Torvalds is a Swedish-speaking Finn.

~90% of the plastic debris in the ocean comes from ten rivers [0]. eight are in china/SEA. millions and billions of single-use items are sitting in warehouses and on store shelves wrapped in plastic. even before the plastic is discarded, the factories these items are produced in dump metric tons of waste into the oceans/soil with little repercussion.

point is, none of our "personal lifestyle decisions" - not eating meat, not mining bitcoin, not using chatgpt, not driving cars - are a drop in the bucket compared to standard practice overseas manufacturing.

us privileged folks could "just boycott", "buy renewable", "vote with your wallet", etc, but sales will move to a less developed area and the pollution will continue. this is not to say that the environment isn't important - it's critically important. it's just to say that until corporations are forced to do things the right way, it's ludicrous to point fingers at each other and worry that what we do day-to-day is destroying the planet.

[0] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368

I see absolutely no problem with this. Look, I love music, listening to an album through, learning about artists, etc.

But sometimes, I want to put something on in the background that doesn't call attention to itself, but just sets a mood. I don't want Brian Eno or Miles Davis because then I'd be paying attention -- I just want "filler".

And I have absolutely no problem with Spotify partnering with companies to produce that music, at a lower cost to Spotify, and seeding that in their own playlists. If the musicians are getting paid by the hour rather than by the stream, that's still a good gig when you consider that they don't have to do 99% of the rest of the work usually involved in producing and marketing an album only to have nobody listen to it.

The article argues that this is "stealing" from "normal" artists, but that's absurd. Artists don't have some kind of right to be featured on Spotify's playlists. This is more like a supermarket featuring their store-brand corn flakes next to Kellogg's Corn Flakes. The supermarket isn't stealing from Kellogg's. Consumers can still choose what they want to listen to. And if they want to listen to some background ambient music that is lower cost for Spotify, that's just the market working.

yeah even playing with the preview and using the sliders it's super slow apart from that it's amazing! Do some work on the perf pls.

You can also just prepend arxiv.link to the url:

https://arxiv.link/https://dailymirror.co.za/2021/05/11/the-...

Why is it that cameras automatically add metadata to photos, anyway? If I go to buy a camera, what I expect it to do is take photos and that's it, not to add some data to the photos without asking me.

> The form cannot be submitted until the user fixes the error, so the server shouldn’t receive an excessively long text or password (a server-side validation has to be put in place anyway.) However, this could potentially affect a front-end implementation if it expects the entered text never to exceed maxlength.

What century are Mozilla living in? Most, even simple forms, don't use <form> elements and submit buttons anymore, they're all aJax. Therefore this workaround will be commonly bypassed.

People can debate if this is a good or bad thing, but ultimately the problem remains: This change will cause unexpected behavior when maxlength-ed stuff no longer obeys on thousands of popular websites.

Even if sites check it server-side, that doesn't mean the user experience isn't substantially degraded relative to obeying HTML standards.

Their justification for this change is nonsensical too:

> This change mainly aims at preventing an unexpectedly truncated password from being saved.

So why not limit it to input type=password? Heck why include textareas in this change, who is using a textarea for a password box?!