Most people in the US are immigrants, including most white people. If not their parents, then their grandparents or their parents. Very, very few Americans have a lineage to the Revolution.
2,281 karma · joined September 23, 2025
There's nothing stopping a website from being usable on a smartphone. In fact, almost all of these apps are just websites in disguise! They use web views to render.
The reason it's an app and not a website isn't because apps are better for smartphones. It's because apps are native code running.
It's also a choice that websites cannot present as apps (PWAs). Apple and Google purposefully did that so they can push users to apps instead of websites, for data farming purposes.
That's because there's research that users don't understand filesystems. So then stupid companies who make bad decisions like Microsoft and Apple decide that that means they should pretend filesystems don't exist.
A lot of older people rely on yougins for tech support not because they have to, but because it's easy learned helplessness.
A large part of this is ALSO software's fault, though. Software changes too quick and for no reason. Software these days lies to users, erroding confidence.
So, when you have infinite music, you then have to look to qualitative differentiating factors. Like, say, the artist themselves. And if they're AI.
Is this true? The US has been doing this for over 100 years and it's been fine, I think. I mean, our countries identity has basically become "we're all immigrants" but that's not a new phenomena.
Remember when Mom said to eat your vegetables? Turns out she was right.
You would have to use low fat beef, and ideally not beef but turkey.
I think some people think that burgers, fries, steak, and milkshakes are bad for you because they're fast food or restaurant food. No... no that stuff is just bad for you. You'll get a heart attack if you make it at home, too. Just eat it in moderation and eat more vegetables.
In Java, that's two objects, and one will be collected later.
What this means is that a C++ application running at 90% memory usage is going to use about the same amount of work per allocation/destruction as it would at 10% usage. The same IS NOT true for GC languages.
At 90% usage, each allocation and deallocation will be much more work, and will trigger collections and compactions.
It is absolutely true that GC languages can perform allocations cheaper than manual languages. But, this is only true at low amounts of heap usage. The closer you get to 100% heap usage, the less true this becomes. At 90% heap usage, you're gonna be looking at an order of magnitude of slowdown. And that's when you get those crazy statistics like 50% of program runtime being in GC collections.
So, GC languages really run best with more memory. Which is why both C# and Java pre-allocate much more memory than they need.
And, keep in mind I'm only referring to the allocation itself, not the allocation strategy. GC languages also have very poor allocation strategies, particularly Java where everything is boxed and separate.
As a side-note, that's how GC languages can perform so well in benchmarks. If you run benchmarks that generate huge amounts of garbage or consistently run the heap at 90%+ usage, that's when you'll see that orders of magnitude slowdown.
Oh also containers, lots more containerized applications on modern Linux desktops.
For example, Java applications will claim much more memory than they need for the heap. Most of that memory will be unused, but it's necessary to have a faster running application. If you've ever run a Java app at consistently 90% heap usage, you know it grinds to an absolute halt with constant collection.
The same is true for caching techniques. Reading from storage is slow, so it often makes sense to put stuff in RAM even if you're not using it very often.
This is a common fallacy or I guess maybe shoddy reasoning I see often. Because someone or something either does not announce their intentions or says their intentions are good, then the thing they are using must also be good. Or, we must assume it is good until they announce they're going to use it for not-good purposes.
Like with Flock. There's a lot of people who think the simple defense that Flock thinks it is used to fight crime means it's good. Or DOGE. The simple defense that the people behind DOGE say it's to prevent fraud means it's good.
But what people say and what actually happens are two different things, and the what actually happens part is 1000x more important. Anyone can say anything, and obviously bad actors will lie. That's just a given. So you can't use the stated purpose of something as a defense for that something. You just can't, it makes no sense.
Women's lives are valuable, men's are not. This has been the case across basically all societies in human history. Losing a ton of men really doesn't matter too much - especially young, family-less men.
Losing a lot of women, though, is really really bad.
I also had cancer in the past and you might think that that would mean I get faster appointments. I do not.
And I have a very, very, very good PPO plan.
Also, a lot of wealthly people aren't stupid like we think. They're evil, which is different. And being evil is actually pretty good for being wealthy. Most people are encumbered by their morality. Evil people are not, so they can do much more.
They're doing the best they can, but at the end of the day it's literally impossible for them to have absolutely zero data.
They need your credit card number stored somewhere so they can repeatedly bill you. That's just how billing works. They need a recovery email on file so they can email that address.
That doesn't mean that they're not committed to defending freedom.
I'll echo what other people have said: this feels like a psyop. If I were the CIA, I would be doing exactly what you're doing here: spewing unreasonable nonsense about proton in an effort to discredit it so that I can push people towards insecure services.
Nothing even comes close to proton when it comes to email security and privacy. That doesn't mean that we cant criticize proton - we can, and we should. But it has to be legitimate critique.
In the US this isn't how it works. You can't see whoever you want unless you have a really, really good plan. Otherwise, you need referrals. And lots of specialists won't see you without a referral anyway.
And, the wait is often on the order of months. I know that's something people complain about in the UK but I assure you, it happens that way in the US too even though we're paying 10x as much.
I know private in the UK is quite good. What you need to understand is that the only reason it's any good at all is because of the NHS. It has to remain competitive. If you go full private, then it very quickly decays.
Okay sure, if you read the comment and then use a Men in Black mind wiper thingy before reading the last sentence, then it might seem brazen or universal. But that's not what you did.
The only way that last comment can reasonably be taken to mean "for everyone on Earth" is if you did not read the lines before it. Because, in that context, to me, it's clear he is only talking about his experience.
This is a phenomena I've noticed lately where everyone feels the need to add a disclaimer for everything and not doing so is seen as an "aha gotcha!" type thing. But we're not algorithms. You do not read one line at a time and then digest it.
You're human, he's human, and there's context. You know that it would be extremely unreasonable for someone to think that nobody, anywhere, has anything to say about LLMs right? Okay. That doesn't mean that this person is being unreasonable.
It means that that's probably not what he meant.
Ironically, in your crusade to wave the "I'm being censored!" flag, the only person who is trying to do any censoring... is you!
And to top it off, as if that wasn't enough, you're also incredibly snarky and basically implying that this person who just vaguely disagrees with you must be unlikable or something. Which, in another twist of irony, actually makes YOU appear unlikable, because what well-adjusted adult would feel the need to throw someone under the bus for slightly disagreeing with them?
For example, desktop apps are actually much less complex than web based applications. It doesn't really seem that way, but web apps are distributed, with a client and server on separate machines. That, to me, introduces a whoooole new layer of error conditions and flakiness.
Also, QA has been largely cast aside. Nobody is really doing manual click-around type testing, and nobody is writing user guides anymore.
I think people think ads give way, way more money than they actually do. If you're visiting a website with mostly static ads then you're generating fractions of a cent in revenue for that website. Even on YouTube, you're generating mere cents of revenue across all your watch time for the month.
Why does YouTube premium cost, like, 19 dollars a month then? I don't know, your guess is as good as mine.
Point is, you wouldn't be paying 5.99. You could probably pay a dollar or two across ALL the websites you visit and you'd actually be giving them more money than you do today.
And there's obviously a difference between an established and obvious fact and a BOLD claim. This person made a BOLD claim. And provided numbers. To me, that requires a source.
Yes, there is a middle ground, but this isn't in the middle ground. I think this type of claim requires a source. A different claim, without specific percentages, would not. Or an obvious claim, like the Earth's circumference, also would not.