What if I order something on the road and want it delivered to my home? Or what if I want to order something over mobile? My mobile IP is often 1500km away from where I live.
Autofill solves all of that with an implementation cost that approaches zero.
In a similar tone, it’s 2026. Why are we still messing with form ordering instead of leaning into autofill? So somehow it makes more sense to change every single address form in existence to a non standard order because…why exactly? There’s a whole world outside of the United States with many formats for postal codes. It’s more efficient to just use autofill…
I would prefer some kind of privacy statement or even some kind of explanation about what is going on before I just randomly turn my webcam on. This might be great and I’m proud of you for launching but I don’t do things like that. Heck, videos can make a person’s heart race - I had my first attack at 39 and that’s a hell of a lot of risk.
I haven't dug deeper due to time availability, but for the same sake of privacy, I've found:
1. `/api/event` endpoint mentioned in the `/stats/script.js` file;
2. There's `/parties/lobby/main/telemetry` in a minified JavaScript chunk asset;
3. There's VitalLens mentioned, and there's an error string in the same asset: "A valid API key or proxy URL is required to use VitalLens. If you signed up recently, please try again in a minute to allow your API key to become active. Otherwise, head to https://www.rouast.com/api to get a free API key."
Germany was divided for more than forty years after the Second World War. That absolutely changed their foreign policy and those changes have continued to be felt into the present day. The Second World War ended traditional power structures and changed foreign policy for everyone. That’s reality.
I'm not the person you're replying to but I'm familiar with what they're talking about. Fair warning, while I've experimented with this, I wouldn't endorse them as strongly as the commenter and don't think I'd use a phrase like 'the shift is real' (unless I was trying to annoy my child).
If I were you, I would start with some documentation:
The first link will get you started - it will explain what the commenter was talking about in detail. The second and third links will give you more information on those specific types.
His comment implies that people who use free services don't value them, they are naturally disrespectful, they are 'ripping off' hard workers, and are 'refusing to pay'. These are not neutral terms, they have historically (since Reagan at least) conservative valence.
'welfare queens' etc...
If you didn't notice this sleight of hand in the original comment, that means he did his work correctly.
His conclusion is that things should not be free and open, as a rule, because they won't generate money, attention, or respect if they are free.
He included food stamps in the middle of his list. This choice is not neutral.
The comment invites you to reframe your understanding of food stamps so as to later justify its dissolution as a result 'human nature'.
Food stamps are not intended to function like the other products he listed. Food stamps are not intended to generate respect or direct revenue.
Yet, he said that someone using the 'max' monthly budget of $300 for food, when making less that $26000, is part of the 'natural disrespect' continuum. Tell me, would you consider $300 a month on food excessive and disrespectful where you live?
$3.30 per meal, 3 times a day for 30.5 days?
The whole structure of his 'disrespect' argument is a lie to begin with. People on food stamps do respect the value of being able to feed their families.
Most Americans I've met see their need for food stamps as a moral stain. They want so badly to overcome their 'failure' by working even harder. Many will take second or third jobs with tenuous protections, and have their wages stolen ($2600 per person, on average, almost as much as food stamps pays).
Either way, productivity goes up, inflation marches on, wages stay the same, and I'm the only one getting richer.
Anywho that is why I replied in the manner I did, because the subtext was clearly hidden well enough for many people to need it pointed out.
You are not immune to propaganda, doubly so for the propaganda you don't notice.
$300 in groceries is worth the same whether it was paid for with cash or food stamps. But that doesn't mean the $300 in food stamps is worth $300 cash.
Republishing an article with corrected quotes is reserved for cases where an editorial team can trust the substance of an article. There is an error but that error doesn’t impact the amount of trust the editorial team has in the article.
A retraction is totally different. It means that an editorial team does not trust any of the underlying article. It’s the biggest stick in journalism and is only reserved for the absolute worst breaches of trust.
When you retract an article and then update the author’s bio to past tense, that’s as clear of a signal as you can ethically send. A publication with clout makes news and writes the first line of people’s obituaries while they’re still alive - a degree of tact, professionalism and newsworthiness comes into play.
Tech feels more filled with hipsters every day. If the story is about any major company or product it's just dunked on for social credits. But anything that is outside that is considered interesting and worth further investigation. It's frustrating me to no end.
this is personal anecdote, but I've noticed that the overall quality of comments has plummeted quite drastically within the last few months. It's a little disappointing since its why I left reddit. Thankfully, the insightful comments are typically still there- just typically buried further down the thread.
I understand what both of you are saying, I lived in areas where if someone is talking to you on the street theres a high chance theyre asking you for something, so you learn to just kinda block all of it out. Now that I moved to a smaller town, I find myself talking to strangers much more frequently.
In my experience, only weirdos never speak to strangers. Social skills are easy, conversations are easy and strangers are just people you don’t know yet.
I still can’t understand the point of this. Do you get a charge telling social anxious people they’ll be weird if they do their homework? That’s precisely what you did. Why?
I live in NYC. Maybe this is different in the suburbs. Nearly 100% of the people that approach me are trying to get something from me. Scam me, get me to sign something I don't want to sign, get me to donate my money to save the dogs/children/etc.
If someone on the street tries to talk to me, I try to avoid even looking at them or acknowledging them. They'll use that as an opening. Just keep walking.
I lived in NYC for a decade. This is very true on the street, but less true waiting in a subway station, and even less true in a neighborhood bar. The more public, there is a “market for lemons” effect in conversation. The more it resembles a private club or a group suffering a common injustice, the more reliably good the conversation is. A crowd on an MTA platform where a train hasn’t shown up in 50 minutes can get pretty chatty.
Well, that's your experience. Some people live in places where most strangers that talk to you are wierdos. Some of us live in places where most strangers on the street are actually dangerous (and I'm not talking about NYC or any place in America, I'm talking about actual criminal hotspots, which is the reality of a huge portion of humanity you probably don't think about).
Autofill solves all of that with an implementation cost that approaches zero.
reply