10-15 years ago there was such a split for web engineering. They wanted to make everything on the web look like an app, and a lot of backend guys hate anything looking like UI, so lets have an amicable divorce and do everything through these god awful endpoints, so the backend folks don't have to touch UI and the frontend folks can think they're "more real" engineers by making stuff that looks like it's a black box app vs enjoying the natural versatility and iterability of the old web.

I'm sure I'll never get hired for it, but good ol PHP (hell for most things I skip the MySQL; poor mans no-SQL w/ JSON files on the file system works and scales well for so many things)... vanilla Javascript can even be beautifully declerative when you want it to, with string templates building up whatever new DOM you didn't get from the server. I have these sites that last for decades, and when it comes time to add something, they're easy to figure out and adapt and there's no library hell (browsers have gotten so GOOD yet still so backwards compatibile over the years)

So I look for like minded souls using terms like "buildless" and "evergreen". But it's like an underground movement...

Not sure why this is problematic.
Governments of the world ought to use open source software - they should also fund its development, perhaps even employ developers to maintain it.
Using proprietary software that costs money excludes some users and is not auditable. Neither of those things are good for tax payers.

The only people that take issue with this are microsoft and its zealots.

For a start they failed to prosecute broadcasters who fail to observe purdah during elections including the BBC, thus proving its motivation is in perserving the status quo.

Ofcom generally fails to prosecute news broadcasters that fail to observe impartiality rules.

BBC runs a program called "Question Time" which presents a false public narrative even stretching to hiring actors to pose as members of the public to support its falsehoods. It has never been prosecuted by Ofcom for doing this.

Ofcom failed to revoke Sky/BSkyB licences despite the News International phone-hacking scandal .

BBC / BBC Scotland broadcasts of Sturgeon’s coronavirus / Covid-19 daily briefings gave undue platform, breached impartiality or “platformed” SNP views without sufficient opposition response . Ofcom never prosecuted.

BBC misrepresented certain rulings or statements in relation to the International Court of Justice, and continued to do so even following corrections. Some complainants allege misleading framing. Ofcome never prosecuted.

Ofcom failed to investigate or sanction Panorama for its ‘Is Labour Antisemitic’ programme featuring distortions / zooming / face distorting of Corbyn”

In the BBC documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, critics noted that the narrator was the son of a Hamas official and argued that this conflict of interest / relation should have been disclosed; further, that viewers were misled by omission. Ofcom stated it would investigate , but the investigation did not surface.

With regards to websites such as 4chan - there have been NO high-profile prosecutions of UK-registered sites - instead it pursues content originating abroad.

MailOnline a website full of clickbait / false headlines: dozens of press regulator (IPSO) rulings, Ofcom has not acted on its “harmful content” policy.

The Telegraph & Express online purveyed misinformation during elections & health crises resulting in numerous complaints on social media, but Ofcom once again failed to act.

Ofcom should get its own house in order before pursuing websites that are funded and run in other countries - regardless of its perceived crimes.

He's saying we're in a bubble?

thought so.

If the Ember trend (solar+wind continuing to meet new electricity demand and strongly displace fossil generation) continues and scales up aggressively only in electricity, then by 2100 we’d likely avoid ~0.2–0.35 C of warming relative to a BAU electricity case — a useful and meaningful improvement, but not a return to pre-industrial “normal.” To actually reverse global temperature to pre-industrial levels would require removing thousands of gigatonnes of CO (net) — a feat that, at realistic removal rates, would take centuries to millennia.

No, the next sentence says "half the speed of light." So... very imaginable?

I mean... have you met humans?

I mean... have you met humans?

They'd make my life a little easier, in some respects. Shipping to EU now is a bitch. They want it all done "in continent", so selling US book version to EU markets requires a shit ton of devotion. It can be done, I've seen it recently. but it's a lot of work.

Digital? damn, no freaking production or change of ownership issues. Just 1's and 0's. Royalties, stay, billing gets simpler.

The only problem we have now is digital is growing and while the actual process is simple, the volume of it, becomes fun.

either way though I get paid. As long as people keep reading and writing. Thank you, Johannes Gutenberg!

This is the real problem - there is very little being produced that warrants the cost and inconveniece of the cinema experience.
If im going to watch another mediocre film im not going to make a special effort thats for sure.

EA does tend to put the same shit out every year with a new timestamp on it.

This Guardian piece leans heavily on the growth of big trees in pristine Amazon patches to paint a picture of resilience, but it’s misleading. Most of the forest is fragmented or deforested, and large areas are now net carbon emitters, not sinks. Highlighting a small subset of intact trees while downplaying widespread degradation risks greenwashing the crisis, giving readers a false sense that the Amazon is largely healthy and climate-positive. Protecting tiny pockets of mature forest does not offset the massive carbon losses from agriculture, fires, and road expansion.

You know its true.

The thing is only about 10 % of what Daily Mail rhetoric labels Illegal "Boat People" are as such, the actual number of illegals is incredibly small - the rest are legitimate asylum seekers coming to this vile racist country out of sheer desperation. I certainly wouldnt come here out of choice.
Dont fall for the propaganda that is shaping UK policy.

Keir Starmer dresses himself up as a safe pair of hands. But his digital ID scheme shows his true face: a weak, authoritarian stooge dancing to the Daily Mail’s tune.

He claims it will stop “boat people.” Nonsense.

The majority crossing the Channel are genuine refugees - Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans with asylum success rates as high as 99%.

Starmer knows this, yet still scapegoats the vulnerable to look “tough.”

What will digital ID really do?

It will turn Britain into a surveillance state where people of colour and migrants are harassed, stopped, and forced to prove their right to exist.

It’s not about security. It’s about institutionalising racism.

Starmer isn’t protecting Britain.

He’s protecting his headlines.

He isn’t standing up to right-wing media.

He’s taking dictation from them.

This isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice.

It exposes Starmer for what he really is: a hollow opportunist willing to trade freedom for fear.

Another study from the department of the fucking obvious stating something we already know/.
This cost time and money and more importantly action ( lack of )