bjorney

I was like you, until my mid-30s hit

Now buffalo wings will have me waking up at 3am with acid reflux even though I didn’t even register spice while I was eating them 6 hours earlier

“[…] In exchange for a waiver of fees accrued since 2023”

Sounds like Oracle got them with the good 'ol “buy an even bigger license or we’ll sue you”

There are low powered FM transmitters you can get for your car

FM transmitter plugs into cigarette lighter for power

iPod connects to FM transmitter via AUX cord

You tune your cars radio to whatever frequency the transmitter is set to, and it plays whatever your iPod is playing

It’s the best time I’ve had with a game since BG3 - gameplay is ‘just’ good, but the story and design are next level

> want to compile 50kb C++ console app on windows

> 6 GB MSVC installation

Half of them haven’t been active in 2025, and the first active member i clicked on’s commit history is “fixed a typo on the website” once this year, and once 6 months ago

It’s a shit metric because people spam OSS repos with “minor text fixes” pull requests so they can slap “inkscape contributor” on their CV.

We’re at a point where it’s no longer profitable for individual miners

We have been at that point since GPU mining stopped being feasible in 2014, it’s just gotten worse. ASICs made it so the only people who could profit off mining were people who could place a wholesale sized order of hardware from bitmain, etc. Anyone else who claimed to be mining profitably was likely someone who was:

1. buying old hardware 2nd hand (or new hardware at MSRP) and capitalizing on free electricity in their rental
2. not selling their Bitcoin immediately (they weren’t making money from mining, they were making it from speculating)
3. lived in Quebec and could double dip (North America’s cheapest grid + free heating for 8 months of the year)

unless there’s a radical change in bitcoin’s algorithm

The algorithm already does this though. Every 2016 blocks if it took more than 10 minutes per block, the difficulty of mining bitcoin goes down, not up. This is why every halving event you see a radical drop in difficulty, because at a given kWh you are producing half as many bitcoin - meaning people turned off their miners because it’s less profitable. The flipside is the rate of issuance goes down, so there is a lower inflationary effect, and the price of Bitcoin usually also skyrockets (which means eventually these miners re-enter, and difficulty eventually goes back to where it was). It can never get to a point where Bitcoin mining is completely unprofitable unless the price goes to zero, because there will always be a guy with a solar panel and fully paid-off hardware who can mine it for free. Granted, it can get to a point where a lot of people have to take a huge loss on capital expenditures if the price nosedives and never recovers

Miners like Riot Blockchain are operating at a loss

I’m not a finance wizard, but I peeked at their last SEC filing, and first 3 quarters of 2024 they posted a 35m operating loss, but added almost 900m worth of assets to their balance sheet (mostly Bitcoin), which to me tells a very different story

The quote is actually from the article this one paraphrased and linked to, while leaving out all of the actual, you know, information

New data tells us that mining a single Bitcoin or one BTC costs the largest public mining companies over $82,000 USD, which is nearly double the figure it did the previous quarter. Estimates for smaller organisations say you need to spend about $137,000 to get that single BTC in return. BTC is currently only valued at $94,703 USD, which seems to be a problem in the math department.

Bitcoin mining will always be profitable for the people with the cheapest electricity and largest economies of scale. There is a difficulty adjustment algorithm in the protocol that ensures this. When the price tanks people turn off thier miners, difficulty adjusts downwards, and then it takes less electricity to find a block.

tl;dr title is wrong

It’s Google analytics, and the meta/twitter/etc tracking pixels. Almost every site uses them because they provide useful data to the site owner and they are free.

the images in OPs post appear to be designed to match their site theme, meaning umatrix wouldn’t even block them, because they are being served from the sites actual domain/CDN and not from Facebook/Google’s tracking domain.

The buttons don’t do any tracking just from existing. They only exist to encourage a miniscule number of people to repost your content on social media, and in the event a share comes from that, they may include affiliate info

All the useful information comes from the tracking scripts, which developers are also placing themselves because they are infinitely more useful. They tell you where visitors are coming from, how/if they are converting, everything they are viewing/interacting with on your site, and what the ROI of your ad spend is. In addition to telling you if someone clicked the share button.

Tracking pixels have been decoupled from the “share” buttons for at least 10-15 years

Just loading the “share” icon from the social media website allows them to see that you are reading that specific article

The buttons aren’t necessary for this though. They can do that with a <script> tag, or a hidden 1x1 pixel <img>

Sounds like a prank I would have pulled on a roommate back in college (e.g. change desktop background to a screenshot of desktop, and then delete all the shortcuts)

Not an American, but basically decide how much risk you want to take on - then depending on that answer set aside money (0-40%) for safe investments - things like bonds (guaranteed returns) or potentially gold (lower volatility). The rest goes into a 80/20 (or 60/40, or 90/10, no one can say what’s best) split between domestic and international index funds. Things like the S&P500, Dow, and US whole market index, and then some into EU, Asia/Oceana, and emerging market index funds.

You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn’t the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it’s that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn’t

If I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.

Cool, but that isn’t what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns “personal politics” - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment ‘resubmit in passive voice’, but he didn’t. Clearly the problem wasn’t the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of ‘Fix some minor ESL grammar issues’, it was accepted with no discussion

As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It’s more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It’s why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of ‘doing things’.

If goes against established norms here

What’s the established norm here. All people compiling software by source are male?

he said politically motivated changes aren’t welcome

What’s politically motivated about changing “he” to “they”. As you said, gender doesn’t apply here, so the neutral word is literally preferable.

Yes, I’m sure that PR would have been accepted instead /s

But you’re right, it doesn’t matter at all, the reasonable thing to do would have been for the guy to spend 3 seconds clicking the accept and merge button, or 6 seconds making your change. instead he wrote a comment stating that inclusive language has no place in his project

https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecomment-830793992

Really?

This screams “women not wanted” to me