Every time I hear a junior developer say we should rewrite something they have made 0.1 effort understanding, I thank the JS world for not giving a generation or two of developers a well thought out application development framework.

You lost me at shitting on legacy code. My brother in Tux, we don’t rewrite code willy-nilly in the FOSS world either and for a good reason. New code always means new bugs. A shit ton of the underlying code in your Linux OS was written one or more decades ago.

This is because employees in South Korea can “only” work a maximum of 52 hours per week, including twelve hours of overtime. As a result, employees often have to leave work and go home even when important tasks have not yet been completed. For this reason, key employees of the Exynos team are reported to have worked unpaid overtime more and more frequently over the past few years, with the extra hours going unrecorded.

Why is SK’s birth rate in the shitter.

Given everything we’ve seen over theast little while, including the process of non-profits getting taken over by their VC funded subsidiaries; that difference you see is almost certainly a matter of being at a different point in their respective profit timelines.

The author explains in the thread and has links to further info.

Bluesky funding

Yup, it’s old news.

Unfused. Probes/cables began rapidly heating up. I violently shook the the battery to break off the probes from it.

Probe tips instantly welded on a nanophosphate A123 battery.

It’s a trap.

- A message from Canada

I vomit in my mouth every time I see these dumbasses.

Try to come up with a reasonable process for transitioning between the thresholds or stop pretending you’re interested in anything but proving your point.

Agreed. I’ve grown up with the development of the WWW and where we are today is completely different than where we used to be in the 90s and 2000s. The consolidation, universal access and the profit maximization via rage farming has put societies globally in an unprecedentedly precarious position. This isn’t your uncle’s Internet anymore. It’s a hyper-personalized engagement-maximizing corporate experience for all but a small fraction of people who were lucky enough to escape it. Anyone feeling I’m overreacting should spend an hour with their old account on Facebook.

To the “can’t enforce this because it can be circumvented” argument - this is missing the point of most laws. The intention is to apply to the majority, not to be foolproof. Getting most to stop a harmful behavior already gets us most of the benefits. We can never stop everyone.

Number of users is an obvious example. There are others.

This is straight up standard right wing propaganda. A much simpler explanation is that the platforms are feeding people false realities for profit. Rage gets the most engagement. Right wing propaganda works extremely well for that and as an added benefit it produces cohorts who vote in the interest of the platform owners. It’s a twofer.

You tap search on the home screen, you get the Google app.

Just don’t try to regulate Elan’s companies, or the LNG ships might stop arriving.

It’s happening via the Google app.

I find the intermediary classification a bit unconvincing and perhaps unintentionally misleading. It sounds like a nice framework to look at the world and it does describe the particular domain alright and it allows for drawing useful conclusions. Unfortunately solving the problems it highlights would produce marginal gains because I think intermediaries as described are just a special case of something more general. Firms of any kind are acting as intermediaries in the exchange of the products of people’s labor. The effects are all the same, these intermediaries make the exchange easier at the expense of keeping some of the labor products from one end or the other, but usually both. It seems to me that the problem of the platform intermediaries power is just a special case of the power of firms over labor. Which really reduces to the problem of the power of capital over labor. If we somehow solve the platform intermediaries problem, we leave the general problem unsolved. And then if we don’t think in terms of the general problem, we can’t even solve the special problem because the tools needed are controlled by capital. That is the lawmakers who could change the law are paid by the powerful intermediaries (firms) and not by the people on either end of the intermediaries. If we hope to ever solve any of this I think we have to look at the world through the general lens and focus on ways to reduce the amount of capital accumulated by firms from people’s labor. Fortunately there are well known solutions for that and they’re actionable for most people.