[I literally had this thought in the shower this morning so please don’t gatekeep me lol.]

If AI was something everyone wanted or needed, it wouldn’t be constantly shoved your face by every product. People would just use it.

Imagine if printers were new and every piece of software was like “Hey, I can put this on paper for you” every time you typed a word. That would be insane. Printing is a need, and when you need to print, you just print.

  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipEnglish
    17·
    18 hours ago

    Some of the older lemmings here will remember what it was like when every company wanted to make a website, but they didn’t really have anything to put in there. People were curious to look at websites, because you hadn’t seen that many yet, so visiting them was kinda fun and interesting at first. After about a year, the novelty had worn off completely, and seeing YetAnotherCompanyName.com on TV or a road side billboard was beginning to get boring.

    Did it ever get as infuriating the current AI hype though? I recall my grandma complaining about TV news. “They always tell me to read more online.” she says. I guess it can get just as annoying if you manage to successfully ignore the web for a few decades.

    • BanMe@lemmy.world
      10·
      18 hours ago

      I think back then, they had a product that was ahead of its time, and just needed time for us to adapt to.*

      Now, they have a solution in search of a problem, and they don’t know what the good use cases are, so they’re just slapping it on like randomly and aggressively.

      • I hate the way we did though, and hope AI destroys the current corporate internet.
    • Iced Raktajino@startrek.websiteOP
      9·
      16 hours ago

      I was an adult during that time, and I don’t recall it being anywhere near as annoying. Well, except the TV and radio adverts spelling at you like “…or visit our website at double-you double-you double-you dot Company dot com. Again, that’s double-you double-you double-you dot C-O-M-P-A-N-Y dot com.”

      YMMV, but it didn’t get annoying until apps entered the picture and the only way to deal with certain companies was through their app. That, of if they did offer comparable capabilities on their website but kept a persistent banner pushing you toward their app.

      • samus12345@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        17 hours ago

        My old brain still thought of site addresses as having www in them, but this post just made me realize that’s more uncommon than not to see it any more.

        • Iced Raktajino@startrek.websiteOP
          41·
          16 hours ago

          I’m about that same age but am so glad we’ve largely abandoned the “www” for websites.

          On my personal project website, I have a custom listener setup to redirect people to “aarp.org” if they enter it with “www” instead of just the base domain. 😆

          server {
    listen              443 ssl;
    http2		        on;
    server_name         www.mydomain.xyz;

    ssl_certificate     /etc/letsencrypt/live/mydomain.xyz/fullchain.pem;
    ssl_certificate_key /etc/letsencrypt/live/mydomain.xyz/privkey.pem;
    ssl_dhparam         /etc/nginx/conf.d/tls/shared/dhparam.pem;
    ssl_protocols       TLSv1.2 TLSv1.3;
    ssl_session_cache   shared:SSL:10m;
    ssl_session_timeout 15m;
  
    ...
    
    location ~* {
      return 301 https://aarp.org/;
    }
}
          • 𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            31·
            12 hours ago

            that’s… a terrible idea for a portfolio site of any sort. why would you intentionally hamper accessibility? what if their company VPN automatically routes yoursite.org to www.yoursite.org? i personally wouldn’t spend the time figuring out why i was looking at AARP, i’d just pass you over and not hire you, let alone reach out.

              • 𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                1·
                8 hours ago

                no, i think i know how things work enough to know this is a shitty idea.

                that excerpt is going to do a 301 redirect to the AARP site for any requests to www.yoursite.xyz - that’s 100% not up for debate.

                there are a fair amount of things, especially in a corporate environment, that automatically append www. to any URL passed. you think a hiring manager is going to care that it’s a quirky technical joke? why would you make it more difficult to access a portfolio who’s entire purpose is to be as accessible as possible for the target audience?