case-in-point, my mom was effectively cured of a cancer in 2024 that they wouldn't have even tried to treat in 1980

Interesting that you put the chronic health crisis on a failure of government.

I would put that more on a failure of culture to value healthy living and activity. I wouldn't call that the responsibility of the government. Perhaps lack of clarity on ownership is related to the crisis itself.

It's not solely the fault of government, but heavy corn subsidies and the food pyramid travesty didn't help.

The VR investment was a calculated risk that may or may not pay off in a longer time horizon. Meta is the leading VR company and well-positioned to benefit the most from whatever comes from the industry in the future.

The demand for more AI compute is already here and is less risky of an investment.

"Centralized planning" was effective under Bell Labs

Moreover, if a government is funneling taxpayer money into the projects of a few citizens, that is a clear red flag of corruption. Whereas if private entities are deciding to invest their own capital into infrastructure, it's unclear what the complaint even is

people would rather complain than put in a little effort, especially if it means losing the chance to invent an evil empire to rebel against

>> Ubuntu is better than Microsoft 95

Wow, incredible progress in just 30 years!

the argument being made by the article is that microsoft 95 was better than operating systems now

operating systems aren't where most innovation happens, obviously, nor should they be, but they have made progress in usability, security, performance, etc. technology has certainly made incredible progress in 30 years

cynicism and denigrating everything is easy but it stops being cool after about age 16

Not everything. Selectively. Win95 was a marvel of tech at its time. Ubuntu and other linux desktop attempts are in a sorry and shameful state.

This particular blog doesn't heed device settings and, as such, forces light mode on its readers.

The author also changes their mind halfway through and decides the problem is actually color contrast, not dark mode.

The author's blog also explicitly defines

    color: #111;
    background-color: #fdfdfd;

which is a contrast ratio of 18:56:1.

Yeah their actual point is about contrast ratio, which makes the headline a bit disingenuous.

Ironically they end by saying they'll use an invert filter as a workaround, while for those who prefer dark mode if doing the same on the author's own stark white bg/black text site (such as Vivaldi's 'Invert Mode') will produce the very contrast ratio in dark they're complaining about :p

Yeah - and an invert filter messes up photos. Again, like the author has on their blog.

If you wanna argue that we shouldn't force dark mode, maybe don't go around forcing light mode. My eyes hurt.

Then un-mess them up :)

  html {
    filter: invert(1);
  }

  img {
    filter: invert(1);
  }

Bookmarklet edition:

    javascript:(function(){var s=document.createElement("style");s.innerText="html{filter: invert(1);}img{filter: invert(1);}";document.head.append(s)})()

(doesn't and can't fix CSS "background-image" but you'll live)

It seems like an oversight to me that all the discussion about political impact leading up to this has focused on consumers. Statements like "Gen Z likes TikTok, so banning it risks alienating them", "Gen Z will forgot about TikTok and move on to the next thing in due time", etc.

I think this overlooks one key detail. The focal points of the new online world -- "influencers" -- rely on TikTok for the lion's share of their income. Taking away a fun toy might not radicalize someone but taking away their livelihood might.

And even if these users are a tiny fraction of a percent, they wield outsized influence (obviously). They are the new media. Risking losing these people, many of whom have been largely apolitical, seems like a huge tactical error in retrospect, and one that Trump would predictably take advantage of if given the chance.

I think they meant that because content is siloed already by language barriers, the only ecosystem that would be affected by the removal of US users is the English-speaking subsystem.

That said, the English-speaking world clearly extends well beyond the US and English commonwealth countries nowadays. Also, a lot of videos don't have any dialogue and can also cross the language barrier.

Trees produce CO2 during respiration and intake it during photosynthesis. The carbon captured during photosynthesis will be offset to some degree by the tree's own need to consume glucose.