It depends on where you live and what your job is. Non-DST in summer where I live would be total bollocks, because you're getting most of the extra hours of daylight the seasons give you at a time where, if you're roughly working standard business hours, you have no opportunity to do anything to enjoy them.

Fair enough, but desktop Teams is also just a website.

I'd agree in principle and can't stand people who still use "Micro$oft" post-1996.

On the other hand, Microsoft's public annoyal about the term "Microslop" has made it so, so much more fun to use anywhere their management might become aware of it.

It does, but it's also US-based so doesn't really solve the problem.

The tech people target audience might be more or less maxed out. Things like the mascot, or making it look pretty and "modern" can make a difference in the wider population. Trying to increase market share is important, because if it dips much further and Google stops being interested in paying, Mozilla might have to pack up.

It makes sense even on a regularly sized 16:9 monitor. Vertical screen real estate has always been at a premium since the move away from 4:3. Heck, most websites are styled to leave left ~25% and the right ~25% of the viewport empty, anyway.

They were already rounded before, but now they're even rounder.

I also don't get it. The rest of the new design looks nice, visually, but this hurts productivity. I had to restore compact, rectangular tabs with userchrome. They're called tabs for a reason -- they should look like them.

Maybe you have some wack extensions installed?

My freshly started Firefox takes less than 200 MB of RAM (Windows 10, almost 20 extensions). Less than a third of what a freshly started Chrome uses.

I suspect most of that is because people simply can't be bothered to even try another browser. Firefox is so blazingly fast and performant compared to Chrome, the comparison isn't even funny anymore. It's been like that for years. Chrome is a snaaaaill.

I know, "benchmarks". But most people's daily browser usage is not running isolated JS calculations. It's working with a few tabs on real-world websites, and that absolutely kills Chrome.

I also barely ever have any stability issues with Firefox, while Chrome crashes a few times a week of normal use. (I have to use it at work). And the compatibility issues are almost never fair to blame on Firefox. It's websites being developed for non-standards-compliant parts of Chrome.

> Is there a good reason to believe that?

People without some unresolved issues about their own sexuality, don't tend to obsess so much over that of strangers.

There will always be an assumption. Because if I don't at least assume it was written by a human, I wouldn't be reading it in the first place.

The origin does matter. I read a story because I assume a human with a personality and original thoughts had a story to tell. If there wasn't, the "story" sucks and I feel cheated, no matter how well the machine might have fooled me into believing it was written by someone.

Compare it to news reporting. I enjoy reading a good piece of investigative journalism because I assume it's a true report on real-world facts. If it turns out to be an LLM-generated fake, I'll be pissed. No matter how much I liked it when I initially read it.

Then how do you define a bubble?

Wikipedia says it's "a period when current asset prices greatly exceed their intrinsic valuation".

The most highly valued companies in this industry are dumping trillions into something that makes a few billions in revenue, with no clear idea on how to turn that ship around.

That seems to me to be the mother of all textbook examples or inflated valuations.

I disagree. There was no paradigm change. LLMs still are (good, useful) fuzzy search. The results may have gotten better, but that's still fundamentally what they are. What you call an intelligent conversation, I will never call a conversation. It's a multi-step search. Conversation is something that happens between individuals. Which is also why I don't think it makes sense to compare what's more helpful between talking to someone or doing a Google search. If I want to research something, I fire up a search tool. If I want original thoughts, insight, and someone to challenge my ideas, any web search engine or LLM is not going to be able to offer that.

> no one was stopping anyone from using any map type they desire

They still aren't.

You somehow managed to go from correctly stating that the choice of projection is always a trade-off, to calling the pragmatic switch to a projection more suited to today's use "far-left idealism".

Thinking that the planet needs a declining human population doesn't need brainwashing, just the realisation that with an indefinitely growing population on a planet with limited resources, at some point the math no longer adds up, and nature will decline our population for us, the hard way. And it seems we're getting precariously close to that tipping point.

The question is not if we want a shrinking population or not. It's if we want to achieve it by acknowledging the facts and having less children, or by ignoring them and waiting for the extinction events.