Gemini is more of a markdown format so I feel the renderer should be allowed to parse it how they like Also, some clients use the page URL to give each page some different styling
Xfce is nice! I used it myself for a while, though I came back to tiling, I found it too inefficient. With a twm I can use my computer at the speed I like. I run myself a Gemini capsule and Gopherhole for quite a while now, I could give you more information if you wish! Speaking of small web communities, check out: https://yesterweb.org. You probably know them, but they recently shut down and put out an amazing manifesto of how to grow a community, you should definitely read it. The admins were also Marxists. I’m glad that you are also an analog technology enjoyer, there’s just something else to these devices that smartphones and computers cannot really provide. It’s quite an amazing feeling I like to share with the people I meet, not many people have seen, not even typed, on a typewriter. Sharing the magic is the least I could do. I sadly haven’t tried a typewrtier… yet. I’ll see if I can get my hands on one, though the simple editing that you do digitally when writing is unbeatable. Yeah 4chan’s /g/ is exactly like that, they were the guys that got me to read the Unabomber Manifesto. And even back in my worse days I knew Kaczyński was batshit insane, couldn’t really believe people would unironically try and spread his idiotic message. Look at Luke Smith and how he praises the Unabomber and other such figures, even has a video saying imagination is demonic, lol. Same with DistroTube, both are far-righters. And correctly so! My TV is a CRT and it works just fine. And also is a reason why I don’t really care for 4k Ultra HD torrents and just settle for 720p (Remember when 720p was called HD? I sure do). Bruh even standard resolution, known as 480p, is prefect enough for me lmao. Yeah there’s a constant competition of “MORE PIXELS! MORE QUALITY!” but it’s barely distinguishable on an average screen. It’s just the techbro conception of “progress” Look around, they are making your software! Not fanboying about it on reactionary internet forums or shilling shitcoins B) Haha, fair Edit: Thanks for linking me to Dillo! I’ll check it out. I have experience hosting things, so I could help you, if you want to make something like a community or whatever, if you want.
Unrelated to the post rant, So i just saw this picture and tried to find the raw image, i use Accessibility setting and it have short cut to google assistant lens which is great because i can do search screen and screen translate in matter of second. Apparently they change the google assistant to the new and improved “Gemini AI” that doesn’t have easy access to google lens. This new and improved AI need to generate answer for basic translating while the lens just translate it in matter of second. I got feed up and try to disable gemini and turn out it was bundled with google main app!! I can’t find the lens app so i open the app store to find the google lens app download it and i can’t use it because i disable google main app. Now if i want to translate picture i need to screenshot it go bach to home screen and then open the app which take a few seconds longer instead of just use the accessibility setting and just use lens there without screenshooting. Bro/sis they removed the only google feature that i actually use (T.T)
Is the stance here that AI is more dangerous than those because of its black box nature, it’s poor guardrails, the fact that it’s a developing technology, or it’s unfettered access? All of the above I guess. Although I am not keen on making a comparison to these previous things. I have previously written about how IoT/“Smart” devices are a massive security issue, for example. This is not a competition, the point is not whether or not these tools are worse by some degree from some other problematic technologies, the point is that the AI hype would have you believe they are some end-all demiurgs when the real threat is coming from inside the house. Also, do you think that the “popularity” of Google Gemini is because people were already indoctrinated into the Assistant ecosystem before it became Gemini, and Google already had a stranglehold on the search market so the integration of Gemini into those services isn’t seen as dangerous because people are already reliant and Google is a known brand rather than a new “startup”. I don’t know about Gemini’s actual popularity. What I do know is that it is being shoved down people’s throats in every possible way. My feeling is that a lot of people would prefer to use their tools and devices the way they had before this crap came down the pipeline but they simply don’t know how to turn it off reliably (partially because Google makes it really hard to do so), and so Google gets to make bullish claims on line-going-up as far as “people using Gemini” are concerned.
You stated they’re not a charity as if their greedy insidious product strategy didn’t provide them with enough revenue for Gemini to at least be free of charge and ad free since they’re shoving it down people’s throats every chance they get.
