Who said anything about capitalism? I’m talking about centralization. Expecting countless individuals to be able to do something as well as specialists can do it just doesn’t make sense to me.

“Personal responsibility” is a red herring used by those in power to try and shift the blame off of institutions with real power. We need institutional change first and foremost.

Off-gridders are primarily dilettantes who have the money to pretend they’re disconnected from the system.

I see what you’re saying. I find it hard to believe vanlifers and offgridders are the vanguard of a more sustainable future though.

I don’t see how all the world’s people individually handling waste can work better than centralized expert processing, especially in more dense areas.

Off-grid living more environmental than proper municipal water treatment? How do you figure?

If you’ve got a complex and potentially nested object, what does the body of this simple function look like? That’s what they mean.

Ugh and that happens a lot if your email domain has an even slightly unusual TLD too.

RIP xtranormal

C is a little older than namespacing and object orientation. C++ wasn’t even a glimmer in Bjarne’s eye when these conventions were laid down.

And yes, having to google it is part of the design. Originally C programmers would have had to read actual manuals about this stuff. Once you learn the names you don’t really forget so it works well enough even now for ubiquitous standard library functions.

And yet, C was an ergonomic revelation to programmers of the time. Now it’s the arcane grandpa that most youngsters don’t put up with.

Plus having any rendering engine have a monopoly is terrible for the web long term.

Gentoo or Manjaro are to Arch? What do you mean? Those two are very different from each other especially in their relationships to Arch.

Turns out massively parallel computation has applications beyond video rendering.

None of the points you make are wrong, it’s just a lot more uphill for hydrogen looking at the total picture. With almost every issue there is a way forward for hydrogen, but EVs are already significantly farther along the curve. It’s hard to overcome that kind of snowballing. Only time will tell!

It is great tech, but there are serious downsides too.

• storage and handling: Hydrogen is a tiny atom, so it leaks like nobody’s business. Even liquid hydrogen is terribly low-density which makes pretty much a hard limit on storage density, unlike battery tech which can at least hypothetically dramatically improve. Pressure vessels suck. They have to be crazy sturdy and roughly spherical which places major design limitations on vehicles that use them.
• distribution: EVs can limp by on sparse fast charging stations and home charging while better infrastructure builds out. Electrical supply is already ubiquitous. Who’s going to want a hydrogen vehicle (which you can absolutely already buy, nobody’s stopping you in the US at least) with so few fueling options? The upfront investment to bootstrap a market with hydrogen stations to the point of even competing with crappy EV charging is enormous.
• no onboard energy recovery: Regenerative braking is an incredible benefit on its own.
• industry synergy: EV manufacture benefits from tons of other industries investing in battery tech. The tide lifts all boats.

There are solutions as with any tech, but the transition picture with hydrogen is a lot lot worse than EVs. The least worst option tends to win.

And the whole human body, brain and all, can run on ~100 watts. Truly astounding.

There’s no mention of anything like zero-days in that article. They only mention that it can target all major OSes, with no mention of cutting edge versions also being vulnerable.

Hilariously, the article directly supports my position as well:

The good news for some, at least: it likely poses a minimal threat to most people, considering the multi-million-dollar price tag and other requirements for developing a surveillance campaign using Sherlock

That’s a big part of my whole point. People who don’t do even a modicum of actual thought about a practical threat model for themselves love pretending that ad blocking isn’t primarily just about not wanting to see ads.

If Israel or some other highly capable attacker is coming after you, then fine, you really do need ad blocking. In that case malware in ads is going to be the least of your concerns.

Attacks that cast such a wide net as to be the concern of all web users are necessarily less dangerous because exploits need to be kept secret to avoid being patched.

There’s nothing wrong with taking extra precautions; I’m certainly not saying blocking ads is a bad idea. It’s the apparent confusion that an informed, tech-savvy person might choose not to block ads that makes me laugh.

Huh? The point of this discussion is that I don’t need to block them to keep myself safe in sketchy corners of the web.

You say with such confidence. Is it so hard to imagine people can defend themselves with means other than ad blocking?

Drive-by malware tends not to be zero-days though. I’ve stayed safe for decades just by keeping my software up to date.

Of course; I’m just a lot more worried about the systemic problems of mass surveillance than any practical risk to me individially.

The way people talk about people who don’t block ads is so funny.

I understand and respect the reasons people choose to use blockers, but ads honestly just aren’t that problematic for me in practice and are easy to avoid and ignore.

Who’s barring cannabis users? Red Cross at least only has a problem if your decision-making appears impaired. They don’t even ask you to wait between smoking and donating as long as you’re thinking clearly enough.