array_key_first

In the US it's mostly iMessage, and that includes people who say it's not mostly iMessage.

iPhones are more expensive, on average, for a similar or worse experience. The thing that drives iphone sales is social. People want iPhones because their friends do, and that's a very good reason.

Arguably they even gain more money in the long run, because more people have access to their entertainment and they have more opportunities to form life long connections with consumers.

Windows basically barely works, and I would know because I use it daily at work. Core operating system components crash regularly. My task bar crashes a couple times a day, and takes explorer down with it. Sometimes the start menu just won't open for a while. And also teams kills itself silently, and then I miss notifications because I'm not pocket watching the task bar.

At this point, Linux is very far ahead of windows in terms of QA. And other things, like aesthetics and intuitive UI. I mean, Microsoft has like 5 different application styles across their own built in apps.

I think a lot of people have just not used KDE or even gnome in a while. They're pretty good. Consistent, intuitive, stable.

Electricity is cheap in Georgia because Georgia is generally not a desirable state for business. Electricity, along with a lot of others things, is expensive in California because it's California. There's a lot of talent in California, a lot of inertia, and a huge economy.

All operating systems have bugs, and Apple doesn't have the QA it used to have. MacOS has basically been exclusively trending down in quality for a while now, while Linux continues to get better.

What you have to realize is that what Linux distros are doing is inherently more complicated. They're making a general purpose operating system intended to run on every computer.

Apple is making one operating system intended to run on maybe 0.1% of devices. Oh, and they also make those devices.

And MacOS is still trending down in quality, somehow.

It makes sense that you use Windows in a video game company. We use windows as well at work and it's absolutely awful for development. I would really prefer a Linux desktop, especially since we exclusively deploy to Linux.

what?

Because cars are intrinsicly an inefficient mode of transportation, even if other forms also cause this problem it would still be orders of magnitude less than cars.

Non stick pans are perfectly safe to use. But, if you're worried, just avoid very high temperatures and use wooden utensils on them, never metal.

Not the commenter, but my take:

Women are taught from a young age of how to engage with their role in a patriarchal society. This includes caretaking, nurturing, and having patience for men. It's not uncommon for young girls to be given household chores that they must "suck up" and do while they're brothers get away with not doing chores.

In addition, we associate politeness and pleasantness with femininity. A woman ought to be kind and softspoken, and must not swear or raise her voice. We associate masculinity with abrasiveness, stubbornness, arrogance, and rage.

In most jobs and, in fact most social processes, the former is more useful to take advantage of. This could be why women, on the whole, would do better in interviews.

In addition, it is well-known that women socialize much more, including more conversing. They are probably much better at being social on the whole because of that. Meaning, women are much more likely to be charming and likable than men.

It's not a question of marketing, it's a question of progressivism.

We expanded job opportunities for women by telling them they can do anything, be anything, and he just as good as men at it. That they're built for anything, and that they aren't naturally forced to do anything one thing.

There are infinite ways to be a woman. There is one way to be a man. That's the problem. We should not be trying to convince men that nursing fits into that one way. Rather, we should be telling men that it's okay to have traditionally feminine jobs.

We've never had a progressive movement for men. We really require that if we're gonna get men, as a whole, to take these jobs seriously.

Yes, the main difference being we have no systems in place to deal with that for men. Or, the broader societal context: men have never had a progressive movement.

Well then given that one side is "the situation remains neutral or very slightly improves" and the other side is "unthinkable atrocities", I think it's only rational to focus on the "unthinkable atrocities" part. Ideally, we should be focusing all our energy into making sure that doesn't happen.

You don't have to be "Arbiter of Truth" to say "hey, you're making women uncomfortable, three women have complained about your language, you're fired"

The only people who consistently have issues with HR are pieces of shit.

What I'm trying to say is that Donald Trump says things like "grab her by the pussy" and "[Haitians] are eating dogs and cats" and that's why talking like him would get you censored.

You can be conservative and not racist, or not sexist, or not a piece of shit in general. Most conservatives cannot manage that, no matter how hard they try. At least - most conservatives currently in power in the US.

So, if that's your baseline or your inspiration, then yes, you will PREDICTABILITY be censored. And I garauntee nobody gives a single fuck.

It's not just that Microsoft keeps lowering the bar, although they do. Linux desktops have also improved A LOT, especially in the last 10 years.

We're at the point where UI-wise they run laps around Windows, and often even MacOS. They're intuitive, simple, and powerful.

The problem is that they're not windows. People know how to use Windows, including how to work around the layers of jank. When you remove the layers of jank, expectations get broken and users get confused.

It's a race to the bottom. In SV we're seeing this perception (delusion?) of a Brave New World in which there are two peoples: the permeant underclass of serfs, and the elite.

Everyone is clawing and crab-bucketing to escape, what they believe to be, the inevitable suffering of laborers in a post-labor economy.

