My understanding is that the high calcium content in their water supply formed a lining on the inside of the pipes which largely prevented any exposure.
Yeah, the water problems in Flint weren't the pipes directly, but that the water had changed so the lead was no longer protected from getting in the water.
Like the other posters you are giving reasons why people will not switch to alternatives, but you are failing to argue why people are stuck using an app that provides no value.
for one, it's a nice little icon on the desktop of their device. you click it, and it launches the very thing you are looking to do. a browser means you have to click to open the browser. then you have to type the specific URL which is already something way more demanding than clicking the single icon even if they do remember the URL.
for another, devs are definitely making the web experience subpar which has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. most websites are just adverts for their apps if they function at all any more. loading a website on mobile is even worse than desktop as they pester you with "it's better in the app" pop ups.
people find browsing an app store much easier than browsing the web. in fact, do people browse the web at all any more. search is shit now, so discovery by search is not what it used to be. click through from search is also plummeting as "search assistant" type responses means no reason to click through to sites.
One. Because I don't believe one exists. The reasons you gave of it looking nice and accomplishing something the user wants to do provide value to the user.
The author mocks LLM enthusiasts, because they "dunk" on him. While writing an blog post that "dunks" on LLM enthusiasts. Total lack of awareness. If they had taken the time to read their blog before posting it, they might have avoided embarrassment.
What embarrassment? This post, like plenty of Evelyn’s writing, reached the front page of HN and has a ton of commentary in agreement. Your comment, on the other hand, was downvoted to the bottom of the thread.
The author also draws and publishes what is, in their own words, “pretty weird porn”.
You should voice your disagreement with the contents of the post and explain what they are, if that is what you’re feeling. Discussion is what HN is for. But to believe the author is or should be suffering any kind of embarrassment about this post is detached from reality.
That is exactly what I did. My comment is exactly about the content. Did you actually read the blog post? I don't know why you are bringing up what the author draws. That irrelevant to the conversation.
People conjure various reasons for why things are different now, but routinely omit the changes in class talents and gearing.
At launch there was zero spell damage or healing on raid gear as a stat. You might find some green of shadow wrath but items like Robe of volatile power simply did not exist yet.
Warriors, the current top damage class, had a talent rework at BWL release which introduced their main damaging ability at nearly half the effectiveness of where it eventually end up.
Throw in world buff scheduling and the game is very different from how it played at launch.
But it's the internet; for every one site that implements this, there will be a thousand that don't, and for every one that the government takes down, another thousand will pop up. And that's just the actual porn sites, there's millions of other ways to get access, be it websites, privacy-conscious apps, file sharing, etc. If people want porn they'll find it.
Of course, it being more difficult, technically involved, or otherwise shady will probably reinforce a message that it's not normal, because another issue is the normalization of porn to the point where people watch it in public. I'm also very aware I am just echoing the same thing an older generation has said about things like raunchy video clips on MTV, magazines like Playboy, movies with Marilyn Monroe, and painters painting a hint of ankle.
Yes! and that's why public transport is so good. Because it's everything the comment said, but without the cost of buying, operating and maintaining a vehicle.
Vehicles built to handle 5-8 travellers, the majority of vehicles sold in the US, are more often than not carrying one driver and no passengers for significant numbers of trips breaks this line of reasoning.
Could you provide some more details about the Tasmania example? Seems humans reached Tas "at least" ~40,000 years ago from my simple searching, which isnt too far off from the generalised 50,000 mentioned in the article.
This alternative scenario of extinction is even more relevant in areas where climate was the only plausible driver of megafauna extinctions—in areas where there was an absence of temporal human-megafauna coexistence such as in Tasmania
Climate-human interaction associated with southeast Australian megafauna extinction patterns
Some megafauna were still present when humans arrived (at least two taxa) .. but most had already disappeared from the record and (IIRC) no megafauna bones found in human sites (indicating Mmmm, lunch).
