You can’t know that. A construction worker who is charged, released on bond, and has a scheduled job may also be allowed to return to work. The real issue is whether the law was applied equally, not simply that he was able to perform after being released.

Honestly it makes total sense. Even Canonical thinks most of their users will end up on WSL, mostly because of devs and AI folks who are forced to use company-issued Windows laptops but still need a proper Linux setup to get work done without dealing with slow VMs or annoying dual-boots. Ubuntu became the default because back in 2004 those guys actually made Linux usable for regular people. The installer is simple, you don't have to compile drivers by hand, and it just works out of the box. Plus it turned into the industry standard—if you search any issue on Google you'll find the exact `apt-get` command ready to copy-paste, not to mention the NVIDIA driver support and integration with cloud stuff like Docker and AWS is insane. At the end of the day, APT and LTS releases give you rock-solid stability without the mess of scattered .exe files you get on Windows, and you aren't locked into Apple's expensive hardware or stuck with bloatware and start menu ads. Running it inside WSL pretty much combines Ubuntu's dev-friendly environment with Windows' software and gaming compatibility, so you really get the best of both worlds.

Honestly I'm sick of this whole 'blame the banks, blame the platforms, blame the system' narrative. People need to take responsibility for their own money. Nobody forces anyone to click a link. Maybe instead of trying to wrap everyone in bubble wrap, we should be teaching people to actually think before they act. End of story.

The idea of using AI robots to solve the modern relationship crisis is superficial and dangerous. Replacing the complexity of human connection with a machine programmed to never disagree only deepens loneliness, social isolation, and the inability to handle real interpersonal dynamics. Rather than a "solution," it reflects an escape from emotional maturity.

I think you guys should explain why there isn't a button to delete comments, and why posts can't be deleted either—only edited :/

honestly the overflow example is the one that should scare people more than it does. I've seen "defensive" checks like that in production code, written by people who genuinely believed they were safe. UB doesn't announce itself, it just quietly deletes your intent

It also speaks volumes about *Jony Ive’s calculated moves*. He walked away clean from Apple, built his own venture, partnered with Sam Altman for a massive deal, and managed to stay completely untouchable while others took the legal heat. Instead of getting dragged into corporate espionage and recruitment drama, Ive operates purely on high-level vision and design prestige. Whether it's genuine detachment from low-level operations or just brilliant personal shielding, his ability to navigate the cutthroat Silicon Valley politics while keeping his legendary reputation spotless is a masterclass in executive self-preservation.

It's worth adding a number to this article to give a sense of the scale of that leap: in 1985, an 80386 running at 16 MHz cost **$299 per unit in batches of 100** — and the 20 MHz version went up to $599, just for the chip. No wonder early complete systems were prohibitively expensive: the Compaq Portable 386, launched in 1987, cost **$7,999** (the equivalent of over $22,000 today). This partly explains why Intel launched the **386SX** in 1988 — a cheaper variant that kept the 32-bit architecture internally but communicated with memory over a 16-bit bus, trading performance for affordability to bring the 386 within reach of the home market. In other words, even within the "386" generation there was a hierarchy of tradeoffs between architecture and price, not just between generations.

something truly simple, but which has always been a puzzle to me

That's really interesting!

What a bunch of nonsense. Now it’s trendy to blame a "lack of purpose" for laziness and a lack of shame from people who just don't want to work. Back in the day, people didn't have time for an "existential crisis" because they were too busy working the fields and providing for their families. If someone is sick, it's because they eat poorly and don't exercise, not because of this internet psychology psychobabble. Go find something productive to do and your body will heal itself in no time.

[deleted]

This case perfectly illustrates how vaccines work: they aren't a 100% magical shield, but they drastically reduce the severity of the illness. While the first patient (unvaccinated) required hospitalization, this vaccinated adult showed a 'weak positive' test, mild symptoms, and is already recovering at home. The real issue isn't individual vaccine failure, but rather how the decline in herd immunity—caused by those who choose not to vaccinate—exposes even those who followed protocol to prolonged viral loads.

