Yes, but not in the same way The Onion (or its French counter part Le Gorafi) are satirical.
Le Canard enchainé makes fun of people and institutions, but never makes stuff up, and are arguably more rigorous than most mainstream media outlet. They have a long history of exposing real scandals, albeit with a tongue-in-cheek manner.
Dust can also be an issue. It's definitely a cause of concern for pistachios, where cracking the shells releases enough pistachio dust to cause skin rash to my allergic daughter, even though she's never touched a pistachio in her life. Cracking shelled peanuts can likely cause the same issue, I'd wager.
Although peanuts served in planes are not in the shell, I can imagine how having potentially allergic people in close contact to people potentially oblivious to allergy issues eating peanuts sitting right next to them and eating peanuts could be problematic.
An example that comes to mind is layered cocktails: the syrup layer will not diffuse into the upper layer (and vice versa) on a surprisingly long timescale (at least overnight)
Luckily, "xkcd" doesn't refer to anything else than the comic AFAIK, so we can easily search and find that 143 English Wikipedia articles reference the comic. [0] Glossing over the list, I'd count 4 of these are directly referencing a specific comic or a concept invented in one: Time, Ballmer Peak, and Geohashing.
There are more if you include special pages, like Citogenesis reported by sibling.
The other way around, folks at the Explain xkcd wiki have categorized the comics and 56 of them reference Wikipedia. [1]
It's kind of cool, I like that there are people trying to do something else, but I don't how it's "minimal" or discourages heavy use.
It's an Android phone, with pretty decent specs. Nothing is stopping you from installing social media apps and doomscrolling all day and night, and chances are you will do that if that's what you do with your phone, just as you can just delete social media apps from your current phone.
The custom UI and physical keyboard are innovative though, I don't think I've seen a physical keyboard with touch support before, and I wish them the best.
Perhaps that's good, though. The market for truly minimal phones seems to be rather small. I've had a chance to buy a new Commodore phone and they are really cool, but in the end I decided against it because I wasn't even sure my banking apps were going to run on it and I do need some social media on my phone even if I don't use them often. For example, everybody uses Whatsapp where I live. If you need to buy another phone to complement your minimal phone, it's kind of pointless.
I don't remember if it was the Commodore or some other phone, but one of them was explicitly advertised as a "second phone", recognising that banking etc. will probably be a dealbreaker for many.
The way I imagined it is that I'd still have my main smartphone at home and maybe for office days at work, but bring the other one when I go out, to visit friends or family, etc. Being out and about is where I think not having the attention-grabbing and distractions is most important. At home, I feel like I personally can control it quite well myself.
It's the very idea of having two devices instead of one that still keeps me from these things, though. Even if I only ever had one with me, that's still about twice the work of maintenance, updates, remembering to charge, having two lines...
That's why I prefer my Wisephone 2. You can still use slack, whatsapp, teams, banking apps, spotify, google maps, etc. But there is no browser, email, youtube, tiktok, etc., either.
> they're also (mostly) worse for cyclists and pedestrians
For cyclists, this is mostly true IMO (depending on implementation), but for pedestrians roudabouts are way better than traffic lights. In the absence of lights, pedestrians have right of way on crossing, so no waiting time, and physically slowed traffic make it safer.
>but for pedestrians roudabouts are way better than traffic lights.
This is ignorant texbook thinking.
As a pedestrian it's far easier to safely time a light, even one without a cross signal, than it is to cross through the un-broken streams of traffic that are entering/exiting a roundabout. You basically have to cross a ways back from the roundabout where the traffic is more like "just crossing a normal road". Which sucks if it's 4-lanes or really busy or fast or there's no sidewalk provision for that (like in the case of roundabouts at highway ramps) and is just a lot more walking to begin with.
For roundabouts that wouldn't be deserving of a light (i.e. the ones replacing 2/4way stops) it's a lateral move.
Especially with heavy traffic, the traffic all slows down, a lot, from the section before the roundabout. Everyone is always in a hurry, so likely 10-25 MPH over the recommended speed (not the speed limit) for the roundabout, and all of them are at a 6 foot following distance.
You are playing with death to step into that. It's no joke. You end up effectively waiting for the upstream light to turn red so traffic can clear and you can cross.
The only solution I've thought of is to put a large grocery cart full of paint buckets at the roundabout for pedestrians to push into the crosswalk without risking their own lives.
The point is that traffic streams are not unbroken: when there is a crosswalk and cars are obliged to stop in front of it in the presecence of a pedestrian, then the flow is broken.
Just blundering up to crosswalks because "they have to stop, hurr durr it's the law <foams at mouth>" results in a substantially more hazardous pedestrian (and driver) experience than timing your approach and using your body language so that the drivers know what you're gonna do and can take action to hedge against it.
> Which sucks if it's 4-lanes or really busy or fast or there's no sidewalk provision for that (like in the case of roundabouts at highway ramps) and is just a lot more walking to begin with.
I mean, it depends on your standards for roundabout. We didn't put highways through town centres so largely highway ramps and pedestrians are mutually exclusive scenarios here. Where pedestrian crossings exist, there's usually (a) an island and (b) 2 lanes prior to the island, splitting to 4 lanes either where the traffic is already slowed or past the island, which makes it much more pleasant than crossing at an equivalent junction. Also as a driver, it means you've cleared the pedestrian area before you have to consider/deal with the cross direction drivers as there's a small waiting area post-pedestrian-crossing/pre-roundabout.
If you're stuck because you already have a highway in your urban core and need pedestrians to safely cross the highway, then you are pretty much limited to overpasses and underpasses.
They are also better for cyclists. Take a look at [0], for example: the pedestrian crossing forces an early stop for cars entering, and there's a neat one-car-sized waiting area for cars leaving. They both reduce the sight angles between the car and a crossing cyclist, so they are quite easy to spot.
Support for in-place website translations has been introduced in FF 118, initially for a handful of western languages, now 50 languages. There is also support for translating highlighted text and user text with about:translations.
It's fully local, which means the translation might not be as good as what Google can do, but it's good enough to use, and in my experience it's usually faster, as there is no network latency (except for the first translation between a language pair, which takes a little while to download the weights).
Why would Todd Durham have issues with a Lord Buckethead doing his thing in another country and continent, but apparently not with a guitar player named Buckethead in the United States?
Neat, I'm wearing that exact shirt right at the moment I see this on the front page!
I typed it out myself, and I liked the comment in Japanese text, which sort of added another layer of obfuscation (even though pasting it in an online decoder was trivial, it still was something more to decode, a level deeper). Also, I can now spot non-ASCII blobs in base64-encoded text, which is a skill I hadn't ever considered was possible before.
Le Canard enchainé makes fun of people and institutions, but never makes stuff up, and are arguably more rigorous than most mainstream media outlet. They have a long history of exposing real scandals, albeit with a tongue-in-cheek manner.
reply