Politics reply: What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Directly, immediately? In the 1960s? Aside from the people employed working directly or indirectly on space efforts? Almost none. Is that really the answer you’re looking for, though? Scientific knowledge can take decades or even centuries before it improves our lives tangibly. But I think you know that, so I won’t argue with you about it. Concerning the waste of time, money and attention - LOL there was the Vietnam war, too. I’d argue was less beneficial to humanity than Apollo. I am only raising this point because I think it’s unfair to place blame for lack of social progress at the feet of scientists, or a sub-set of scientists. We’re collectively responsible. Otherwise, I generally agree with you. The Apollo program was not conceived or executed to benefit science. But Apollo did mobilize science irrevocably. “Planetary science” as a discipline, community and way of thinking didn’t exist before Apollo. Very few people, even in the science community, were comparing planets and learning something from that before about 1970. Ditto for environmental science - and that community, too, barely existed before Apollo. Even though that field got a headstart due to people like Rachel Carson. Would you have improved social conditions for anyone by cancelling Apollo/Gemini in, say, 1964? I’m not so sure about that. 1968 certainly implies otherwise. I’m here to tell you that exploring neighboring worlds is a social good because you learn the parameters of your own environment, parameters you MUST keep an eye on to keep Earth habitable. But that social good is a joke if people can’t walk down the street without worrying about ICE raids. So yeah, you’re right, racial hatred obviates this beautiful and essential realization that we’re connected to a bigger universe. Would you have the scientists of the world hide their knowledge away because we live surrounded by ugliness? All I can say to you is that we live here too, and this fight is ours as much as yours.
Looks like a pretty significant decrease in cost compared to previous top OpenAI models. It looks like they matched Gemini 2.5 Pro’s price per input and output exactly, where O3 used to be 4x the cost vs Gemini. I wonder if they’ve actually brought their computation costs down, or if they’re just leaning on investor capital to stay competitive price wise. Edit: looks like they had a messed up bar graph on this slide of the presentation. Surprising to see a mistake like this slip through on such a large budget release.
After your post I went and tried it today, in my tests on a medium sized repo cline actually killed it, very similar performance to cursor. Roo code was slightly better for me compared to cline, both roo code and cursor landed some acceptable changes in an existing repo with the same prompt, about 300ish lines of code. I used anthropic for everything for an apples to apples comparison, will try out gemini this week. I’d love to see somebody do a price breakdown of a full month of constant use for both systems.
Upvoting because the FAQ genuinely is worthwhile to read, and answers the question I had in mind: 7.9 Why not just use a subset of HTTP and HTML? I don’t agree with their answer though, since if the rough, overall Gemini experience: is roughly equivalent to HTTP where the only request method is “GET”, the only request header is “Host” and the only response header is “Content-type”, plus HTML where the only tags are , , , through , and and
Then it stands to reason – per https://xkcd.com/927/ – to do exactly that, rather than devise new protocol, client, and server software. Instead, some of their points have few or no legs to stand on. The problem is that deciding upon a strictly limited subset of HTTP and HTML, slapping a label on it and calling it a day would do almost nothing to create a clearly demarcated space where people can go to consume only that kind of content in only that kind of way. Initially, my reply was going to make a comparison to the impossibility of judging a book by its cover, since that’s what users already do when faced with visiting a sketchy looking URL. But I actually think their assertion is a strawman, because no one has suggested that we should immediately stop right after such a protocol has been decided. Very clearly, the Gemini project also has client software, to go with their protocol. But the challenge of identifying a space is, quite frankly, still a problem with no general solution. Yes, sure, here on the Fediverse, we also have the ActivityPub protocol which necessarily constrains what interactions can exist, in the same way that ATProto also constrains what can exist. But even the most set-in-stone protocol (eg DICT) can be used in new and interesting ways, so I find it deeply flawed that they believe they have categorically enumerated all possible ways to use the Gemini protocol. The implication is that users will never be surprised in future about what the protocol enables, and that just sounds ahistoric. It’s very tedious to verify that a website claiming to use only the subset actually does, as many of the features we want to avoid are invisible (but