I suspect that it's more also difficult to travel with exposed blades than with modern cartridges; both due to the ease of packing and due to security hassles.
Personally I started shaving using an electric razor, switched to a double edged razor, and then eventually switched to a modern razor.
I've actually found it to be the opposite in my case, after having used a double-edge safety razor for almost 7 years. When I use the DE razor, I know exactly where the blade is and it gives me greater control if I need to go over a spot again that I missed. With the disposable razor, I've always found it difficult to tell where the blades are on my skin, which makes me prone to errors. The multiple blades in sequence also make it much more nick-prone when going against the grain for a closer shave, or as in the missed-spot scenario I just mentioned.
But yes, you're right - it's basically impossible to travel with a DE razor without a checked bag. Even just carrying the handle without the blade in your carry-on is a risk. I have an acquaintance who lost his DE handle to a TSA agent that wasn't interested in understanding that the handle by itself poses no more risk than a toothbrush. So, if I'm flying, I'll suffer with the disposable razor and never shave against the grain.
I saw similar statements elsewhere[1]:
> A 2020 study in the scientific journal PLOS One analyzed economic data from over 3,500 Chinese adults and found that every additional centimeter of height was correlated with a 1.3% increase in a person's annual income.
And in another place[2], a 1984–2005 study:
> Results at mean values for males indicate that being 10 cm taller is associated with (...) a $1874–2306 income premium
Fingers crossed for remote work bringing some sort of equalizer effect here.
[1]: https://www.salon.com/2023/01/19/shorter-height-lower-salari...
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15706...
I work at a fully-remote company, and my org had a meetup soon after I first started working here. I was surprised to see how many of the people I work with seemed to be below average height. I've never really done anything to verify it, but I have a hunch based on that anecdata that the median height at my fully-remote company might be lower than the median height of the US population and/or lower than the median height at similarly-sized enterprises that have in-person hiring and work.
That's not to say this can't be fixed: a recurring lesson of LLMs is that the quality of the training data is /everything/. OpenAI made their models better at chess by feeding in higher quality chess data - they could absolutely make it better at accessible frontend code by curating and boosting better code examples.
I doubt they'll do that any time soon, purely because there are so many other training data projects they could take on.
Thankfully we aren't nearly as dependent on a few closed research labs as we used to be.
It would be very exciting to see fine-tuned openly licensed models that target exactly this kind of improvement.
100%, and this is why Copilot is damn-near unusable for Bash scripting (yeah, the real problem is Bash scripting, use a better scripting language etc etc, but I do it, you've probably done it, and we've all definitely worked with codebases with Bash script linchpins) - there's a lot of bad Bash out there.
I think my puzzlement is with the focus on accessibility as though it was a high priority item. In my experience it's usually an afterthought, if it's a thought at all. Personally I've never worked on a codebase where accessibility was in the top 5 priorities. No one would ever block a prod release for an accessibility mistake.
But like I said, you could take this whole argument, find+replace "accessibility" with "security" and you would have a much more compelling argument imo. Given time constraints, code should prioritize security over accessibility basically always.
> Like anything else big and important in life, Accessibility has an evil twin who, jilted by the unbalanced affection displayed by their parents in their youth, has grown into an equally powerful Arch-Nemesis (yes, there's more than one nemesis to accessibility) named Security. And boy howdy are the two ever at odds.
> But I'll argue that Accessibility is actually more important than Security because dialing Accessibility to zero means you have no product at all, whereas dialing Security to zero can still get you a reasonably successful product such as the Playstation Network.
I'm fully aware that I'm commenting with a drive-by facetious block quote, but it is a reality that "insecure but accessible" has more users than "secure but inaccessible".
If you weren't a fan of big name teams you'd inevitably find with your team: coaches mentioned who weren't there anymore, players who weren't there anymore, and various outdated factoids / concerns thrown in. Some "concerns" almost felt like an AI trained on fan forums where issues fans had, but had no place in reality were raised, with even local fan forum lingo tossed in ...
If it was a person, or a script that generated content that got doctored by a person I don't know, but the patter was very clear.