Oh look! An optimist!

The iOS browser has always supported “tap the top of the viewport to scroll all the way up,” which largely allows for what you say: just leave the nav way up there. Last time I looked was years ago, and Android Chrome didn’t did this. Does it now?

That was a great read. I have worked at companies that lived on display ads and it’s a terrible, desperate business to be in. Personally I think branded display ads have always had zero value (or even negative value) and the better the net has gotten at tracking their value, the more this has come to light, the less advertisers are willing to pay, and therefore the more fuckery publishers engage in to try to survive. It’s extremely hard or impossible to deliver a good user experience under this set of incentives.

Thinking back to the print news era, a lot of the ads were local, which made them much more valuable. But now the net has snuffed out local retail too, so that model isn’t even there to fall back on if we tried.

I’m grateful now to be working somewhere that doesn’t survive on display ads, and that may be one of the big reasons I’ve stuck with this employer for almost a decade now.

That’s a problem. I’m not sure we can say “most offices” as it seems to vary quite widely. There’s a huge variety of roles from city to county to school district to state to national. Some do just get a minor stipend, but others earn much more than “poverty wages.” California pays its state legislators $132k which is above state median wages.

So while I agree with your point, you may have overstated it.

Run for office! I finally know someone who decided they’d had enough and are just going for it.

Don’t we have any fucking work to do in this country? The childlike carelessness of this administration is horrifying.

What’s the expression? Markets can stay irrational longer than you can remain sane… or something like that.

Trying to get Rovo to do things in JIRA is like trying to train a chimp to cram shit back into an elephant’s ass.

It wouldn’t even solve the half of the problem, though. Men stop harassing women as soon as they are full time employees, what? Background checks are going to prevent harassment, what?

I also think they should be employees. That is however another matter. Being a full time employee has never stopped anyone from engaging in sexual harassment. Workplace harassment is quite common. Let’s not mix up our issues. Hiring them as employees will not protect women.

Well said, complete and concise.

Let’s put it this way: it costs money for them to move or not move.

I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you. I’m from California and we are sitting over here just as aghast as any European nation you could name and larger than some.

We sent 54 electoral votes for Harris to Washington. You want to show me a European nation that did more than that to stop Trump?

I understand Americans as a whole have a responsibility. But this guy was trying to make a specific play-by-play call about how Americans are reacting to this back home and I see no logic in sitting quietly and agreeing with that.

They didn’t have 55% of the population of the country though. Or immunity to the common cold. Or money and clout.

I agree there is probably adaptability here. If I were at the cutting edge of innovating on this, though, I would want to eliminate that variable if I could. Plus, in the long run, the camera will still need to be at eye level, because the world is designed for ordinary people whose eyes are there. Even if you could adjust to having your eyes on your belt buckle, you still wouldn’t be able to walk up to a workstation, sit down, and get your job done.

It makes sense if you think about it. An artificial eye could be mounted anywhere in theory. But your brain expects images to be captured from that point of view and it’s going to be the best spot to place the camera to make the feed comaptible.

It also makes sense that this kind of tech would begin with a single video feed. They’ll figure out stereoscopic vision later. So, just the one eye…

The look makes perfect sense…. And just happens to resemble a borg getup!

Uh no. At least don’t paint us all with that brush please.

Actually very well. You don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. The military being commanded by a civilian to keep the military in check is about keeping the military from ruling the country. See: Pakistan, Myanmar.

What you see is the civilian government throwing the military around carelessly, not the military getting out of check.

If you want to laugh about something, laugh about how the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government have broken down, not about the military ruling over the people.

My question too. At the very least he seems like a singular case where it’s unclear.

It’s an example for illustrative purposes. It illustrates the point about grammar I was making. Now you’re on another point about whether it’s even necessary to use a gendered term at all. I don’t really feel like running around in circles on this further.