Based on how I feel when I have to incur such a trip, I wouldn't be surprised if making those trips routinely would have long term bad effects on your health.

Given where the timezones are, certainly not 'most' people. Yes, you can cross a time zone in less than 25 miles if you happen to live within 25 miles, this doesn't support your stance of "most americans spend at least a day timezone shifted every year", since that's a pretty specific circumstance that doesn't apply to most people.

Even for them, I wonder what percentage of those trips introduce inconsistency in their schedule. If they work in one timezone, then they would consistently be living according to that schedule, even if they technically sleep in another.

Personally, if I am stuck with a trip that goes more than a time zone over, I just hate the shift.

Shifting the time is a PITA that is pretty jarring in a way most people don't enjoy and it seems like it may be outright unhealthy.

This is incorrect.

61 percent of the population does not take a "long distance" trip in a year.

Incidentally, this defines "long distance" as "50 miles". Of the "long trips", 58% of those are less than 125 miles away. So only 16% of people travel over 125 miles away in a given year. Less than 125 miles is relatively unlikely to cross a time zone. Growing up my family would regularly make 300 mile trips but still not cross a timezone.

I'll confess to not having pushed my luck performance wise, but at least feature wise I've been satisfied with KDE/Wayland with Fedora 42 and proprietary nVidia drivers. There were some hiccups before but I can't recall exactly when things seemed to get fine.

What's wrong with "Yeah, there are some kinks that we overlooked. It's because the studio had to get the release out before bladiblah. We're working on a patch that addresses the issue. Anyone who bought the game until yesterday will get skin/pet/neat-fun-little-soapbubblegun as a bonus DLC for the inconvenience."

It costs like nothing to do this and you'll be portrayed the cool gaming company dude.

Borderlands is a beloved franchise, it's not that the fans will get all worked up about this. Why insult your customer base with bullshit for no reason what-so-ever? And claiming they build UE5 or that UE5 is a sub-par engine is just being silly. A move that anyone who knows a bit about gaming will see right through. .... With minimal social skill you could turn a buggy release like this into a PR win with a slice of self-deprecating humor, a little DLC fluff as a token apology and some community chat to calm the waters and grow connection. If I were in his place I'd even ride the wave and call it the special "Buggy as Fuck!" release, "Only for a limited time!". I'm pretty sure that would've gotten the game even extra attention. Especially the Borderlands fanbase is into this kind of humor.

I fundamentally don't get it.

These pretentious douchebags need some basic PR training above anything else.

Pretty valid point. If *anything*, if AOL had executed a tad more successfully, then we might not even have had widespread adoption of the internet. We'd be all complaining about how AOL has a monopoly, but how else could you imagine a global online network functioning except inside a monopoly? Weirdos would be bringing up that crazy Internet thing that came out of ARPAnet and everyone would laugh about how that would have not possibly worked...

I think if AOL had established 'AOL for University' and 'AOL for Business' technology deployments to businesses and campuses, maybe by around 1992/1993 or so, they would have had a good chance of heading off the explosion of the 'friendly' internet as realized popularly by Netscape. Early 90s internet left a lot of the less technical crowd scratching their head and not seeing where things could go, but could get what AOL was putting down.

One reason for quarterly reporting is that it gives greater transparency and insight into how a business actually works. Many businesses are seasonal. Most obviously, virtually all retail has its best quarter at the end of the calendar year. But many other types of businesses have key cycles each year that are tied to, for example, the buying habits of their largest customers. Suppliers matter, too; if farms have a bad quarter due to weather or other factors, for example, you're going to want to watch how that impacts food producers somewhere down the line.

Specifically, they cherry picked 2022/2023 and pretended those numbers were good examples of "normal" hiring. Looking at the chart, it's clear they had a huge hiring boom, enough to overcome the prior 5 years of demographic shift. This is consistent with the general hiring boom in tech that came about then, just before LLM hype launched into the stratosphere.

