Drives me nuts that people still build these in 2026. Scroll animations should only ever be used to supplement existing scrolling. If scrolling is replaced entirely by an arbitrary animation, there's no longer anything to anchor the action, and basic UX feels broken.
Good eye. It's plagiarized, too: the source they copied (without attribution) is this New York Times story[0], and you can diff the two texts yourselves, to see what AI did to it. (It's gross).
I've emailed the mods to ask them to replace the post's URL.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the New York Times is now a gaming/recipes company with a newspaper attached to it.
Probably mostly a good thing now that I think about it - it moves the paper closer to the model of 20th century journalism (a local quasi-monopoly on news gathering and distribution funded by advertising) that was, for all its faults, pretty fucking good in retrospect.
Sure, I'd love for quality journalism to be sustainable, but that's no reason to keep ourselves ignorant while it isn't sustainable, a situation which may or may not end in our lifetimes.
Also, this is the NYT we're talking about here, the outfit that promoted the fiction about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and doxxed Scott Alexander while insinuating he was a Nazi. It's not a good choice for a poster child for "quality journalism".
Government. About 25% of my job. No day to day mainframe development, but we do need to update some logic for new policies and regulations.
There’s not much maintenance work. There are very few bugs, as the core applications have been running for decades, most come up with interactions to external services.
Any major development projects are only in service of lower overall COBOL development time, like transitioning some business logic to database updates.
And there is a decommission plan for the mainframe, so plenty of work helping that team.
There was no illegal content on kiwi farms. Even then, I’d say taking down a single page by request is understandable. However, they surrendered to the mob and chose to stop archiving the entire site. This was to censor any criticism of the people involved, but as a result, we lost all of the other information on the rest of the site as well. It’s clear this organization cannot handle pressure, and is relying on people treating it kindly.
They chose to stop serving archives of a site that had started explicitly using tham as a distribution mechanism to get around much a much broader attempt to censor them.
I'm curious what other information on that site you think was valuable to have available to the general public? Nothing has been lost in terms of historical data, it's only the immediate disemmination that has been slowed.
I'm really trying to understand why I should disagree with the IA's choice here. The IA is an archival service, not a distribution platform and it is not their job to help you distribute content that other people find objectionable. Their job is to make and keep an archive of internet content so that we don't lose the historical record. Blocking unrestricted public access to some of that content doesn't harm that mission and can even support it.
You’re still only holding yourself accountable, which is harder for some than others. If you don’t have friends to study with, maybe some internet strangers could be a motivational alternative.
> Some psychiatrists raise the concern that evolutionary psychologists seek to explain hidden adaptive advantages without engaging the rigorous empirical testing required to back up such claims.
That's putting it very mildly. Not that it's impossible that depression is an evolutionary trait, but that whole page is a bunch of highly contradicting, unprovable "this is deep" philosophy. It isn't even clear how to diagnose depression, what the underlying causes are, and if people were depressed 50,000 years ago. They all assume there has to be some benefit. There isn't a theory that argues it's just a negative effect of some other beneficial development. They don't even tell how developing depression could possibly positively affect procreation.
Explanatory power is good if you're trying to understand where depression comes from. It's not helpful as a guide for clinical treatment of a person suffering depression right now.
Just pointing it out: this is a really sneaky way to avoid providing any sort of evidence for your claims whatsoever.
But to address your claim: security and cyber attack stuff are not remotely comparable to IP theft. You'll have to do better than literally pull claims out of thin air.
And, exactly none of those incidents you mentioned have anything to do with IP theft. Your own examples demonstrate a consistent pattern of no IP theft.
I don't need evidence since from the beginning I'm insisting that it's my own assumption.
That's how assumptions work.
And I'm not focused at all on the IP theft, only on the backdooring.
People just started to focus on IP and the USA after the fact, because americans think the USA and money are the center of the world and see it everywhere even when they are not the main point of the conversation, but just examples.
Ok, but the argument against it here seems to be: "I don't really understand it, haven't tried to, and haven't bothered to use it. Therefore it's dumb and has no use case."
