Most devs reach for `<div>` soup or a `<ul>` for key-value layouts. But there's a native HTML element built exactly for that — with accessibility semantics baked in — that the majority of the industry just... ignores. How many production codebases have you seen that actually use `<dl>` correctly?

If you played the Western version and found it hard, you were actually playing a censored, watered-down version. The Japanese release has different bosses, more lore, and a completely different difficulty curve, it's almost a different game. How many of you actually know the real Dynamite Headdy?

I'll push back a little here. The résumé isn't broken by accident. It was designed to filter fast, and fast filtering always cuts corners. The real question nobody wants to answer is: are companies actually willing to slow down their hiring process to be fairer? Because every "fix" proposed costs time and money. Until there's a business case attached to inclusion, this stays a LinkedIn conversation.

Hot take: portfolios didn't democratize hiring. They just moved the gatekeeping from "did you go to the right school" to "did you have enough free time to build side projects." A single parent working two jobs is not less talented. They just had less margin. We keep calling that a skills gap when it's actually an access gap.

Sanchez has the technical purity of Cuban boxing and the physical tools to trouble anyone at heavyweight including Usyk. If he gets past Torrez Jr cleanly, that fight writes itself. Cuba has been waiting decades for a heavyweight king; this might finally be the generation that delivers it.

I feel sorry for those who are going to be fined and have lost the chance to provide affordable entertainment for their families. The platforms, content creators, studios, and the government that profited from this all deserve a kick in the butt, since they’ve always found ways to rip us off.

What this episode reveals is something deeper than a simple messaging problem. Framing everything as "bad messaging" is, to some extent, a way of softening what is actually happening. American defense officials themselves admitted, anonymously, that they had "spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement" and that they didn't know what the second one meant either. That isn't poor communication — it's the absence of a coherent decision-making process. The pattern here is one of foreign policy driven by impulse and personal grievance. The first withdrawal was announced after Chancellor Merz criticized how Washington was handling negotiations with Iran, and the second announcement came when Trump questioned Hegseth about why the deployment had been cancelled, saying the U.S. should not "treat Poland poorly" — apparently because he simply likes Nawrocki. In other words, the American military posture in Eastern Europe is being determined by political affinities and momentary dislikes, not by strategy. The problem with the "messaging" framing is that it assumes a well-defined policy exists and is simply being explained poorly. But allies are still trying to determine whether the administration is reducing its commitment to NATO overall, or simply reshaping it around governments Trump sees as more loyal. That uncertainty cannot be resolved with better communication. It stems from the policy itself being incoherent. The European response is telling. NATO chief Mark Rutte praised Trump's decision while simultaneously stressing that it would not change the push for Europeans to become less dependent on a single ally. The alliance's own leadership is publicly managing American unpredictability, preparing its members for a future in which the U.S. may not be there. That is an enormous signal, and it plays out regardless of whether Washington's messaging is clear or confused. Trump has even suggested he might pull the U.S. out of the very alliance it helped found after World War II, which places any one-off troop announcement within a context of permanently degraded credibility. Poland may celebrate today, but what Sikorski called "all's well that ends well" is really a normalization of a transactional and volatile relationship — one that Poland, given its geography, is less able to ignore than most allies. The question the article raises about poor messaging is real, but secondary. The core problem is structural.

bro I literally paused my game to read this article about pausing my game. the disrespect. anyway going back in, my teammates are waiting and they've been waiting for 4 years

"The real question isn't whether he was wearing a mask it's that we live in an era where deepfakes and AI filters are so commonplace that **we can no longer trust our own eyes during a live broadcast**. And that should scare you a lot more than any conspiracy theory."

The "avoidance pattern dressed up as a principle" line hit harder than expected. I've been telling myself for three years that my open source contributions would eventually get noticed by the right people. They did get noticed — just not by anyone with the power to change anything for me. Contribution without visibility is just charity.

One thing I'd add: the isolation problem compounds. The less you network, the less you know what skills are actually valued outside your current team, so you double down on the wrong things, which makes you even less relevant outside your bubble. I watched this happen to a senior dev I really respected. By the time he realized it, he was five years behind on everything that mattered in the market.

Moderators are free to flag a post, but we administrators do not flag posts in such situations

I'm not sure if the platform considers a post I've written in which I've included a link to my product or service somewhere in the body of the text to be spam.

Moderators in each community and site administrators can flag a post when it violates community or site rules; these posts are then restricted from comments and upvotes and are automatically removed from the homepage

My question is this: if I’ve posted something that’s considered spam and I create multiple accounts to generate engagement such as likes and comments on that same post, will the post remain on this list for a while, or even for 24 hours on the homepage?

The debate Bezos is missing, or avoiding, is about the difference between tax incidence and tax visibility. Federal income tax is the most visible part of the American tax burden precisely because it shows up as a single line on a pay stub. But visibility isn't the same as weight. A serious proposal to help struggling households would start with payroll taxes, which are regressive by design and cap out in a way that systematically favors high earners, or with consumption taxes, which take a larger share of income from people who spend most of what they make. There's also a fiscal arithmetic problem that the proposal quietly sidesteps. If the bottom half of earners accounts for only 3% of federal income tax revenue, eliminating that share doesn't free up meaningful money for those households — it just shifts the accounting. The nurse in Queens gets $1,000 a month back, but if the services that keep her neighborhood functional get underfunded as a result, the net gain is far less obvious than Bezos makes it sound. The smartest version of this argument would be a straight expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which already functions as a negative income tax for the working poor and has decades of evidence behind it. Bezos doesn't mention it, probably because it already exists and doesn't need a billionaire to champion it.

