tsuujin
What a sad state of affairs that is.
I disagree with this so very much.
High school debate was foundational for my adult ability to recognize that nuance exists. Arguing a position that you don’t personally believe in, and winning, is a massively useful tool in understanding that for the majority of topics there are reasonable, intelligent, and acceptable arguments for both sides.
This is a trait seeming missing from most other adults I interact with. Too many people accept blindly that there is a correct and incorrect position and no room in between.
FWIW I kind of feel like “no js” may be a pipe dream today. I see a lot of talk about it but very few sites actually do it; there just seems to be a lot of pressure to use the next big JS framework in the community.
Also analytics and so forth.
Not super sad, because I haven’t used Opera in a decade, but still a little sad.
You save a password to the keychain in safari, and then you go to the “passwords” system preferences panel and you see those passwords. Or the other way around—creating a password from system preferences makes it accessible in browser. It appears on the surface to just be a password app, not a safari bucket.
It also works this way if you use the iCloud passwords app from windows. All of your saved passwords show up there as well, despite the absence of safari.
I’m pretty sure the new Chrome extension also shares your existing passwords.
I think it’s a reasonable assumption that when an app claims to use the keychain that you will have access to all your previously saved passwords.
The angrier I am while troubleshooting, the funnier that reveal is for everyone.
I don’t need to apply this to the rest of my life because it isn’t tolerated anywhere but a few select places. I can buy my bread from a Vons and my milk from a Kroger and my meat from a butcher and we don’t allow any of those three to make it difficult to do so. I can buy a Honda motorcycle and a Ford truck and they aren’t allowed to subscription me into their brand.
Not that long ago, I could walk to a news stand and buy the journalism that I wanted case-by-case. You were allowed to “subscribe” to delivery of one but it was the delivery you were purchasing on cadence not the publication. I got to make that decision of which to buy daily, and I got to choose not to buy at all on days where I didn’t want to.
Current journalism has robbed us of these choices, and if they’re allowed to do that then I don’t see why we should be held to an ethical standard that they aren’t.
I don’t like anti-competitive, anti-consumer sales tactics. When that is all that is offered, I don’t blame people for finding ways around it.
What if instead every pizza place said “you must pay for five slices up front”? If you want a single slice, you have to pay for five. You get the next four without paying, but you have to buy them all up front.
Now you have purchased your five slices, but the next time you want pizza you want something that isn’t offered where you bought from last time. You can go across the street to where they have what you want, but you have to pay for five slices.
Now you have purchased ten slices and consumed two. Is that fair? What happens when you decide that the next slice you want isn’t offered at either of the two places you bought from before? Now you’ve bought fifteen slices and eaten three.
At what point do you decide to eat what you don’t really want simply because you’ve already paid for it? At some point this choice is taken away from you entirely because you can’t reasonably afford another five slices.
Subscription exclusivity in pricing is anti-consumer. They’re pushing you to consume only from them because they know you have to decide based on your means rather than purely what they offer.
Yeah, you can go to another pizza place to get the pepperoni that you want, but you have already subscribed to the first place and it is a nontrivial decision to not utilize the subscription you already have. Plus the new place will require you to subscribe and now you’re paying far more than the two slices would have actually cost you if you were allowed to buy by the slice.
If you want to talk ethics, pursuing exclusively a business model that is anticompetitive via a reduction in consumer choice per transaction is on the wrong side of that line. I don’t fault people for opportunistically avoiding the paywall.
How do you know that the parent comment here doesn’t ever pay for journalism? For all you know they pay for literally every publisher out there except for this particular one.
I pay for some journalism, but I reader mode others. Things rarely exist at the polar extremes. Usually my willingness to pay depends on the value proposition, if they’re asking me to pay for a lot of content I have no interest in I’m not likely to subscribe.
Perhaps it’s less a moral question for the consumer and more a logistical question for publishers to make it viable to pay for only the content we actually consume.
If there were a quick and easy way to pay a reasonably small fee per article (similar to what we used to do with newspapers) then your unnecessarily condescending comment may have some merit.
The primary difference between myself and my extreme extrovert wife is that at the end of the day I am emotionally drained and need some quiet time to recharge, while she’s still itching to talk.
In college Japanese class we were taught the phrase “ah, we soon get old” for a, i, u, e, and o respectively. I found it to be simple and satisfying.
You’re pretending that there is some imaginary standard about how websites must work, we’re saying our personal experiences do not match what you’re asserting as a universal truth.
It’d still be nice to get a summary “about” link but at least you can go right home.
1. Click HN link
2. See announcement, want product details
3. Click on logo… goes to blog homepage
4. Can’t edit url in in-app browser, so click to open in safari
5. Click to open url bar
6. Figure out what the home address likely is, mostly by guessing
7. Scan past giant hero to find an actual “about page”, maybe this is obvious maybe it isn’t
8. Actually get info I want
9. Close tab
10. Close safari
11. Open HN app again
12. Read release notes with actual context
If you can’t see how that is an annoyingly laborious process, easily resolved with a simple link in the opening paragraph, maybe logic isn’t for you. Not even being ironic.
To the contrary, there is evidence that we were eating more calories in the past than we are today, and that general levels of exercise are actually greater today than they were in the past as an average across the populace.
Honestly, read the articles. There is a ton of information in there challenging what we “know” that no summary will do justice.
Here’s an excerpt:
> A popular theory of obesity is that it’s simply a question of calories in versus calories out (CICO). You eat a certain number of calories every day, and you expend some number of calories based on your metabolic needs and physical activity. If you eat more calories than you expend, you store the excess as fat and gain weight, and if you expend more than you eat, you burn fat and lose weight.
> This perspective assumes that the body stores every extra calorie you eat as body fat, and that it doesn’t have any tools for using more or less energy as the need arises. But this isn’t the case. Your body has the ability to regulate things like its temperature, and it has similar tools to regulate body fatness. When we look closely, it turns out that “calories in, calories out” doesn’t match the actual facts of consumption and weight gain.
> “This model seems to exist mostly to make lean people feel smug,” writes Stephen Guyenet, “since it attributes their leanness entirely to wise voluntary decisions and a strong character. I think at this point, few people in the research world believe the CICO model.”
Cartels do not fuck around.