Apple's throttling was an undisclosed optimization that was controversial because it was not disclosed. The optimization itself was not controversial. It was not premature either. If the battery's measurable levels (impedance, current, voltage, etc.) fell out of nominal range, then throttling occurred. FWIW I somewhat resent having to 'defend' Apple here, but your narrative frame here has too much speculation for a situation finalized in fact in 2017, almost 10 years ago.

It wasn't an "optimization", it's because aging batteries have unstable voltage and the phone was likely to shut down otherwise.

That is an optimisation for stability of the phone over its lifetime.

How was the US Gov colluding? My recollection of the twitter files was it largely blew out of proportion (for non-tech aligned audiences) that Twitter received tips from CISA regarding misinformation/disinformation and Twitter decided whether to take action on accounts, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.

I work in the television industry, so does my spouse. We both have gotten offers by recruiters from services like this. While this author's experience is hard to relate to in many ways, their description of the economic situation is not far off. There is enormous pain right now in the television industry, particularly for the below the line workers. This stems from a myriad of factors in confluence. A very incomplete list: (1) the ongoing mergers of media companies and the downstream effects this has on decision makers on the buyer/network side of things, (2) the destabilization of television economics due to the long term effects of internet video (streamers and independent content creators alike), (3) a cultural mood shift within the consumer consensus of quality and the downstream effects on a consumer's willingness to participate as a consumer at all. Thats a lot of huge pieces on the board moving in ways that were hard to imagine in the not so distant past.

My point in outlining this is to scratch the surface and paint a picture on the systemic damage to this ecosystem and as a result you have people who have been working in a collaborative video workforce who no longer are able to find work. I've seen probably 75% of my colleagues and peers move on to other pastures, parlaying their skills into other careers, often starting in fields where your entry level positions are typically held by people 10, maybe 20 years younger. And of course, some have it easier than others. The AI training gigs come at an extremely opportune time (for them) and typically offer very tantalizing wages (in the form of an AI generated message from a LinkedIn recruiter who only replies with a link to the company's registration page). And if you're months without work and you use some of that unwanted free time to think introspectively about the offer, its easy to walk away with a sense that, eventually, the right talent will meet the right training method and produce the software package that actually kills your employable skillset. Its a horrible feeling. Its a scary feeling. Its a feeling of being on the wrong side of a window that is in the process of closing.

So while you may find it easy to lose sympathy for this particular writer, I would implore you not to lose sympathy for the broader class within and to not lose sight of where this article sits in context to the bigger story. Without a shadow of a doubt, her experience is the norm within the industry right now. I think it is worthy of recognition because what is happening will come for many other fields/areas of expertise in the future. What you describe as one person's bumbling misadventure rhymes quite a bit with other people's struggle to make ends meet in a rapidly evolving/devolving market.

The TV industry has always been a beast to work in. Is it worse now? Or just a different kind of bad?

It kind of can, but trading futures is trading termed contracts, kind of like options, but a bit stranger (and you can buy options for futures contracts too!) For a retail trader, you definitely are not in a buy and hold/invest mindset. Often people use futures as a hedge or for locking in prices for physical delivery- it serves a very real world problem.

Not a fan of the serif trend in recent years in general, but within your UX it makes content hard to read. I understand the appeal in chasing the premium look for taglines, company name, headers, but a blanket application of it works towards an anti-premium aesthetic, IMO.

Hitting the back button results in the WeSearch modal appearing every time on FF. Makes an otherwise snappy website feel slow.

I'd say venture away from social media functionality. I personally struggle to see a news site with emoji reacts as a serious vendor. The "Hot" label also feels a lot like tiktok's opaque "heating" technique of nudging things to virality. Knowing that this platform is new and seeing the "hot" label suggests an early reddit approach at faking it until you make it. The point: the more I look, the more I go "huh" instead of "cool!"

Finally, in this era of state sponsored disinformation campaigns like the Doppelganger campaign, I personally struggle to trust a platform who's owners/organization are not known, and I say that knowing that part of your product is the anonymous commenting. There is a vibe-codey aesthetic at play here that in combination with the former, I can't engage with the site beyond a short period of cautious observation.

Best of luck to you

Thank you so much i needed to hear this and have workable insights! And I will link my indenity to it once its more protected. But nice to meet you!https://theartofsound.github.io/portfolio/

We have different interpretations of what suicide means

Voluntarily choosing to not spend money in X related orgs ≠ using services that use X related orgs. As a consumer, our options to vote with our dollar is limited, but that doesn't make it pointless. Real life is not binary and the sentiment that one cannot criticize a system which they partake in is a thought terminating cliche. One only needs to ask "for who does this reflexive thought terminating cliche benefit the most" to find the lede.

Thanks for that but it's unrelated to what the OP said which was "I find it unconscionable to do business with someone who would do business with Elon.".

Having an X/Twitter account is doing business with Elon. You could say only paid X accounts qualify for this, but I would imagine most brands have paid accounts.

YCombinator has an X account. I suspect the OP is already asking for his Hacker News account to be deleted.

Why engage at all if you're going to engage like this?

Why post links to sites that harbor communist symbols? It is illegal in much of the Europe.

a platform wide ad hominem? where is your hacker curiosity?

I hate to tell you this, but by saying things like this, you are not much better than the authoritarians/totalitarians you seem to despise.

I do understand where the revulsion comes from, however. My own family, on my mother's side, during WW2, was reduced in size. Four out of every ten were liquidated by the occupying Nazis, and then two out of every ten (or one out of every three, if you adjust the denominator) were liquidated by the triumphant communists (to say nothing of battlefield deaths in-between, and the blanket dispossession that those left alive experienced).

That said, I do think that ideas and ideologies should be evaluated on their own merits, and should not be reactively shunned, because of an atrocity that happened generations ago. The reality, is that good ideas get hijacked and used by opportunists to benefit themselves at the expense of their neighbors. By being so vehemently against an _idea_, you create new opportunities for these kinds of pathological opportunists -- you create an entirely new category of scapegoats, whose pleas and screams and tears you can ignore, while they get dragged away, and separated from their homes and their families and their friends.

I'm not saying that you should cuddle up next to a communist, but I am saying that you should evaluate all people and communities in a nuanced and thoughtful way, befitting a member of _this_ community of absolute oddballs.

co-opted? The last paragraph of the article suggests this was quite literally the artist's goal:

> “One of the reasons Joe is so insistent that every single building is here is because he would never want someone to come and see it and not be able to find where they live and see their story,” Sherman tells Artnet.

Its not like they broke into his shop and shared his model with the world before he could, it is currently an exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York.

Nor is it nonsense to acknowledge how cool it is to recognize your own building or that he was able to accomplish the project without expensive materials. Spew is also quite the verb to use. What an all-around unpleasant comment.

> I'm not saying they did. I'm saying what they said was a load of rubbish.

I disagree. Employees often take some form of "ownership" over their buildings, especially in long term and public education facing facilities like museums. It isn't difficult to understand why they said "there is our museum". Human language connotes ideas as often as it does specifics, and there is nothing rubbish about that.

As others said: practice. Practice outside pixel art too. Pixel art can be compared to haikus: a set of restrictions which makes every artistic decision more influential than an oil painting on canvas or a 200 page novel. Learning on hard mode is not always the right path.