In some sense, "no one wants to be advertised to" is similar to "no one wants to pay for stuff". Like yeah it'd be nice if my groceries were free, but that's not very realistic, the grocery store would just close if they had to give everything away. Advertising is similar - a cost we pay so that websites can make some money in exchange for their services. Most ad supported websites would just disappear without them.
In some sense I agree but there is a fundamental difference. I pay for my groceries because I have the fundamental need for sustenance, and that requires land and toil. I have neither and therefore I pay someone else; but for me to survive it is necessary that _someone_ perform that work.
My need for websites is much less predominant and really I could live without. So of course I bounce when mildly interesting websites ask to host cookies on my browser or want me to create an account and enter my card details.
If one considers maximizing utility the goal of economic science, then this is in fact good, as it redirects me to more useful venues like doing chores I'd been putting off instead of mindlessly scrolling online. Some metrics such as GDP however might suffer.
Yeah, this article says the 2023 price of a new Model Y was $48k, and then in 2024 it was worth only $33k used.
But in 2024 I bought a brand new Model Y for about $33k, after factoring in all the incentives/rebates. So if anything that $33k used price sounds high.
Reality is, prices came down a lot, and also depending on how incentives/rebates are factored in, the "sale price" might be fiction.
Same with other brands too. Back then you saw some companies like Hyundai claiming their EVs were really worth like $60k MSRP, and then turning around and leasing them for $300/month with $0 down. In some states people were leasing brand new EVs for $100/month with $0 down, or less.
Now with the federal rebate gone and states removing at least some of their incentives, the numbers might start to look a little more normal.
In NJ it goes further and the poorest towns have much better funded schools than average. Been that way for decades. Zuckerberg even gave us an extra $100 million just for fun. None of it has affected the disparity in outcomes.
Also, I attended a university in Newark NJ. Our city campus was adjacent to a Newark public high school. If you walked on the nearby sidewalk, you had to watch out for items being thrown out of the upper story high school class rooms, such as chairs and even desks. So I assume the teachers at that school had their hands full.
A friend's son just started as a teacher in a middle school in a low income district in NJ. On back to school night, for one of his classes, not one parent showed up. So, yeah, the outcomes are dependent on more than money.
It says "popular mobile and desktop browsers" but doesn't include the most popular desktop browser, Chrome? I know it has Chrome for Android, but desktop Chrome supports some extra stuff (Shared Workers, File System Access API) which makes it basically the best browser for PWAs. Feels like that level of popularity and quality should be represented somewhere.
Biggest problem for me as a PWA dev is how eager mobile browsers are to delete your local data, which is not part of this scorecard. I guess that's tricky to quantify, but basically they all suck but Safari sucks more.
If they were for some reason doing `npm install` rather than `npm ci`, then `npm install` does update packages in the lock file. Personally I always found that confusing, and yarn/pnpm don't behave that way. I think most people do `npm ci` in CI, unless they are using CI to specifically test if `npm install` still works, which I guess maybe would be a good idea if you use npm since it doesn't like obeying the lock file.
How does this get repeated over and over, when it's simply not true? At least not anymore. npm install will only update the lockfile if you make changes to your package.json. Otherwise, it will install the versions from the lockfile.
> How does this get repeated over and over, when it's simply not true?
Well, for one, the behavior is somewhat insane.
`npm install` with no additional arguments does update the lockfile if your package.json and your lockfile are out of sync with one another for any reason, and so to get a guarantee that it doesn't change your lockfile, you must do additional configuration or guarantee by some external mechanism that you don't ever have an out of date package.json and lock. For this reason alone, the advice of "just don't use npm install, use npm ci instead" is still extremely valid, you'd really like this to fail fast if you get out of sync.
`npm install additional-package` also updates your lock file. Other package managers distinguish these two operations, with the one to add a new dependency being called "add" instead of "install".
The docs add to the confusion. https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v11/commands/npm-install#save suggests that writing to package-lock.json is the default and you need to change configuration to disable it. The notion that it won't change your lock file if you're already in sync between package.json and package-lock.json is not actually spelled out clearly anywhere on the page.
> You've partially answered your own question here.
Is that the case? If it were ever true (outside of outright bugs in npm), it must have been many many years and major npm releases ago. So that doesn't justify brigading outdated information.
I mean, it's my #1 experience using npm. I never once have used `npm install` and had a result other than it changing the lockfile. Maybe you want to blame this on the tools I used, but I followed the exact installation instructions of the project I was working on. If it's that common to get it "wrong", it's the tool that is wrong.
My bad, it really annoyed me when npm stopped respecting lockfiles years ago so I stopped using it. That's great news that they eventually changed their mind.
However in rare cases where I am forced to use it to contribute to some npm-using project, I have noticed that the lockfile often gets updated and I get a huge diff even though I didn't edit the dependencies. So I've always assumed that was the same issue with npm ignoring the lockfile, but maybe it's some other issue? idk
Well there are other lockfile updates as well, which aren't dependency version changes either. e.g. if the lockfile was created with an older npm version, running npm install with a newer npm version might upgrade it to a newer lockfile format and thus result in huge diffs. But that wouldn't change anything about the versions used for your dependencies.
