For $5 a month you can also get a Mullvad VPN exit node. It’s billed directly through Tailscale which makes it painless.
When I’m outside the U.S. I get much better speeds through the Mullvad exit node than through my (U.S.) home exit node. I’m not sure why, since my home internet is gigabit fiber and I confirmed that I had a direct connection (no DERP relay).
Where's the Mullvad exit node located? It may just be geographically closer to your travel location than your home is. Even if it's about the same distance geographically, the routing path is different and traffic to whatever datacenter is running the mulvad node can be routed to more efficiently than your residential ip.
poking around with MTR (traceroute and ping combined) using various exit nodes and destinations would give you some more information if you're interested.
Except that the supposed views held by these CEOs (iPads, social media, AI, etc. can be bad for kids) are also widely held mainstream views. That's the only reason people are bringing the views up here...because they already agree with them!
There's absolutely nothing insightful about CEOs with "unprecedented insights" coming to the same conclusions as everyone else.
> The decision on who and how much to fund gets decided by a randomised group in the population, like jury duty, maybe every 2 years?
Why not fill all government positions via random selection? The ancient Athenians thought that if your government officials were chosen by a process other than sortition, you don't have a democracy.
Percentage of mass is probably the wrong metric to look at, because it assumes that the USPS could simply eliminate the X% of mass used by junk mail and save roughly X% on fuel/delivery costs.
But of course the issue is that the junk mail is subsidizing the actual mail. There's likely no way the USPS could be financially solvent, at least with the current level of service, if junk mail were eliminated. Personally I'd be fine with that. One or two mail deliveries per week would be more than enough!
I think the real issue in this context is the 3.5% surcharge that Amazon may add, and whether or not elimination of USPS junk mail could ever make a dent in that 3.5% figure.
(My gut says that it would not; that the fuel use of junk mail constitutes a very small drop in a very large bucket. But I'd love to be wrong about this.)
For me, the hard part isn’t remembering how many times I’ve used a container or item in the last month or year. The hard part isn’t simply dedicating the time to comb through a bunch of stuff and get rid of the unused stuff.
You have 10 containers, slap a marker on one every time you take something out of it.
12 months later you have 2 containers that haven't been touched (zero stickers). -> 80% reduction of the amount of stuff to comb through to find unused/useless cruft.
If your decision procedure is so simple that you always throw out any container with zero dots and always keep any container with non-zero dots, then perhaps it saves a small amount of time.
But that's a pretty coarse decision procedure, both because there might be an item that's very important but gets used less than once per year and because there might be a container that is 99% full of unused stuff but happens to have 1 item that gets used once a year.
You're speaking to a serial hoarder in (at least) the third generation. My grandfather was an (organised) hoarder - we're still picking through his stuff and he died almost a decade ago.
No, I won't throw stuff away all willy-nilly.
What I tried to convey is that the dot system is good at reducing the amount of stuff you need to go through and make the Marie Kondo decision of "does this spark joy" or "is this a rare tool that's hard to find if I throw it away now and need it 5 years from now".
Like I have my grandfather's wood carving tools. Do I carve wood? No. Might I when I retire. Certainly. They're _VERY_ high quality tools so if I throw them out, I'd need to either spend an inordinate amount of money to get ones of similar workmanship or make do with some chinesium crap with plastic handles.
I sorta know the stuff I use and don’t use. Had a kitchen fire last year and had to get the whole house emptied out for smoke damage mitigation. I’ve thrown out, donated, or recycled the better part of two large dumpsters worth of stuff.
For me it’s about getting into the mode of going through and parting with stuff.
The point is you don't have to. You instead just look at the boxes a few years latter and if at a glance you see one box with few/no dots you know it is safe so you spend just a few seconds thinking about only that box - then you move on to something else. Sure there might be more boxes you can get rid of, but you only need to do one box at a time when you have a few seconds. (or you look at the box and decide you are not ready to get rid of that so you put a dot on it making it less likely this one will come up next time you have a few seconds)
If a whole of people thought that running code through a linter or formatter was objectionable, I'd probably just dismiss their beliefs as invalid rather than adding the linter or formatter as a co-author to every commit.
Linters and formatters are different tools then LLMs. There is a general understanding that linters and formatters don’t alter the behavior of your program. And even still most projects require a particular linter and a formatter to pass before a PR is accepted, and will flag a PR as part of the CI pipeline if a particular linter or a particular formatter fails on the code you wrote. This particular linter and formatter is very likely to be mentioned somewhere in the configuration or at least in the README of the project.
Like frying a veggie burger in bacon grease. Just because somebody's beliefs are dumb doesn't mean we should be deliberately tricking them. If they want to opt out of your code, let them.
Never fried one in bacon grease, but they are good with bacon and cheese. I have had more than one restaurant point out that their bacon wasn't vegetarian when ordering, though.
I've heard similar things before. Frying a veggie burger in bacon grease to sneakily feed someone meat/meat-byproducts who does not want to eat it, like a vegan or a person following certain religious observances. As in, it's not ok to do this even if you think their beliefs are stupid.
In my view, vegans are dumb but it's still unethical to trick them into eating something they ordinarily wouldn't. Does that make sense to you? I am not asking you to agree with me on the merits of veganism, I am explaining why the merits of veganism shouldn't even matter when it comes to the question of deliberately trying to trick them.
The most practical use case is the text bubble wrapping one. That’s always frustrating when you want to wrap text inside any box with a border or background color (like a button or a “badge” component).
Arguably it didn’t see widespread commercial adoption for 30 years, and you wouldn’t expect fundamental design flaws regarding commercial incentives to manifest before that.
A flaw can be fundamental but not immediate. It's probably better to say it's a fundamental flaw of the open web, that is the system collapses as the number of bad actors increases, and there is no way to prevent bad actors and have the system keep the name as open web.
When I’m outside the U.S. I get much better speeds through the Mullvad exit node than through my (U.S.) home exit node. I’m not sure why, since my home internet is gigabit fiber and I confirmed that I had a direct connection (no DERP relay).
reply