The detachment you describe is fleeting, at best, in this example.

Sure, they arrive at a separate terminal, they enjoy a shorter TSA line, and they can spend some time in a more private, less crowded area UNTIL they need to board their commercial flight - then they board a shuttle, travel across the runways, then disembark and walk the regular terminal to get to the gate where they wait to board their commercial flight just like everyone else.

This terminal is targeted at the traveling salesman that can expense the $5K/year membership - this is not a service for billionaires (they fly private) or celebrities, this is for guys with expense accounts.

Even if you paid the $5K for this terminal, you wouldn't avoid any of the things you complain about - you board the plane from the same gate as everyone else, and you are still flying commercial - you just have a nicer place to wait and a shorter TSA line. Oh, and maybe snacks.

This terminal is nothing more than a perk SFO can offer that traveling salesmen based in SF can expense - this is not a rarified community of billionaires avoiding the less-affluent - at the end of the day they are taken from this membership lounge to the terminal where they can walk to their gate and wait in line to board the plane just like they did before the new subscription terminal was built.

This idea stopped making sense as soon as they said the premium terminal they are proposing will be on the other side of the runways from the existing terminal - I have to board a shuttle to get to my gate for my commercial flight? No thanks, I'll just get a PreCheck or whatever they call it and spend less time at TSA. Rather than spend $5K on a membership I'll go to the over-priced bar and wait for my flight...

What are you talking about - this private terminal is for folks that can't/don't fly private - this isn't the billionaire class, this is the "I convinced my boss to buy me this perk because I travel out of SF so often" class, wage slaves, not masters of industry.

It's $5K/year to have a separate TSA line, a smaller, more comfortable waiting area, then a shuttle service to take them to the very gate they paid $5K/year to avoid.

While the private TSA line may be a time saver, I suspect the shuttle across the tarmac to the terminal to make your flight removes any illusion of "saving time" or being more convenient.

You do realize this terminal services commercial flights, not private planes, right?

You get to avoid long TSA lines, you wait in a premium lounge, but then you hop on a shuttle and get taken to the gate for your commercial flights, where you wait to board along with everyone else... seems like more hassle than convenience, a real premium to avoid long TSA lines...

That is NOT my experience.

It is not the case that more than half ("most people") run Linux on non-Apple laptops, at least not anywhere I see large groups of people with laptops.

Of course, I am gainfully employed outside the conventional IT industry, so my interactions with others doesn't skew towards "code monkey" working "in the valley" which is a bit different than my experience in corporate America in flu-over country.

No, they see Computer 1 that runs the same OS as they are used to at work, and Computer 2 which looks nice, costs just as much or a bit more than Computer 1, and looks different.

The average computer user buys a windows machine to replace a windows machine, and a Mac to replace a Mac. Yes, occasionally a windows user will buy a Mac out of frustration or curiosity, or a Mac user will buy a windows pc "for work", but I don't think the average buyer does an exhaustive market analysis that would lead them to conclude that Mac is getting comparatively much, MUCH better than windows, even if can't run as many games - they just want to replace what's broken or unsupported with something similar.

Define "severely".

What do you believe is the real end-user market share for Linux users?

Remember, as noted in the summary, this is really a "web activity" tracker, not OS installation tracker - it is based on web page activity at select sites that choose to support their tracking code. I suspect their sources are predominantly English language sites, which likely skews the findings, for example.

I suspect the reported stat is correct, about 5% of desktop users run Linux, where Linux has greater market share is on servers, and in my experience servers rarely browse websites enough to actually be accounted for in a superficial traffic study like this.

Do you really think more than one out of twenty users are running Linux, assuming Android devices are accounted for separately?

Funny, the headline doesn't refer to this as "web activity"...

I'd like to learn a bit more about the sites that agree to support this "tracking code" to see how that influences who gets counted. For example, let's say X (formerly Twitter) chooses to participate, but BlueSky doesn't - based on stereotypes I'd expect X to see largely windows users and the large
macOS/OS X user base on BlueSky wouldn't be counted.

And that 20% unknown OS is troubling - it points out the weakness in their methods. I'd like to see the breakdown of what the actual numbers were for each "unknown" response, that would be interesting. I wonder who, and why, some users choose to change their browser response string from their actual OS - to hide what they run? To throw off attackers? And are the folks that are likely to change their response strings generally running Windows, Mac, or Linux?

Please, describe a "mission critical" use of social media (like instagram), and then explain why these users would resort to "throw-away alias accounts" for these "mission critical" cases?

I can see, say, a medical organization posting health warnings/advice as a mission-critical use (educate the public), but hiding behind a throw-away alias account undermines their credibility/effectiveness of their effort...

You gave up your rights when you posted your content as "public"

PS - your public content is only used if the AI user specifies your public instagram account specifically, by name. Be flattered, they know your name and appreciate your content and hope to use it... that's why you posted it on social media and marked it public, right?

This only impacts instagram content marked "public" - do people not understand what it means to post "public" content, and how doing so eliminates the creator's ability to control the use of their content?

Sounds like an education issue.

If this offends you, just stop posting your content as "public" - it's really that simple.

By marking your piece of art "public" you release it for use by anyone, including AI - this was always the case, it is the very definition of "public" in this context. If you want control over the use of your images and likenesses, don't post them as "public" - it's quite simple.

What people?

The people that took a picture, posted it to social media, marked it public, and now, horror of all horrors, someone in public - that specifically cites their public instagram account - might actually use the image they chose to post on social media and mark public?

What stops any instagram user from going to their public instagram account, taking one of their images, and incorporating it into some photoshop project? Nothing. The only issue now is it is AI doing the photoshopping, but only when the user specifies your public instagram account as a source, Ali is not randomly using public instagram images - the user has to specify the source.