It's a nice nostalgic reminder of what the web used to be - when it was just made up of people wanting to express their interests.
A time where ads, tracking and Javascript weren't a thing.
3 big graphical ads, and if you click on the "best sites" thing on the bottom, it links to an analytics site. On mobile, so I'm not really setup to investigate further.
But I do miss sites that were done just because someone loved something.
When you install it, the first window they show you is a Terms of service agreement that has "Agree" "Disagree" buttons - except, it's not a Terms of Service agreement. It's an agreement to turn the program on.
So you have to click "Disagree" and continue the install to have it on.
Though it's cool that someone's trying to help with the JavaScript problem on the internet, since this can't run without JavaScript it only seems to add to the problem.
Still great to see people trying different approaches in avoiding that mess.
I think that's a very sad thing to say. Say conversation is banned but "small talk" is allowed, where's the line between that? And like the guy above said, there's also no line on what's political - even talking about a video game like you said can be political.
So in the end, I believe that would end up with people just avoiding talking to each other at all, to avoid any complications.
And that "Why discuss anything at all?" could be applied to other places - "Why discuss anything political at a school/dance class/supermarket/bar? You're just here to learn/dance/shop/drink-and-relax. Those conversations are _banned_ here".
It seems like a slippery slope to ban this natural social interaction.
It is sad indeed, that we lost the ability to discuss difficult issues. But it is true nonetheless, it is impossible to discuss politics unless we all pretend to be on the same page, and yes, in tech for the most part that is the left page. Silence makes for a dull workplace, but it is better than living in abject hypocrisy.
I'm not saying it has to be silence.
I'm saying someone else shouldn't be paying for it.
We have time before/after work, nothing is stopping us from having those conversations.
I was only saying if from my perspective - when I talk about anything other than work, I don't code, I don't talk about possible solutions, I don't explore... I don't work.. while being paid for it.
Short amount is ok, it helps to recharge, remain sane.
It's similar to someone complaining about their job or relationship, but refusing to do anything about it.
Life can be comfortable if you keep thinking to yourself that you are a helpless victim. You become your own biggest hurdle at that point but it's a consistent predictable life people sometimes subconsciously fall into.
It's also still subjective to say not being homeless is all good. Some may even prefer that "free" lifestyle of not having to have responsibilities.
I had a mate around the same time who was voluntarily homeless. A Falklands veteran who'd worked on bomb disposal. They didn't know what PTSD was back then, but after he'd seen too many of his friends blown up in buildings, he didn't trust them much, and preferred living outdoors.
But that's a different thing, I think.
Totally agree, for some people painting themselves as innocent victims of circumstance allowed them to avoid all responsibility for their lives, and let them continue avoiding facing unpleasant/difficult truths about themselves. Not all, obviously, but there were those who didn't want to change because change would be painful.
As a non-US person, I used to think "you all just have to stop eating so much" towards those overweight in the US.
But after living in the US you start to understand that it really is not easy.
In other countries, bread is bread, restaurant food is one serving and the snacks your peers bring in are home-made sweets, or cheese and crackers, etc.
In the US, bread is sugary and dense in calories, restaurant food is in two salty-oily servings, and the snacks your peers bring in are donuts and cupcakes.
When I first moved to the US and lived as I normally would, I gained weight quickly. It sucked having to involve yourself mentally in something you normally don't have to think about.
Agreed. Bread is really bad in the US. The food culture is also terrible. Snacks are seen as a necessity. Most drinks are super sugary. Portion sizes are way too big. Vegetables always have to be processed beyond recognition, people can't often comprehend that I eat raw cucumber and pepper. Coffee used to be a small cup, now it's a gigantic Starbucks with tons of sugar and flavored syrup. You really have to put up a lot of resistance because if you follow the normal eating patterns you will get fat.
A lot of what you said sounds like an argument for 'just eat less'.
When I tried to follow a 'normal eating pattern' in the US, it made me physically sick from the amount of food and sugar in the portions, so I had to forcibly reduce the amounts to not feel like garbage every waking day.
Maybe people just don't realize how amazing they can feel if they just size down the portions?
"Maybe people just don't realize how amazing they can feel if they just size down the portions?"
A lot of people seem to be genuinely afraid to not get enough "nutrients" or protein if they eat less. Living in the US for a while totally distorts your sense of the appropriate amount of food to eat. Even the ice cream cones kids are eating here are probably at least three times the size of what I got as kid in Germany. Candy bars are at least double the size.
Everything is very far apart because everyone drives. Everyone has to drive because everything is very far apart. It's a vicious cycle that does a fantastic job of exacerbating societal issues, especially poverty, obesity, and air quality.
Well, you'll need a bigger house to fit your bigger children.
Snark aside, I think that if more of the societal costs of owning a bigger house were priced in to having a bigger house, fewere people would want bigger houses. There's no reason we HAVE to live in a society fueled by consumerist real estate envy.
