> Also it is still so surreal to me to see prestigious publications like the New Yorker talking about 4chan.

It's happened now and again. And lesser publications love to talk about "hacker group Anonymous."

OSX makes it easy to write em-dashes. It's much more annoying on Windows. I wonder if more innocuous assistants like Grammarly also insert them?

Ditto the directional "smart quotes", OSX inserts them by default (and sometimes breaks stuff like pasting json into Slack).

There certainly are a lot of them in the article.

Yes, super easy. Just shift-option-dash. But I wouldn't do it as people will just assume you're using an AI.

Smart quotes? I hardly even remember that. I turn that off immediately, along with automatic spell checks (which are a headache if you switch between languages).

Tobacco advertisement is banned or heavily regulated in most of the world (including the U.S.).

Free speech has a couple dozen exceptions like libel, incitement to violence, etc. And besides, it's not clear how it applies to corporations.

"Free" gifts for influencers typically need to be disclosed. Otherwise it's just payola.

Arguments like "policing the boundaries" can be applied to a lot of existing laws, so it's not particularly useful.

> In our information-saturated world, ads manipulate, but they don't inform" is an evidence-free assertion.

What information are you getting from a clip of a polar bear drinking a coke?

> As for beef, maybe once in awhile, but feeding a 1,200+ pound animal enough antibiotics for months to increase its weight that extra 5% is going to cost you nearly as much as the entire animal is worth.

Is this true? I can't find any source for this claim, just some old papers that suggest the number is closer to 30%, and various government sites that imply the practice is still in place around the world.

Im sure there are a few places in India and China that still do it where alfalfa is expensive while antibiotics cost pennies. But it certainly isn't happening in the US where growing grass is as close to free as anything gets but antibiotics cost a decent amount of money. A 800 pound cow is only worth around $250 pounds to a farmer, so even a 30% increase, which is far beyond optimistic, is at best going to net you $75 extra, which is not going to cover the many months worth of antibiotics it took to dose an animal that large.

In the linked article, Hejlsberg considers adding a new checked exception a breaking change (true), but adding a new thrown exception to not be, because "in a lot of cases, people don't care." I think this is obviously open to debate.

You're conflating "incorrect" with "mistake," no one is saying the C# team forgot to add checked exceptions.

Crates were in TF2 (and in some MMOs before that), but I think you can more readily blame Overwatch for that one. And paid levelling was a KMMO staple long before. But I can't argue about the DotA2 battle passes, or the expensive hats/stat-track weapons.

Some quick googling: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/06/is-the-total-value-of...

Anecdotally, myself and most of my friends are in this boat, with very large "piles of shame." Humble Bundles tend to contribute greatly to this.

Right but 30%-60% is very different than 99%. Users paying 2x for games, not 100x.

> throw Waltz to the wolves.

Except they forgot to actually throw him to the wolves? Or will that come later somehow?

Do you have some required reading to share here? As I remember it, the body of knowledge on economy is that tarriffs are good for collecting revenue, but bad for economic growth.

What is the phase called? What is this amputation and what spreading is it stopping?

But even if this works. How is the best outcome achieved for the USA? Take phones for example. Today, Apple design phones in the USA and has them manufactured outside the USA by low wage workers. If the phone costs $1000. That price is the sum of production costs and profits (and other things, but those are negligible for this discussion).

If the production cost portion increases, because of tariffs, then Apple either has to take less profit (shareholders unhappy) or increase the cost of the phone (shareholders happy).

If the tariffs are increased enough, Apple could be forced to move production to the USA. But this only happens if the workers in the USA are willing to work the same wages as external production. If USA workers cost more than external production, then again, Apple loses profit or raises prices.

Am I missing something? Unless USA workers are willing to work for wages as external production (give or take the tariff amount), then this simply doesn't work.

There’s one scenario: if there’s room for more automation, manufacturers might have fewer high-wage workers at a more automated plant. The problem with that theory is that it doesn’t work if the task can’t be cheaply automated (much textile manufacturing falls into this category) or if it’s already being automated. I would be surprised if Apple has that much untapped room for automation but other companies might be able to match costs that way.

It is the best outcome by preventing an even worse outcome, not for the worker of course, for the corporations and the US economy in general.

What is that agenda?

To go down in history as this great figure who increased American territory and the power of the executive branch while making America this economic giant that doesn't depend on the global economy, because he thinks economic policies still work like they did in the 19th century.

To have as much fun as he can in his final years.

He's most entertained by messing up anything good he runs into.

I know he's a very different person with very different interests, but I can think of little worse than spending ANY years having to put on a suit and makeup every single day.