Well, you've got a point there.

But be careful, this isn't going to benefit everyone. Those who already have a background in software engineering or cloud tend to benefit a lot from it. But for those who are just starting out or stuck in more routine roles, they definitely won't get anything out of this.

This raises an interesting question: is full privacy in an AI actually freedom… or just removing the only remaining safeguard? If no one can see or audit conversations afterward, how do you ensure the system doesn’t become a perfect space for abuse, fraud, or worse? At the same time, without that level of privacy, many people simply won’t use AI for truly personal things. Maybe the real issue isn’t “private or not,” but who gets to decide where protection ends and responsibility begins.

I never let myself get pushed around; I plan my deliverables to leave room for leisure and rest, and when I realize a client is going to want results on a tight deadline, I'd rather just pass on the project. Losing out in those cases means gaining more peace of mind.

It’s something I’d like to try. I feel a little out of shape. But just the thought of going for hours without eating makes me give up mentally, lol.

Karpathy coined "vibe coding", the idea of letting AI write code while the human just "goes with the vibes". Word of the year, billions in startups, an entire generation of developers redefining the profession. Now he's been hired to use Claude to train the next Claude. **The man who taught the world to trust AI just trusted AI with itself.** And nobody seems to find that strange.

Honestly tired of these "community consensus" pieces that just end up pushing the same three names. Mullvad got raided and found clean once — congratulations, that's one data point. ProtonVPN is a Swiss company that still cooperates with foreign legal requests when a Swiss court approves it, which happens more than the privacy crowd admits. And "no logs" is a marketing claim every single provider makes. You cannot verify what happens on their servers. You are trusting a company you've never met with your traffic. A self-hosted WireGuard instance on a cheap VPS you control, paid with Monero, is the only setup where your threat model doesn't include "hope the VPN company isn't lying." Everything else is just picking which corporation to trust.

The DNS leak section is the most underrated part of this. I've done pentest work where the target was running a paid VPN and we still reconstructed their browsing patterns entirely through DNS. The tunnel was up the whole time. Split tunneling is genuinely dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing, and most consumer VPN apps make it feel like a feature rather than a footgun. The iptables approach described here is correct. On Linux I'd add: set `DefaultDNS=` in `/etc/systemd/resolved.conf` to your VPN's resolver and set `DNSOverTLS=yes`. That way even if something slips past the tunnel, it hits an encrypted wall instead of your ISP's resolver in plaintext.

Solid writeup. One thing worth adding on the Mullvad side: their decision to drop port forwarding in 2023 was actually a privacy move, not a cost cut. Port forwarding made it easier to correlate users over time. Most people complained about torrenting, but the tradeoff makes sense if your threat model is anything above "I just want Netflix from another country." Also worth mentioning that Mullvad Browser, built with the Tor Project, ships with fingerprinting resistance baked in. Pair it with the VPN and you're covering two attack surfaces most people completely ignore.

Exactly, Marcos. And the worst part is that most people compare gross returns without subtracting fees and taxes. When you do the real, clean calculation, the difference is shocking. I once saw a family member's portfolio that looked great on paper and ended up trailing the benchmark after everything was discounted. Index funds eliminate a big part of that illusion.

What few people talk about is that index funds also force you to have discipline. Because there is no manager trying to "seize opportunities", you stop jumping in and out of the market at the wrong time, which is where most people actually lose money. The investor's biggest enemy is not the market, it is the investor themselves in a moment of panic.

I always feared index funds thinking it was "financial conformism", but after I understood the real impact of fees over time I completely changed my mind. An active fund charging 1.5% per year sounds like nothing, but over 20 years that represents a massive chunk of your wealth that simply vanished into fees. The math of compound interest works against you when the cost is high.

I get your point, but I think you're coming from a slightly conservative assumption. Expanding a universe doesn't necessarily kill its depth, it all depends on who's sitting in the director's chair. And the name that keeps coming up here is Cory Barlog, the same person who directed the 2018 God of War, so it's not like Sony is handing the keys to just anyone. On top of that, rumors point to a brand new protagonist, Faye, set within East Asian mythology, which actually opens the door to a story with its own identity without needing to lean on the emotional weight of Kratos. The MCU comparison is scary because the MCU got too big, but God of War is still a relatively small franchise with a lot of unexplored territory. I'd rather wait for the official announcement before declaring the end of quality. Christopher Judge said the game would be revealed this summer, so we won't be stuck in speculation for long.

Man, this news left me with pretty mixed feelings. Sony clearly wants to turn God of War into a kind of gaming MCU, with spinoffs, parallel franchises and everything that comes with it. And I get the business logic, it makes total sense. But when I read that Jason Schreier said the next game "is not a new IP but it might feel like one", something immediately feels off. That phrase is exactly the kind of thing that sounds great on paper and turns into dilution in practice. What made the 2018 reboot so special was precisely the surgical focus on a father-son relationship. The more you expand that universe with parallel characters and new mythologies, the more you risk losing the emotional density that set the series apart. If the Faye spinoff with a talking sword and a gelatinous cube turns out to be real, then I really start to worry.