There's plenty of metropolitan cities where no one has to drive, but there's plenty of rural areas where it's pretty much a necessity, and plenty of suburban areas where you can easily bike everywhere (or even walk if you have the time or drive if you don't). The greatest thing about the US is the choices you get to make for yourself - no matter which lifestyle you choose to live, you can find somewhere to fit that lifestyle in the US.
If you take a typical median-income family, plot out a reasonable household budget and daily schedule, and then try to match it with every place in the US, most of the results will show that the family must own at least one car and spend an hour a day driving it. It's the only way to afford being there at all. The desirable areas are priced out of their reach, because there just aren't enough of them.
I'd love for all my daily transit to be on elevators and electric trains. But I also want my public school district to have enough money to pay its teachers without taxing me, specifically, into oblivion. For reasons I cannot comprehend, my employer wants to locate its workplace in the middle of a bunch of office buildings, where they enjoy lower facilities costs and a lower tax rate, while still benefiting from an educated workforce. So I pretty much have to drive a while between home and work.
If I lived close to work, I couldn't afford the place. If I worked close to home, the jobs nearby wouldn't pay enough to cover housing.
Since we're dealing purely in anecdata, I live 4 miles from a job that covers my housing, and I'm far from rich. I could choose to put myself in a different situation, but I chose my current situation and am quite happy.
The median household income is roughly $60k. 86% of workers commute using a privately-owned automobile (ACS data), with about 3/4 commuting by driving solo. The mean commute time is about 26 minutes.
This situation might be exacerbated by the fact that the median tenure at a job is hovering just above 4 years, and home mortgages are 30 years. So if you buy a house and want to pay off the loan on schedule, you now have to make sure it is close to 7.5 different jobs in your industry. ...Per person working in your household. Married? Site your home near 15 jobs, some of which might not even exist yet. This doesn't even account for what happens when your company decides to build on a new campus for all of its workers.
By the home affordability rule of thumb that you can afford 2x to 2.5x your annual income on your mortgage loan, the median household can afford a house at $120k to $150k. Find a pile of those within biking distance of 15 different jobs in one or two careers that pay $30k to $60k per year.
You won't, outside a handful of large cities, and the majority of the US doesn't live there, as shown by the commuting data.
> What percentage of the land mass of the US does that constitute?
3% as of two years ago, according to the Census Bureau.[0]
But that's enough to accommodate the people that want to live there, or at least close enough to take public transport into the city. I personally dislike city living, so I'm happy I'm not forced into it.
I don't buy a lot of bread, but when I do, fresh baked real bread is readily available here always.
> restaurant food is in two salty-oily servings
That depends on the restaurant, but you can find good and bad food in any country. I easily get 2 or 3 meals out of a restaurant portion, so it's very economical sometimes (even more so than fast food options).
> the snacks your peers bring in are donuts and cupcakes.
Don't forget the abundance of home-made snacks that are common in US workplaces, depending on the individual workplace and the people in it, of course.
> you all just have to stop eating so much
It's true, and it's not that hard. You just have to want to be healthy and make the choices to achieve that goal. I lost 50 pounds doing strictly portion control and cutting out processed foods (unless I'm hung over - then hot pockets are my bestest friend). I choose not to eat my entire meal in a restaurant, and I choose to not to order salty meals (oily, yes, but olive oil is so good and good for you), and I choose not to buy bread full of preservatives, and I choose not to eat the processed snacks that my co-workers bring, and I choose to limit sugary drinks, and I choose to eat a scoop of ice cream every night (because it's healthy as long as I'm not overeating). I love living in the US because I get to make those choices for myself (i.e., not legislated), including "stop eating so much".
That being said, none of the things you mentioned are exclusive to the US.
And for the record, I agree with the article that it's easy to become obese, but it's more because of the choices people make and not the options they have.
Where do you live that things aren’t sugary? Because they sure are in Denmark. When I grew up, the most sugary “pre-made food” you could buy at a supermarket was Coca Cola, today it’s one of the least sugary “pre-made foods” because it’s limited by law.
The lowest amount of sugar in another drink that isn’t diet skim-milk or water is orange juice with 11-15% sugar.
We have ryebread which isn’t too bad, but the last time I was buying buns for burgers the lowest amount of sugar I could find were 10% in some gluten-free-eco-health buns.
Even candy has increased its sugar content by around 30% over the past 25 years.
It’s really crazy, but you’re right in that it’s way worse in America.
At best, you could frame it as "people willing to act sufficiently to meaningfully combat global warming" and "everyone else," but the former group is far smaller than "those who wish to act on it."
Put plainly: It will take far more dramatic action than most climate alarmists advocate to even have a measurable impact on (let alone solve) global warming. The opposing side isn't just "those who ignore it," it's most people who rationally evaluate policy claiming to be capable of a significant effect.
