped hobby project, that what it is. Where is the market share? Nowhere, because existing browsers are good enough and no corporation pushes Ladybird.

Showing how far one can go with modern AI tooling does matter only a little when all you do is looking at Chromium/Firefox code and recompiling the logic of it in another language.

I'll stick with Firefox.

> Showing how far one can go with modern AI tooling does matter only a little when all you do is looking at Chromium/Firefox code and recompiling the logic of it in another language.

Is that what Ladybird does? Can you point to a real world example? From the blog post, it seems there are real world differences (look at the performance when resizing with heavy JS!).

You're also mixing arguments. The original arguments against ladybird (which I vividly remember as I loved following them back then) were that it would be impossible to arrive at something that works for all use cases. Ladybird would be able to render toy websites like hacker news, but nothing of worth.

It seems they were proven evidently wrong.

> Where is the market share?

Where was the market share for browsers in the 1980s?

But that's the thing: it's not 1980 anymore, browsers exist, and they have marketshare

> it's not 1980 anymore, browsers exist, and they have marketshare

Okay, sure. What was the market share for Chrome in 1999?

There are legitimate arguments against Ladybird. But pointing to the market share of a non-existent product, in a category on the verge of a paradigm shift from AI, is not one of them.

Waterfox switched their AD blocking engine to Rust. It's several times faster than UBo.