jdw

AppleInsider said:

We entered the prompt, "Which do you prefer: iOS or Android?" and it [chose] iOS as its preferred option.

...like other chatbots, Bard isn't intelligent.

As per the above article quote, AppleInsider is basically telling us that Bard's choice of iOS over Android "isn't intelligent."  But clearly AppleInsider is lacking intelligence because iOS should be AppleInsider's "preferred option" as it is mine.  If it isn't, for goodness sake, why are well all here and not in an Android-lovers forum?

Sheesh!

JP234 said:

jdw said:

While we all know what ultimately took the life of Steve Jobs, the fact remains he died young at 56, and it always made me think about his often strange diets through the years.  Remember when he only ate fruit for a time and didn't use deodorant?  Could be his diet had nothing to do with his getting that form of cancer, but we honestly don't know.  As such, is it really smart to use the likeness of a man who died so young as a promotion to eat in a particular way?  To me, that's rather crazy.

Jobs refused surgery after diagnosis in 2003 and for nine months after, favoring instead dietary treatments and other alternative methods. His biographer Walter Isaacson says that when he asked Jobs why he had resisted it, Jobs said “I didn't want my body to be opened...I didn't want to be violated in that way.” His early resistance to surgery was apparently incomprehensible to his wife and close friends, who continually urged him to do it. “We talked about this a lot,” said Isaacson. “He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it. ... I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner."

There's no way to know whether his lifestyle led to his cancer, or delayed it. What we do know is that he lived 8 years after diagnosis, 7 years longer than most. A tribute to what great wealth can do to prolong an agonizing death.

All of that is irrelevant, and here's why.

When the average person who knows Jobs died in his 50's sees an Ad about a diet (way of life, etc.) that is supposed to make you healthier (which implies "less susceptible to disease" and "able to live a longer life"), it only strikes one as very, very odd that a person who died young, REGARDLESS OF REASON, would be showcased in an Ad for health (and indirectly, longevity).  

This is why I feel their use of Jobs to pitch a diet ideology is wrong.  They are simply using a famous face and name to support their preferred narrative about diet and health.

Now if Jobs were alive today and if he ultimately lived to be in his 90's, and if after his death the same group tried to pitch a healthy vegan diet in association with the way Jobs ate, then it would make A LOT OF SENSE, and no one would be surprised at all.

While we all know what ultimately took the life of Steve Jobs, the fact remains he died young at 56, and it always made me think about his often strange diets through the years.  Remember when he only ate fruit for a time and didn't use deodorant?  Could be his diet had nothing to do with his getting that form of cancer, but we honestly don't know.  As such, is it really smart to use the likeness of a man who died so young as a promotion to eat in a particular way?  To me, that's rather crazy.

When you've been doing something for YEARS with success as I have, you stick with it regardless of what some guy on the internet says.  In the end, I use what works for me and I don't waver even when faced with ridicule.  In fact, mockery only works to reinforce what I already believe.  So thank you! :-)

I don't have any ridiculously weak passwords on accounts I care about.  Some very old forums I never participate anymore, perhaps, but certainly nothing that would expose my sensitive personal data or bank account information.  Any weak passwords I created for those old forums I deliberately made weak (so as to remember them easier) because the content they protected wasn't worth protecting.  I simply was forced to create an account with a password to post in a given forum.

I think there's more risk of me getting locked out due to stupid 2FA than being hacked.  I say that because I've been online since my 300 baud modem and dial-up BBS's back in the early 80's, and to this day I've never been hacked because I religiously use good passwords and maintain them well.  I also don't visit places that expose me to potential hacks, and I don't foolishly click on links in emails.  I'm pretty adept at spotting phishing attempts. 

With silly 2FA, if you don't happen to have a device on which your 2FA code or confirmation can be done, you're out of luck.  That restricts my freedom, and I dislike that tremendously.  That is why I keep 2FA switched off.  People who rely on 2FA can't imagine that to be safe, but I am here to say, it actually is.  It's called good password management combined with strong passwords.  I have the key passwords needed for access memorized, and the rest I can access online when needed, in a safe way.