inverted_deflector

It's crazy when you consider how many things even back in the gilded age were legislated as common sense that in the modern era are tied up in lots of trademark and copyright red tape because unlike the old thing it involves computers or an app.

Like libraries would not have become a thing if we tried to invent them in the modern era.

but then the professor accidentally added another ingredient

C H E M I C A L X

Its been a while since I bought a watch but I recall them being under $10 even if they had calculator features

Roe getting gutted was the result of conservative judges that got appointed to the supreme court and the states that have taken further steps to restrict are republican run states. The majority that the Dems had was very slim not enough to get a lot passed especially when the "majority" included "moderates" like Manchin and Sinema.

I agree the Dems and libs suck. If they werent so smugly sure that clinton would win 2016 they would have not played politics and forced in their supreme court pick and we would have less of a minority.

Roe getting gutted is the result of a decades long plan by the republican party and letting them them win a majority again will only make things worse.

Yeah I dont think I'll ever understand these weird 5g skepticism threads. I do get better battery life on lte than 5g and building penetration means a lot more switching between bands(an issue specifically with my pixel's radio) but similar issues existed with with lte and 3g when they launched. I guess the difference is LTE already has speeds and latency enough for people to get by.

And yeah on lte you're already getting 10-60mbps down so for most use cases you probably dont notice a huge difference in speed while browsing social media, and watching youtube. But having a network with higher speeds and more bandwidth is better for handling congestion. If you live in an area where the 5g is unreliable or your phone has poor support for it then you can just switch to lte while things keep cooking.

Yeah google didnt help of course, but the internet as a whole pivoted from RSS. It still very much exists today and you have user friendly easy ones like feedly still out there in spite of the pivot, but the inability of RSS to go mainstream is more the result of how social media and apps dominate the modern web

Personally as an RSS user I dont even want or need it to send me the article. I almost always just click the link and go to the website directly. I think RSS could still exit as just a link aggregate with a preview. The thing that lead to the decline of RSS is that it was competing with social media and news aggregates like google news.

Setting up your RSS reader takes work. Even the super user friendly ones like feedly still require you to search for different sources that you want to add. In the old school and more pure RSS programs you have to manually find the rss link on a website and add it to your feed.

In a more open optimistic future of the internet this would be the way we get content. Exploring the web and adding it to our list if we want updates o demand. In the actual modern internet addictive monopolistic social media has to cater to algorithms instead or social media engagement(that often doesnt actually read the source).

Google not encouraging and getting rid of its rss content certainly didnt help matters but I think RSS is just a living fossil of a potential evolutionary branch that the internet count grown into but didnt.

Dont forget adding to your shopping list and opening the list

Part of this is also our fault for how we allowed our browsing habits to change and adjust and make the issue worse. Like how many of us will just search random things even if we want to search in or go to a specific website as a goto?

In the old days we might search once or find the website through word of mouth or links on other affiliated websites, and then bookmark good website and search there first before turning to google. Now? Lord knows I immediately google even if I know I can go to another website. Instead of browsing websites directly we sit on social media, be it reddit twitter facebook and are spoonfed our content without actually going to the original source or if we do just to the page and never to check. g like rolling stone reviewing air purifiers.

Some of this is the result of convenient access, some of this is thanks to addictive predatory design, and for those who held out as long as possible the companies in charge of content sites would pivot to cater towards social media and search algorithms and enshitify their homepage making it harder to bother.

Top 10 lists have always been popular. Even before the internet you'd see it in magazines and on tv. Honestly if it's well done I dont think theyre inherently bad especially if it's clear the list is just a rough list and not a scientific ranking. I enjoy seeing articles listing movies of a type of genre or from an actor or from a director or etc in order to add to my movies to watch list for example.

The problem lies when its half assed or especially when its unrelated. Like how in the OP link rolling stones air purifiers. Or if you try and look up info on a game that happens to be or have had recently trended and you get flooded by sites that arent even game related.

Picked it up years ago too. Its worth it to check multiple threads, and read multiple comments, and then do an additional deeper dive from there, but the amount of guerilla marketing and astro turfing on social media is astounding. I do miss those early days when the old farts in charge of marketing didnt pay attention to message boards.

Even before the big AI thing this was a common thing for trendy games. Frustrating is it would be websites that arent even gaming focused that would get "top 10 x" or "how to get x in popular game" or "console commands for game x!" . And of course since the top result isnt a game website it was just trying to grab clicks it was a not great or complete article.