Yes. As someone who's using npm install daily, and given the update cadence of npm packages, I would end up with dirty lock files very frequently if the parent statement were true. It just doesn't happen.
I can't imagine that a book written by a misogynistic author with explicit themes of female submission to male authority obtained by use or threats of physical violence would be particularly appealing to women in general
Note the phrase “sweet and steamy” from the subtitle of the very book you link. Tyrant had sexual content, yes - sweetness, steaminess and romance? Not really
Edit: the subtext I’m speaking of is of submission and domination through implicit or explicit coercion. I’m not speaking of sub/dom with connotations of mutual enjoyment and consent, as can be the case in real or fictional situations of romance in general or even specific kinks like BDSM. I may be called sexist for this but my perception is that women can and do enjoy the latter (as the popularity of books like you linked imply) and greatly dislike the former
You could block only ads from Google and Meta. Most large sites use header bidding, where Google's ads are a fallback only if no other ad company bids higher, so most ad revenue come from those other companies. And IIRC Meta doesn't participate in that at all, so for them you'd just have to block ads on their own sites.
Here in NJ a lot of people are complaining about electricity price increases. Upon looking into it, it seems that the reason is mostly a combination of population growth, shutting down old power plants, and not building enough new power plants.
Most people seem to blame price gouging from the electricity companies, but the electricity companies seem to be extremely tightly regulated and don't have much wiggle room with how they set their prices.
Haven't heard much talk about actually solving the problem and building more power plants, so probably we're going to see more articles like this in the future.
>Most people seem to blame price gouging from the electricity companies,
True or false: PSEG's annual profit every year for the last five years at a rate that greatly exceeds inflation while expenses are practically flat.
Their stock symbol is PEG, bee-tee-dubs.
There are very few theories of business and/or economics where profits increase while costs are steady where prices don't increase.
Are they (hold on a sec while I compose myself so I don't type a long string of obscenities) using that money to improve their service and keep rates steady or are they funneling everyone's money into the pockets of their investors and begging the state for free cash to maintain their infrastructure like they're some broke-ass bitches?
Only morons accuse NJ/NY utilities of price gouging. Both states heavily regulate their utilities. Utilities may get large rate increases approved, but it's after they submit substantial evidence of their finances for the next year. The profit margins are basically state controlled.
Regulatory control of margins just incentivizes companies to find loopholes.
Look at all the bullshit that passes for business as usual with Florida utilities -- political campaign donations, self-dealing, constructed overbilling by related subsidiaries, etc.
> There are very few theories of business and/or economics where profits increase while costs are steady where prices don't increase.
There is a very specific and relevant one: The one in which supply is inelastic. In other words, the one in which it's hard to build new power plants.
When that happens, the cost of operating existing power plants hasn't changed, but demand goes up. In normal economics, demand going up causes the price (and therefore profit) to go up, which in turn attracts more suppliers that increase supply and mitigate the amount the price can increase.
If the supply can't go up then price does. That's econ 101 and it's happening just as it's expected to -- it's simply what happens if you make it hard to increase supply.
Are you referring to PEG stock price or actual profit? Because their profits growth hasn’t really “greatly exceeded” inflation. Here is the last 30 years of profits[1] (you can change it to YoY to see how much their growth over the last 5 years is). They in fact posted a loss in 2021 and under performed 2022. They shot up in 2023 and then down to pre-pandemic levels in 2024.
They are not what I’d call a profitable company. I think their stock is reflecting the AI bubble as plenty of people are speculating on power companies
Yeah public utilities can rarely price gouge. They have to get government approval for their rates.
If "AI Datacenters" are part of the problem the answer is simple, charge them higer rates, high enough to motivate them to build their own generating capacity.
> They have to get government approval for their rates.
We need laws that prevent government employees from directly or indirectly investing in utilities.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System for example directly holds over 6.4 million shares of PG&E, and an additional 52 million shares via intermediaries.
> We need laws that prevent government employees from directly or indirectly investing in utilities.
> The California Public Employees' Retirement System for example directly holds over 6.4 million shares of PG&E, and an additional 52 million shares via intermediaries.
This seems.... good?
Put it like this - would you prefer public employee's retirement scheme did Nnot hold shares in it?
I'm guessing the argument would be whether that gives PG&E the right incentives or oversight.
I don't think it would seem good If the government were inclined to favor PG&E over consumers because "it's better for government employees", for example.
The electric company that sends you a bill handles distribution (power lines within your city) not generation (power plants). Sometimes they are vertically integrated owning both generation and distribution. In de-regulated supplier choice states you can switch your generation provider. You cannot switch your distribution provider as each address only has one power line.
I thought about the providers that are closing down power plants right now. But just out of interest who exactly is the "government" in arguments like this? Because no matter which party is controlling the government the sentiment never seems to change... always seemed like an of remark with no meaning besides yelling at clouds.
>Because no matter which party is controlling the government the sentiment never seems to change... always seemed like an of remark with no meaning besides yelling at clouds.
There are certain folks who, regardless of the issue, never fail to roll up their metaphorical newspaper, brandish it and hiss, "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!".
It's almost pavlovian. While some of those folks are likely sociopathic ancaps[0], the vast majority are just willfully ignorant people whose marionette strings are being pulled by the cynical scumbags intent on enriching themselves and the rest of the world be damned!
