Remember when browsers were just tools to access the internet? Those simpler days seem increasingly distant as I read about Perplexity’s latest announcement regarding their new browser that plans to track “everything users do online” for hyper-personalized advertising. The brazenness of this declaration is both shocking and sadly unsurprising.

The tech industry’s relentless push toward surveillance capitalism has reached a new milestone. Gone are the days of subtle privacy invasions buried in lengthy terms of service agreements. Now, companies proudly announce their intentions to monitor every aspect of our digital lives, packaging it as a feature rather than the privacy nightmare it truly is.

The tech industry never ceases to amaze me with its tone-deaf approaches to user privacy. Today’s exhibit: Perplexity’s CEO proudly announcing their new browser will track everything users do online to deliver “hyper-personalized” ads. Reading this news over my morning batch brew, I couldn’t help but wonder if we’ve entered some bizarre parallel universe where privacy invasion is now a selling point.

Let’s be clear about something - nobody is sitting at home thinking, “Gee, I wish my browser would track me more thoroughly so I can get better ads!” The sheer disconnect between Silicon Valley executives and actual users has reached new heights of absurdity.

The online discussion about someone ditching Google Photos caught my attention this morning. It resonated deeply with my own journey of reducing dependency on big tech services, though I must admit I’m still taking baby steps in that direction.

Reading through the thread, I was struck by how many people shared this person’s revelation about self-hosting. There’s this persistent myth that running your own server requires enterprise-level infrastructure or a computer science degree. The reality is far more accessible – you can repurpose old hardware and build something meaningful with it.

The AI world is buzzing with the release of a new physics-based reasoning benchmark, and the results are quite fascinating. While Gemini maintains its position at the top, there are some unexpected outcomes that have caught my attention, particularly regarding the performance of various models on physics problems.

Working in tech, I’ve seen countless benchmarks come and go, but this one from Peking University is particularly interesting because it focuses on physics problems that require both knowledge and reasoning skills. The benchmark tests models’ abilities to understand spatial relationships, apply physics principles, and perform complex calculations - skills that many of us struggled with during our high school and university days.

The phrase “gentle reminder” landed in my inbox again this morning, triggering a familiar eye roll and a deep sigh. It’s fascinating how these two seemingly innocent words have become corporate code for “mate, you’re seriously testing my patience here.”

Reading through various online discussions about this particular piece of corporate speak, it’s clear I’m not alone in my mild irritation with this passive-aggressive gem. The consensus seems to be that there’s nothing particularly gentle about these reminders - they’re more like a velvet-wrapped sledgehammer.

The other day, I came across an online discussion that really struck a chord with me. A young professional, fresh out of university, was grappling with feelings of frustration about their savings despite living with parents. Their situation painted a vivid picture of the challenges facing young Australians today.

Looking at their numbers - saving $27,000 annually on a $67,000 salary while living at home - my first reaction was actually quite positive. That’s an impressive savings rate that many would envy. But their frustration is completely understandable when you consider the current state of the housing market, especially here in Melbourne where median house prices continue to hover around the million-dollar mark.

The tech world is buzzing with Anthropic’s latest prediction that fully autonomous AI employees are just a year away. Working in IT, I’ve seen my fair share of bold technological predictions, but this one particularly caught my attention – not just for its audacity, but for what it reveals about our industry’s tendency to oversimplify complex transitions.

Sitting at my desk in the CBD, watching the steady stream of office workers flowing through the streets below, I can’t help but think about how automation has already transformed our workplaces. It’s been a gradual process – from the self-service checkouts at Coles to the automated trading systems running our financial markets. We’ve been automating tasks piece by piece, yet we’re still far from the sci-fi vision of fully autonomous AI workers.

The recent discussions about Gen Z’s perception of AI consciousness have left me both fascinated and deeply concerned. Working in tech, I’ve watched the rapid evolution of AI systems like ChatGPT and Gemini, but the notion that a significant portion of young users believe these systems are conscious is troubling.

Let’s be crystal clear - current AI systems, regardless of how sophisticated they appear, are not conscious beings. They’re incredibly complex pattern-matching machines, trained on vast amounts of human-generated content. The fact that they can generate human-like responses doesn’t make them sentient any more than a calculator becomes conscious by solving equations.

Reading about the latest AI intelligence benchmarks over my morning brew at home, I found myself caught between fascination and concern. The recent reports claiming AI systems have jumped from an IQ of 96 to 136 in just twelve months left me with more questions than answers.

Let’s talk about IQ tests for a moment. Back in my university days, these standardized tests were already controversial. Now we’re applying them to AI systems and treating the results like they’re the holy grail of intelligence measurement? Something doesn’t add up.

The cost of living crisis has become impossible to ignore. Walking through Coles or Woolies these days feels like participating in an unwanted financial extreme sport. Remember when $150 would fill your trolley? Now it barely covers the basics.

Reading through some local community discussions about budget meal planning really struck a chord with me. Someone was asking how to feed two people on $75 a week - one vegetarian, one not. The responses were fascinating and got me thinking about how we approach food budgeting in these challenging times.