I wish they had more information. Like ideally each work would have something as in depth as a Wikipedia article. But often there are just a couple of sentences.

Probably a good use case for QR codes.

Well it sure is good that percentages of support never change over time, then.

> Luckily they're not going to be able to come close to achieving their aims.

I used to say the same about people wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade. I think maybe let's not assume what can or can't happen.

Then it's probably good that OP covered exactly that in a top level comment.

Nah, the whole point is that this stuff is long range.

Isn't this one of those situations where everyone is an asshole?

> OP's question also brings to mind the story of the Curiosity rover on mars.

> It's original tenure was only supposed to be a 90 day mission on the surface, but through a combination of good construction and non-catastrophic conditions, it instead served for 14 years. It didn't stop until a harsh dust storm knocked out its ability to recharge.

You're referring to Opportunity, not Curiosity. Curiosity was activated under 11 years ago, is still operational, and doesn't recharge because it uses an RTG.

Opportunity was deployed for 14 years and relied on solar power.

The US doing bad things doesn't make it okay for Russia to.

That said, there's a big difference between unchecked imperialism and annexation, and regime change.

Your whataboutism isn't welcome here, and is immediately obvious to us. How much are they paying you?

Who is saying Ukraine doesn't have big losses? Of course they do. But they are forced to fight. We cannot allow rule of power. If Russia knows they can just invade whatever they want because the other side will give up from loss of lives, there will be no end to Russian aggression. And it wouldn't even stop with Russia.

It is essential to rule of law in the world that Ukraine is supported and that they do not give in. It is unfortunate that Russia's nuclear arsenal prevents more direct action.

Rainbows involve reflection and refraction.

Neither of which resemble the architecture of Twitter.

Actually what he founded was x.com, an online bank. It merged with software company Confinity, which had developed the payment processing software that became PayPal. So he was not actually a software developer.

Looks like that is here.

It's because he has the technical knowledge to focus on technical aspects. He likes designing rockets, he's happy to get involved with that process and he doesn't make a mess of it.

With Twitter, he doesn't know a damn thing about software architecture at that level or how to manage a social media site. There is no lightning rod to occupy his attention. His interest is literally just in getting to say what he wants and making people read it. And he wasn't part of building Twitter up to what it is. He simply joined when it was already a working thing; anything he does is going to make it worse.

I was wondering about that weird phrasing too, but it makes more sense in context:

> particularly in chemistry and biology where it can be used to understand the structure and purpose of materials, allowing us to design better chemicals, drugs and so on.

Although of course there is still no fundamental purpose, it's a good shorthand especially in biology for "the role this plays in a complex system".

I don't understand Telugu or Hindi, but the dubbing bothered me. As I said, I saw it partially, and decided that when I gave it a proper watch I would find the original. I really hate dubs. Think of how much direction goes into getting just the right delivery from an actor. Then a dub comes along and just...bulldozes right over that.

I think you're the one person in the world who wants longer acceptance speeches. They're largely just lists of names.

"The most acclaimed movie awards in the world are focusing less on movies from a single country. Could this be bad for diversity?"

No. The answer is that it is not bad for diversity.

Oof, I've been intending to watch it but this is a problem. I was present when a friend of mine watched it, but they don't mind dubs. I was like, when I watch it I'll watch the original, as I do as a rule. I didn't realize it would actually be hard to do.

Actually I've been seeing a big uptick lately. A year ago it sat idle for me because no one I knew used it. Now it's about a third of my conversations, maybe more. I'm quite happy about that. The competing platforms for "message people in a sensible way across platforms" are basically Google chat (whatever they're calling it this week), and Facebook messenger, and I feel much more comfortable with signal over those two. Oh, there's Discord too, but not many people use that as their regular one-on-one messenger.

Do you think it would actually stop that? Because it wouldn't. Do you think you're safer if it's easier for other people to get into your private messages? Because you aren't.

You can, just be careful.

And yet,

> There are over 5.22 billion smartphone users in the world, representing 66% of the global population.

My point remains that if making smartphones didn't break the economy, making an even less applicable device won't either.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't think it's free money.

Okay, so let's say they become as popular as smart phones, which are used by the majority of the planet. That's still not some game-breaking figure, as we know by the existence of smart phones which have not upended the world economy.