sirmike_

Pretty nuts.

Yes. Make peace with it and it will never bother you again.

Sometimes it is just easier to use a preexisting outlet in the wall of outright make a new one. So long as it looks nice and clean no one is going to be upset. And let's be honest. The cost to do this is fractions of a penny compared to contorting around environmental obstacles for shitty gain.

Or you can spend another Hundred hours in search of a subpar solution. How much money has been wasted on doing that? Stop the insanity!

Ok assume you are right through and through. The tax isn't benefiting journalists. Who does the tax go to? Canadian big-corps? What's the difference between them and google-meta-OmniCorps exactly? Where is this thread of altruism or spirit of public service which this tax brings to the public? Who does it really serve? The public? The media?

What would be the use case for something like this?

Any place which serves paper straws (in my area) gets an automatic no-go. Not interested in a business virtue signaling to superficial ecology preservation. It is akin to anti-gunners betting all in on stopping made up categories of firearms (assault weapons) which make up a tiny portion of murders. Whereas if they were serious they would focus on restrictions of hand-guns. The two stats of crime committed with both are NOT the same levels.

I like it and thank you for creating this. Do not listen to the haters too too much. Just the valid feedback.

Well that is one imaginary perspective. In six years the world will still be turning and your side will yell the end will come in another 5 years.

Please do not hide your tactics and by all means keep up the batshitcrazy loudness of your plans. The more you yell and scream and introduce more radical planning -- the more the average person will grow tired of them and end up shutting you all out.

Ideologies aside we agree on nuclear energy.

And what of sincere difference of opinion which rubs up on the rules? Someone has to be the losing party. Example being a normie (with default hetro perspective of sex/gender Men Women) vs the progressive perspective on infinite sex/gender fluidity. I can guess who would lose out.

That is called an employment contract. And no there should not be penalties. Thats asking for Govt overreach. No thanks.

No thanks. Remote work is not a life or death working issue to galvanize the need for a union. It would be interesting to see what a "perfect Storm' would look like to make a technology workers union make sense in the real world (in the US).

On paper a union kinda makes sense until you see your union dues going to support batshit candidates for office. Here in the US virtually all unions support left leaning policies and the democrat party. Time and again the democrat party claims one thing and does another. Like the backstabbing the Biden administration did to Railroad workers. They did not settle that in workers best interests. They solved it to prevent economic disruption.

I would rather negotiate my own salary needs than leave it to a union.

Technology workers make tremendous amounts of money once you hit middle to senior level career stages. Even more so if you have a specialty. No way would folks given up that level of autonomy.

It is simple enough that the remote work issue is settled through the job market. If a company advertises for only onsite work, they have that choice. Likewise me as a worker can exclusively look for remote work. Despite this economy, the technology worker still dictates the terms. For now. I am sure it will go in cycles like everything else.

Probably for the best.

Why bother building the other three walls? Wouldn’t one SB wall between the unit and the exterior wall of the building cut down the noise enough?

MEOW

I used LastPass for 13 years. Now I use Roboform.

It just works.

YOU are 100 percent correct.

Generally speaking when Google prevents and limits what end users can control -- the offending product gets worse and eventually dropped.

I do not think so. We know nothing. We really cannot answer if there is life out there or not at our stage. Not until we figure out the loads of problems hampering our very ability to *start to answer the question in earnest. Not to say our efforts thus far do not count as they do.

My point is we do not even know with certainty if life rose on Venus or Mars within the known scope of time we think has passed as an example. That is a question we could for sure answer in the next 100 years with relative certainty. I would hope we could in any case.

And once we get to the point of answering that question.

In my personal opinion -- of course there is life out there in the universe. It is too big and vast and has presumably been around for too long for us to be the only ones.

Sure the universe is crushingly vast compared to our small bits and pieces of knowledge. But so is our imagination. Whether it is a Hollywood set of a sci fi show or a astrophysicist rolling through endless equations; one day we just might find the answer.

This is one of those things we will not know about until we do.

Nope likely to not stick around.

Nick Fuentes, Cloudflare damage it

Its fiction friend. Just fiction.

Time is a flat circle.

Sounds like an ad.

Lol the traffic is Capped at 1gb. It’s also super obscure. Only in small rollouts to edge canary users. It’s opt in I believe and It can be turned off.

Even MSFT isn’t going to pay the network bill for everyone forever

Split decision if this is a true good faith thing for consumers. Time will tell. I can easily see where it’s a great thing on one hand but also a terrible one too. This is where a company’s integrity comes in.

I agree with your two points. It does seem to be targeted at a subset of folks and not the normies.

https://myforestfoods.com/myblog

They rebranded from Atlast Food Inc in that blog section. They also mention going after the "alt-meat market".

Nothing wrong with more choices. However, nothing will ever really replace bacon.

Begs another question of how well a food start up does vs tech ones.

Maybe for you. But not for me or others. Careful where you stick your nose.

And yet you are on round two of responses to it.

And how does that change anything else he says?

It doesn't. Thats also not how "literally" works either. Your commentary surely tells the reader to use caution, but not how you think it does.

> Tabloid papers have been on the front page here. I wouldn’t it hold it in such high honors.

Who said anything about honor. Its attention which gets things changed or noticed or something otherwise. These one-dimensional, judgey comments are forgettable.

> The commenter said all gasses and exhausts must be contained, and I tend to agree that this is a good goal to move towards.

> Most of the population, quite frankly, is wrong about a lot of things like this. We see that from the hate for regulation partially driven by propaganda from businesses.

Yet we do not live in that world and it is in fact not a goal to achieve. It's over the top and nonsensical. Like the commentor stated above you its extremist views like this one which will make the common folks squash any movement towards "green new deals." Just watch what happens when the climate nuts like Extinction Rebellion try to interfere in the normal people's day.

They ER types get crushed because real people do not have time or money for horseshit.

Climate change will merely be adapted too. But not in the expensive fart counting way some in this thread suggest.

Humanity will continue to expand and use technology to solve our biggest problems.

The world is in fact not ending. It is changing just as it always has. Humanity will do the same.

Absolutely not. Ridiculous regulations would beg to be ignored and summarily ludicrous by common folks. The climate is what it is. But its hardly to the level that your actions call for. No. Just no.