It's like they tried their hardest to add as much vocal fry [1] as possible.
2,849 karma · joined January 18, 2020
The only people who think that destroying useful items is a good idea are those who would stand to lose money from it; either by having to pay a tiny fraction of their massive annual revenue for responsible recycling services, or by having their brand's reputation diluted by having their wares sold or (even worse) donated to the needy.
They're not destroying clothing because it's inherently unsellable, or hazardous, or damaged beyond repair. They destroy it because it's easier to dump excess stuff than it is to set up responsible channels to get rid of it.
Many "high fashion" shithouses intentionally destroy excess stock so that their precious branded status symbols can't get into the hands of the filthy proles, which would dilute their brand recognition.
These "regulatory burdens", as you call them, are the only thing holding back companies from further messing up the planet and I welcome them with open arms.
* At Dublin ferry port, only port 5 was clickable. * Card payments should be an option. Nobody would use cash like this. * Banks aren't open at 10PM. In fact, banks are hardly open at all. * You can change money at a Post Office or supermarket.
> TikTok's pixel is years old, but it just shifted in some major ways. On 22 January 2026, when TikTok's US operation officially changed hands, users had to agree to a new set of data collection practices. That includes a new advertising network that TikTok will use to show targeted ads on other people's websites. To facilitate that new advertising system, TikTok updated its pixel.
> In the past, TikTok's pixel basically just told companies if their ads were generating sales in the app itself. Now, the pixel will help companies follow users who see an ad when they leave TikTok and make a purchase elsewhere.
So what you've said is not only wrong, it's the total opposite of what's happened. Under Chinese control, it was less invasive than it is now.
Excuse me while I go vomit. If the future of the web is vibe-coded slop, I want no part of it.
It makes me profoundly sad to think of the huge number of AI agents running endlessly to produce vibe-coded slop. The environmental impact must be massive.
Pitting the average person up against that, then blaming them for having "no self control" once they inevitably get sucked in is not a remotely fair conclusion.
The average person has zero chance against all-pervasive, ultra-manipulative, highly-engineered systems like that.
It is, quite simply, not a fair fight.
HA!
Unregulated social media is digital heroin. And allowing it to be run by billionaires with thinly-veiled agendas is like cutting the heroin with rat poison.
I have worked with many "big agency" developers and can tell you categorically that they are more often than not absolutely terrible at their jobs.
Yes, there are many UI implementations in Windows but they are almost totally transparent to the user (no pun intended), and they can all run on the same system at once.
Firstly, I detest that stupid "feature" of showing only relative dates. It makes screenshots impossible to date, and it's frankly useless for humans as proven by OP's article.
Secondly, you can hover over the relative date string to see the actual date. But don't let that stop you from hating it.
On my next attempt at a Linux desktop I'll most certainly try it.
I'll also create a feature request for resizing/stacking of rows.
Edit: I was able to find a proxy which works and I can see the image.
Your layout is kind of similar but not really - the Windows taskbar can be configured to work in both rows and columns, or a combination of the two.
So you can have a layout like my original screenshot above, or:
* in columns like this: https://i.ibb.co/Y4jJN6jh/image.png
* a mixture of columns and rows like this: https://i.ibb.co/5WsVmLgb/image.png
* at the top or either side of the screen like this: https://i.ibb.co/9mGmjnxs/image.png
* and in any position it can be resized: https://i.ibb.co/HLmh89qF/image.png
Shame they ditched all this in Windows 11 though.
The media taskbar player can be added natively from older versions of iTunes, Windows Media Player, or others.
Can the horrendous W11 taskbar be reverted to the classic taskbar, with full support for changing its size and screen position etc?
Can classic Explorer, without any OneDrive/Copilot nonsense, be restored?
Can the new "Settings" (*excuse me while I vomit) layouts be junked in favour of the Control Panel, along with all the associated modals such as the WiFi selection sidebar etc.?
For example, this is my taskbar layout: https://i.ibb.co/1GqKH27L/taskbar-layout.png
To my knowledge, it's not possible to achieve anything like this layout on Windows 11, Linux or Mac. I did try it in various Linux distros a few times but frankly got sick of navigating the maze of window managers et cetera. I think something like XFCE came close to providing a Windows-like taskbar but it was still far, far behind what Windows NT can offer.
Yes, I have to disable a lot of stuff to get Windows the way I like it. But that's still exponentially easier than having to add, install, or perhaps even buy a lot of stuff to maybe get Linux/Mac to behave kind of how I want it to.
You wouldn't give every user write access to a database in any system. I'm not sure why LLMs are a special case. Is it because people have been "trusting" the LLMs to self-enforce via prompt rules instead of actually setting up granular permissions for the LLM agent process? If so, that's a user training issue and I'm not sure it needs an LLM-specific article.
Secondly, FTA:
> You can stop a database delete with tool filtering, but how do you stop an AI from giving bad advice in text? By using a pattern I call “reifying speech acts into tools.” > The Rule: “You may discuss symptoms, but you are forbidden from issuing a diagnosis in text. You MUST use the provide_diagnosis tool.” > The Interlock: > If User = Doctor: The tool exists. Diagnosis is possible. > If User = Patient: The tool is physically removed. > When the tool is gone, the model cannot “hallucinate” a diagnosis because it lacks the “form” to reason and write it on.
How is this any different from what I described above as trusting LLMs to self-enforce? You're not physically removing anything because the LLM can still respond with text. You're just trusting the LLM to obey what you've written. I know the next paragraph admits this, but I don't understand why it's presented like a new idea when it's not.