So, if this guy I hate is using AI and AI is making the world worse then guess what - I'm using AI too. Because I'm not gonna be left behind, right?

In fact, I'm going use AI more. I'm the most AI-ist out of all the AI-believers. I'm practically and AI apostle.

Because, when our new overlords come, I intend to be spared. Not like you losers. I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

That's what they're thinking.

It's not that conservative opinions are censored. It's that bad opinion with zero merit to any reasonable person, such as insults, racism, sexual harassment, etc, are censored.

Unfortunately that means that most conservative opinions are censored.

Or, at least, the ones that matter said by our most popular politicians.

Rephrased, think of it this way: if I talk like Barack Obama at work, I'm fine. If I talk like President Donald Trump, I'm getting sent to HR on my first day. And that has nothing to do with their political leanings.

Being a free speech absolutionist DOES NOT mean plastering your speech everywhere, including Twitter. Those are clearly two different concepts.

Also, literally nothing about this says anything about other people's speech. Them deciding not to use twitter doesn't mean you can't, obviously.

I feel like everyone is losing the plot a bit. Are we understanding the words we're saying before we choose to say them?

It took Uber, like, 14 years to become profitable. That doesn't mean Uber is necessarily a success, though. They could still disappear.

There's a lot of corpse businesses around. The walking dead, just operating with zero profit and no realistic plan to be profitable. Their investors are usually just stupid or they think they can eventually squeeze the market so severely they can't go out of business.

I disagree, most webapps, like 99.9% I would say, are just forms, links, and pages. Meaning, they can be done with 0 reactivity and that is the most simple and straightforward way to do it.

Less code is basically always better, so if you can skip the huge amounts of JS and orchestration required by modern web frameworks, then it will be easy. People are out here using React to render static pages. It's very overkill.

It's not that bad for you, but it's definitely not good for you. It's not a very good source of protein and it's fairly calorie dense. It can also be quite high in saturated fat and red meat is a carcinogenic.

Obviously eating steak in moderation is fine. Eating steak everyday is not going to be good for you.

Law enforcement can act on that information, but they can do a lot of things. Whether they actually are is a different question.

You're also ignoring the risk here. These devices open up a whooooole new class of mistakes that can be made. There have already been people wrongfully jailed due to surveillance technology.

It's a much tougher problem then "idk just throw them in jail lol" and anyone who claims otherwise is dishonest.

There's zero proof anywhere that these devices do anything about crimes. How could they? A camera can't lock someone up.

You cannot tell if code is actually reachable if it depends on runtime input.

Those really evil bugs are the ones that exist in code paths that only trigger 0.001% of the time.

Often, the code path is not triggerable at all with regular input. But with malicious input, it is, so you can only find it through fuzzing or human analysis.

Red meat is a carcinogen, I don't know what to tell you.

The only reason your social network got "viral" is because it was a harassment machine and outrageous. People had to see what was going on to gauge how fucking awful it was.

You built a car wreck. Something so terrible that people had no choice but to look.

Obviously, fucking obviously, if you make profiles about people without their consent then they will be drawn to see what is going on. You can achieve the same thing by making a website where you post everyone's home addresses. Don't get any ideas.

None of this was impressive, at least not from a conceptual view.

Medicine doesn't really ignore nutrition, but the problem is:

1. Most people don't believe it anyway. People want to hear they can eat hamburgers and milkshakes and be healthy. Telling them "we know that gives you heart disease and cancer" does nothing.

2. Nutrition is complicated and different for every person, because everyone has different things they can tolerate. The "perfect" diet is actually worthless because it has a 0% success rate. Really, we have to optimize for how miserable people are willing to be.

3. Most people are unhealthy enough that nutrition is the least of their concerns. That sounds crazy, I know, but if you're obese (which most people are!), then priority is being not obese. Not your nutrition. I know those sound related but they're way less related than you think.

We live in a society.

The dude was hungry, what was he to do? We can't expect consumers to fix everything with dollar votes. They have lives, families, hobbies, things to do!

"chemicals" (however those are defined) are bad for you, but unhealthy food is still unhealthy even if it's natural. The naturalism fallacy is just that, a fallacy.

Hamburgers aren't bad because chemicals. They're bad mostly because they're super high in calories, saturated fat, and red meat. All of those are going to contribute to heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, etc.

UPF are bad for you, yes. Not necessarily because of the processing, but rather because MOST UPF is unhealthy. That does not mean that non-UPF is magically healthy.

If you deconstruct an UPF and eat it's components, it's still unhealthy. Oreos are bad for you because it's sugar and empty calories. Not because they were made in a factory. If you just take a spoonful of sugar and eat that, that's still bad for you.

I agree that rules of thumb can be good. Here's a simple one:

- eat more greens, eat less meat