I have argued with web editors about this. Most articles doesn't need an image. Period. The only need for the image is where the articles are listed and articles with interesting images are more likely to be clicked on. Finding good relevant pictures is hard, because they usually add nothing.
I remember reading somewhere that reading a text with an unfamiliar font face you spend more time reading it, so you're using more cognitive load and are more likely to understand the text. Which might suggest it is just the novelty impacting the reading and not the font face itself.
All it does is styling the table, so yes. Also there isn't any better way to present data from charts than tables, for screen readers, as far as I know.
I also only use the code completion. I recently started using the Continue extension in VSCode running local models. They get the job done and it's free.
You're not entirely wrong. React is maintained by Meta and Vercel. There is also a divide in React at the moment, like Python 2 and 3, between server first and client first. Next.js is the "official" way to do server first React.
The fear is trade war (rising prices to extortion levels), blockades of network traffic (holding data hostage) and war (which leads to sabotage, manipulation and destruction of data).
What they don't mention is that some of their data centers are delivered by Equinix, an American company, so it doesn't matter that it is in Finland (same with Sweden and Poland). It is inherently insecure if you are trying to get away from USA.
Your argument oversimplifies the issue and ignores critical nuances. While it's true that Equinix is a US-based company, the physical ___location of the data centers and the legal jurisdiction they operate under matter significantly. A data center in Finland, Sweden, or Poland falls under EU regulations, including the GDPR and local data protection laws, which impose strict requirements on data handling.
Equinix may provide the infrastructure, but US intelligence agencies can’t simply access data in these jurisdictions, unlike in the US, where providers are directly subject to laws like the CLOUD Act.
Even if we assume hypothetical US access to the hardware, modern encryption can somewhat ensure that raw data remains protected. The real risk isn’t just physical access—it’s legal and architectural control. A European provider using strong encryption and operating under EU law still offers far better privacy guarantees than a US-based alternative.
If your threat model includes avoiding US influence entirely, then yes, you might want a provider with no US ties whatsoever. But for most users, especially those seeking GDPR-compliant hosting, a European provider using Equinix infrastructure is still a meaningful step up from hosting directly with a US provider. Dismissing it as "inherently insecure" is unhelpful and disregards the real-world protections offered by EU jurisdiction and encryption.
The goal isn’t perfection but practical improvement. If you have better alternatives, share them constructively instead of undermining efforts to move away from US-dominated cloud services.
Equinix only provide the physical space and power, and things can be set up with them not even having physical access to your room/cage, other than forcing it (which would be visible). While they could be an attack vector, with modern hardware even having physical access is not a guarantee to having access to the data (TPM2 and disk encryption are trivial to set up).
It's not about not liking Trump. The fear is that the trade war against Europe might make it so expensive everyone has to switch to a non-American service. This is a way to be prepared for that. There is also the fear if USA goes to an actual war against Europe, then it is not safe to use any american technology that phones home.