The dual-boot limitation is probably the biggest friction point for most people considering this. Running SteamOS as your only OS on a dedicated gaming machine makes total sense, but a lot of users want the flexibility to switch. Once Valve sorts that out alongside Nvidia support, the adoption is going to look very different. For now it's still more of an enthusiast move than a mainstream one.

The cancer scare detail is what gets me. He showed up to a press day for Jumanji while dealing with that privately. Most people would have called in sick for a headache.

Mandating human review for everything sounds good on paper, but in practice it will just slow newsrooms down and favor big companies. Smaller outlets will fall behind.

I think a dark mode would be enough :)

The comparison to tobacco is provocative, but it may oversimplify the issue. Tobacco is inherently harmful at any level, while social media seems more like an “environment” than a “product”. Its impact depends heavily on how it is used, the design of the platforms, and even the social context of the young person. <br><br>Is the problem really social media itself, or a broader attention model that incentivizes excessive use and rewards extreme behavior? If that is the case, does it make more sense to restrict access, or to rethink the incentives behind these platforms altogether?

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.

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.

The bridge metaphor is exactly right, but I'd push it one step further. Most people don't even realize they've been building materials for years without knowing it. Every skill, every frustrating project, every "this isn't quite right" feeling is a plank. The moment you decide to change, the bridge is already half-built. The hardest part isn't the construction. It's finally admitting you need to cross.

I've used these two here and found it pretty easy to get some clients * [Workana](https://www.workana.com/) - great for those looking for recurring contracts * [Upwork](https://www.upwork.com/) - one of the most robust apps for serving international clients try both and let me know if you got anything there

The hardest part wasn't the decision. It was realizing that how you handle the exit says more about your leadership than how you handled the growth.

This case is interesting because it mixes a few things at once: internet culture, the search for attention, and a very thin line between creating content to go viral and crossing into criminal behavior. What stands out most is not just what allegedly happened, but the context around it. The person is not simply recording something unusual, they are operating within a logic of audience and performance. That raises an important question: to what extent does the social media environment push people toward more extreme actions just to stay relevant? Another key point is how the word “allegedly” shapes perception. Many people see a video and assume everything is already proven, while journalism uses that term because the legal process is still ongoing. It seems small, but it completely changes how the public interprets the situation. There is also the uncomfortable layer of online subcultures like looksmaxxing, where individuals can become symbols of extreme behavior. Some see it as entertainment, others as real harmful influence. The boundary between persona and real life starts to blur. At the end, the case opens a bigger discussion. Is the internet rewarding increasingly extreme behavior because it gets attention, or are these individuals already inclined toward it and simply finding a stage online?

This becomes more difficult when we find ourselves in regions where almost everything is controlled by the government, and when those same governments control almost everything that, in a way, begins to show some success

I read this with a knot in my throat. These aren't statistics. They are children who had names, backpacks, and plans for the weekend. We owe them more than silence.

I'm stuck in the past and still find it fascinating to program using some tools that are already obsolete for many. I still use jQuery in some of my projects and feel totally comfortable using it. But for more complex stuff, I've preferred using React.

I think the question you're really asking is whether it's possible to stay true to something slow-growing in a world that rewards speed above everything else. And honestly, I don't have a clean answer for that. What I do know is that the services that end up lasting tend to be the ones built by people who had no choice but to care, not because it was profitable, but because walking away felt worse than staying. That stubbornness is worth something, even when it doesn't pay the bills yet. The monetization part is a real problem, but it's a solvable one. Losing sight of why you started in the first place is the one you can't recover from.

Permadeath + narrative bonds between characters = I'm going to spend the next few weeks reloading saves after every mission. I'm joking, but also I'm not. If the game does its job right and I actually care about these characters, every death is going to sting in a way even the original XCOM never managed. It's a risky bet that could be brilliant or an emotional nightmare. Probably both.

honestly this hit different. i've been saying this to my coworkers for months and everyone looks at me like i'm crazy. the energy part is what gets me the most, like nobody is talking about the fact that we're literally burning the planet to generate AI slop. the roman empire analogy at the end is perfect too, it's not gonna be a crash, it's gonna be a slow bleed that nobody notices until it's too late. good stuff, subbed.