not harmless!) to the user. I’m failing how to see how this pans out, because seeing as the web is predominantly client-side (barring server side tracking of IP address, etc), it should be fairly obvious when a non-subset website is doing something that the subset protocol does not allow. Even if it’s a lay-in-wait function, why would a subset-compliant client software honor that? When it becomes obvious that a website is not compliant with the subset, a well-behaved client should stop interacting with the website, because it has violated the protocol and cannot be trusted going forward. Add it to an internal list of do-not-connect and inform the user. It’s difficult or even impossible to deactivate support for all the unwanted features in mainstream browsers, so if somebody breaks the rules you’ll pay the consequences. And yet, Firefox forks are spawning left and right due to Mozilla’s AI ambitions. Ok, that’s a bit blithe, but I do recognize that the web engines within browsers are now incredibly complex. Even still though, the idea that we cannot extricate the unneeded sections of a rendering engine and leave behind the functionality needed to display a subset of HTML via HTTP, I just can’t accept that until someone shows why that is the case. Complexity begats complexity, whereas this would be an exercise in removing complexity. It should be easier than writing new code for a new protocol. Writing a dumbed down web browser which gracefully ignores all the unwanted features is much harder than writing a Gemini client from scratch. Once again, don’t do that! If a subset browser finds even one violation of the subset protocol, it should halt. That server is being malicious. Why would any client try to continue? The error handling of a privacy-respecting protocol that is a subset of HTML and HTTP would – in almost all cases – assume the server is malicious, and to disconnect. It is a betrayal of the highest order. There is no such thing as a “graceful” betrayal, so we don’t try to handle that situation. Even if you did it, you’d have a very difficult time discovering the minuscule fraction of websites it could render. Is this about using the subset browser to look at regular port-80 web servers? Or is this about content discovery? Only the latter has a semblance of logic behind it, but that too is an unsolved problem to this day. Famously, YouTube and Spotify are drivers of content discovery, based in part due to algorithms that optimize for keeping users on those platforms. Whereas the Fediverse eschews centralized algorithms and instead just doesn’t have one. And in spite of that, people find communities. They find people, hashtags, images, and media. Is it probably slower than if an algorithm could find these for the user’s convenience? Yes, very likely. But that’s the rub: no one knows what they don’t know. They cannot discover what they don’t even imagine could exist. That remains the case, whether the Gemini protocol is there or not. So I’m still not seeing why this is a disadvantage against an HTTP/HTML subset. Alternative, simple-by-design protocols like Gopher and Gemini create alternative, simple-by-design spaces with obvious boundaries and hard restrictions. ActivityPub does the same, but is constructed atop HTTP, while being extensible to like-for-like replace any existing social media platform that exists today – and some we haven’t even thought of yet – while also creating hard and obvious boundaries which forment a unique community unlike any other social media platform. The assertion that only simple protocols can foster community spaces is belied by ActivityPub’s success; ActivityPub is not exactly a simple protocol either. And this does not address why stripping down HTML/HTTP wouldn’t also do the same. You can do all this with a client you wrote yourself, so you know you can trust it. I sure as heck do not trust the TFTP client I wrote at uni, and that didn’t even have an encryption layer. The idea that every user will write their own encryption layer to implement the mandatory encryption for Gemini protocol is farcical. It’s a very different, much more liberating and much more empowering experience than trying to carve out a tiny, invisible sub-sub-sub-sub-space of the web. So too would browsing a sunset of HTML/HTTP using a browser that only implements that subset. We know this because if your reading this right now, you’re either viewing this comment through a web browser frontend for Lemmy, or using an ActivityPub client of some description. And it is liberating! Here we all are, on this sub sub sub sub space of the Internet, hanging out and commenting about protocols and design. But that doesn’t mean we can’t adapt already-proven, well-defined protocols into a subset that matches an earlier vision of the internet, while achieving the same.Hier auch eine ausführliche Einführung in das Gemtext-Markup-Format: http://geminiprotocol.net/docs/gemtext.gmi Es ist nicht halb so komplex wie Markdown (also das was hier bei feddit für die Formatierung der Kommentare benutzt wird). Das ist halt wirklich gezielt dafür gemacht, dass man ohne gross was nachzuschlagen seinen Text runter schreiben und publizieren kann.