They talked as though 2024 was a precipitous drop, but as you say, it was just a return to 2021 levels.

Without AI, we probably would see similar employment trends in tech and note it as a "correction". With LLM in the mix, it becomes hard to say how much is genuine shift to LLM to take care of things or LLM as a rationalization to get rid of the tech workforce the companies probably didn't need to hire up so much in the first place. Can certainly say which option generates more clicks though...

Many PFAS/Forever Chemicals have a structure and effect similar to estrogen, which makes men less manly. It also appears that there are environmental effects lowering testosterone, some researchers Link this to PFAS as well. Low sperm count has also been linked to PFAS.

So, yeah, they literally make your more trans. If you're a man that is.

Note this was mostly a simple demographic observation being written about, *not* about relative popularity of university among the populace.

It's not that there are the same number of high school students but fewer want university, it's just that not nearly as many people were born.

Since the housing crash, domestic stability has eluded so much of the population that you would count on to have children.

So particularly the cost management is certainly something to watch, but your deeper problem is just that society is failing to instill confidence in the people that they can support themselves and children.

I looked at some houses, and the Opendoor ones were just sad travesties.

What was likely nice wood grain cabinetry just blasted with paint. Just sprayed on and painted all the doors shut. Same for handrails, which felt horrible to touch. Nice grain patterns replaced with light beige wall paint. Looking deeper, they never fixed anything that I would have considered important, just made things worse with new paint without regard for the thing being painted. I think they were more valuable before they had it screwed over.

Changing a feather to a leaf seems a weird thing to consider harmful. A leaf is supremely uncontroversial and it's not like the feather was somehow core to why anyone should, even in theory, care about the ASF.

I don't know but *suspect* the people that were concerned would have been sufficiently satisfied by removing "Apache" and ignoring the feather, hence my theory that it's probably more reaction than was strictly called for.

I'm not exactly sure about the 'real' problem in this front. In my opinion the closest thing to a 'real' problem is that the foundation hasn't really had a specific meaning in a couple of decades.

I could see HTTP/3 as a bit more of a tricky thing for Apache. Other servers largely declined to have 'in-server' extensions and they get more freedom with how they treat network sockets.

Apache has a lot more things that are implemented as fairly intrusive extensions, and I could imagine a change from TCP to UDP being a more difficult thing to navigate.

If you have need of some of those, HTTP/3 is probably a broader problem for you anyway. If you don't need those extensions, then switching to something like nginx isn't a huge burden, and the default performance in nginx tends to be better than apache except for some of those select extensions.

But the ASF barely cares about Apache. It was the kindling to spark a 'foundation' when 'LAMP' was all the rage, but now it has next to nothing to do with anything they bother to think about and only remains as a residual brand from their heyday of the 90s to early 2000s.

I would wager it was less the feather, and more about doubling down on 'Apache' by adding the feather.

It all started with "hah, it's funny that "A patchy webserver" sounds like "Apache". Then when it actually took off, they retconned it as honoring the Native Americans, despite pretty much being a bunch of white guys with no particular affiliation with the people the name would represent.

I generally think the 'cultural appropriation' sorts of complaints are frequently overblown, but this seems a bit much. Without any context, one would reasonably assume 'The Apache Software Foundation' would have at least something to do with Native American involvement, despite it not being the case.

So I can see that 'ASF' being a compromise makes sense, the feather to leaf however might be an overreaction, but ultimately harmless.

Frankly in general I don't put a whole lot of weight behind ASF nor the LSF as they both got turned into more marketing assets for corps than curating some cohesive software sentiment across a portfolio.

Well, not necessarily that far. If you might possibly ever have any sort of personal data even with no intent to actually do anything sketchy with the data, GPDR compliance is a pain.

But still for good reason, you are making yourself a steward of the data which, by any sane measure, should be a responsibility taken very seriously. If you don't like it, good, you have a strong motivator to actually implement the feature at the edge and do everything to avoid ever collecting the information and avoid retaining it even in the edge device.