It could be that your app is amazingly well done. But most PWAs and web apps turned into an "app" are not meeting my quality standards. It's usually a clunky experience (well, like a browser).
I think once you've seen the actual possibilities of what e.g. an iOS app can do, when done correctly, everything changes for you.
My mobile app is pretty decent actually. Other than some stylistic differences, I can't tell where the native wrapper ends and then embedded view starts. The embedded view is a SPA though so it never does full page loads.
Isn't that war illegal? Doesn't congress need to approve these things?
Speaking of terrorism, only one of the belligerents has been antagonizing both its allies and its enemies recently. Didn't they just snatch another country's head of state? Try a decapitation strike unprompted against Iran? Threaten to invade Canada, Greenland and Cuba? If one regime is using terror to achieve political aims these days...
The US and Israel have committed more terrorism than anyone else on the globe (combined), we also have the world's largest nuclear program and Israel has an illegal nuclear program. I welcome a nuclear armed Iran to keep these people (aka my country) in check.
I said nuclear program and I was correct by a very wide margin:
> The United States again spent more than all of the other nuclear armed states combined: $56.8 billion. China was the second largest spender at $12.5 billion, less than a quarter of U.S. spending. The third largest amount, $10.4 billion, or 10% of the total figure, was spent by the UK.
What is the purpose of a nuclear program? Having nuclear weapons. The fact that Russia can have a larger program with more warheads for less cost does not make you in fact correct. America also spends more on housing, do we have the largest housing program compared to China as well?
You're both moving the goalposts and ignoring my larger point. A nuclear armed Iran is good for the world. The US and Israel cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons unchecked.
Here's the problem with what you're saying. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) was insane, but it worked. We could trust it, because the Russians and Chinese didn't want to die any more than we did.
Iran is a regime with an ideology that embraces martyrdom. That invalidates all the assumptions of MAD, which is how people have had nuclear weapons and not used them for 80 years.
You seem to have confidence that that will work out well. (Or else you hold the US as being so evil that you don't care.) I disagree on both fronts.
> Iran is a regime with an ideology that embraces martyrdom.
This is awful propaganda. Iran is a beautiful nation with modern people. Israel is a barbaric, backwoods terror state that attacked it. I fully support Iran and trust them with nuclear weapons a million times more than my own country.
Yes, Shia Islam does not "embrace martyrdom" in that they do not want to live. I think they handle us murdering them en mass with the utmost grace, maybe that's where you are confused?
They may want to live, but at least some of them are much more willing to die - much more willing to choose to die - than most leaders of most countries.
I moved zero goalposts. You said largest nuclear program. I pointed out that when it comes to nuclear weapons, the largest program would be the one with the largest amount of nuclear weapons, which is Russia not the US. Proof:
I didn't ignore your largest point, I pointed out the flaws in the logic you presented to support your point, and that you might have other flaws if the facts you chose to use for support are so obviously wrong.
Wild to see HN/you support a nuclear armed Iran and new middle east nuclear arms race because 'america bad'.
Russia objectively has the largest nuclear program.
'which car collection is larger, the one with less more expensive cars, or the one with more cars'.
See how that works. The one with more of the 'thing' is the larger. The fact one nation gets more bang for their dollar doesn't change how numbers work.
I don't understand why media, such as BBC, keep uploading heavily compressed versions of photos that could be beautiful. The original has grain, sure but that's not a problem. The BBC version is horrific. Are they trying to save on bandwidth in 2026?
It's highly reasonable for them to limit image size/quality to whatever looks fine to 98% of their readers. They store and serve an absolute ton of ever-changing content to browsers/apps; The very small (and likely revenue-negative) contingent of highly motivated people can find the originals if the images are especially noteworthy like these.
Seems like it. Which is serious but far from what I thought when I read the title. I suspect 90% of LinkedIn users don't even have a single browser extension installed.
I would debate that. Most work computers have some extensions installed by default. That's millions of laptops. Ex. Snow Inventory Agent, ad blockers etc.
reply