They're limiting it in software then disabling the limit on first use.

Forever watching people reinvent CSS classes for no reason. (I appreciate that this article actually does show doing it with classes, but it's still grating to me that these "frameworks" just keep reinventing style="...")

This was written by ai, right?

Reduce is harder to read. Maps and filters are deeply simple. The problem space a reduce can solve is, I'm pretty sure, strictly larger than both of them. Its generality is its downfall.

I'll happily use a reduce, but it has to be either as a well named function or immediately stored in a well named variable. If the reduce is complex enough that you can't name it, that's a smell to me, reach for a different tool.

tldr: you don't, but you might think you do

I think BP popularized the idea in order to allow people to blame each other instead of the real perpetrators, people who knew they were destroying the planet decades ago and engaged in a well documented and persistent campaign to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt in any movement that would halt their crimes.

The idea of a carbon footprint was a gift from heaven for them as, under the weight of overwhelming evidence, they stopped being able to fight the idea that it was happening. Now they had to convince us all that the most ineffective possible strategy was the truth. Not only does the idea of personal responsibility for structural evils blind us to better strategies, it also conveniently polarises the issue, making people feel judged and pushing them away from the actual truth that climate change is very real, very deadly, and extraordinarily solvable with structural change.

I would have preferred we had the global political will to solve it decades ago by having a plan to ban the use of fossil fuels over a reasonable period (or some such), but we're well past that world, and I now have hope that the economics of renewables will force the world's hand, as they're simply a cheaper option and continually getting moreso. That is to say I would have preferred the structural change be by the will of the people, but it seems it will have to be by the will of capital.

Whilst they didn't invent it, BP put a lot of money into popularising the idea of a carbon footprint. It is a lie of a concept that blames the powerless for the actions of the powerful.

Do what you can to fight climate change, do what you can to reduce your emissions, but actions that can influence policy are a thousand times more important than any amount of reduction you can make in your own carbon footprint.

A shower that takes cold water from the mains and heats it with electricity. Common as muck in the UK.

If it's an electric shower, you can do what a salamander pump does and add some detection wires on the shower box's on-switch. I appreciate you don't want wires around the shower but it's a fully direct "is the shower on" detector and the wires are technically in the shower rather than around it.

Today's episode of "let's correlate two things that obviously just correlate with lacking money"

Yes, then. This has slop vibes all over it.

Link the actual paper as published in a peer reviewed journal.

Is that graph AI generated?

I wish journalists would include stuff like this (because it is sadly often left out of research, particularly when people have an agenda).

Does this study account for the obvious: poor people eat more UPFs and are more depressed?

Zoe Saldana

IIRC, third cousin is pretty close, n times removed is just generation gap. I mean it makes little difference, genetically, but being that close to a royal within written history is probably a good indication of generational wealth.

Seems to be polynomial growth, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

Which makes more sense, but still; a 44 tonne lorry is doing 44^4 times as much damage as a 1 tonne car, which is 3.7 million times as much.

I assume the exponential doesn't hold up for some reason, maybe because of the amount of wheels they have. Otherwise it would seem that an LGV (maximum weight to cross borders in the EU is 44tonnes), would deal 16^44 times as much damage as a normal car, which is a large enough ratio that I think it would be safe to say that either the road would be immediately obliterated under any vehicle of that weight or normal cars do so little damage that it would be misleading to represent it as anything other than zero.

To be clear: I'm not trying to say you're wrong. There's another option for the growth rate, given the two data points given, that probably makes more sense. I just found it amusing to entertain the thought and go through the process.

Given how much heavier freight vehicles are than any passenger car, what percentage of road damage do they cause, given the damage seems to grow at O(n^16) ?

IIRC, their existing stuff is a white labelled mullvad, which is based in Sweden and, as far as I know, generally considered a good or even the best VPN for privacy.