It's a good question. One thing I can think of is that drones can accurately use a pre-determined map of which areas need how much of an input, in a way that would be really difficult for a human on the ground to do.
Local, small-scale food production used to be the only way food was produced - people didn't eat better then, and there were many, many fewer people to feed.
There's huge variability in what can be grown where, especially if you want to reduce the amount and number of inputs that are imported from further afield. There are places that can support all the crops and livestock that provide a healthy, balanced, and sustainable human diet, but not everywhere can. What if you want to eat flour in a place where grain crops aren't tenable, or butter where cows, sheep and goats don't do well?
Producing food this way also means that we need to build houses on fertile land that's good for growing things. That happens a _lot_ where I live, and I hate the site of previously productive soil disappearing under concrete house-slabs.
Agreed. You could make a very useful 404 page with the list of candidate URLs being used to do the redirect: It's exactly the thing you want to display in a "Did you mean x?" message on that page.
I had the same thought - an off the shelf double-paned window module would be great, otherwise a homebrewed version with two panes and a partial-vacuum pumped out between them.
Agree 100%. There's _so_ much additional information that human faces provide outside of the spoken language. It's often hard to interpret, especially over a video call, but turning that channel off completely is definitely a loss of signal.
I'd much rather develop my use and interpretation of facial expressions than ignore them.
Absolutely. This is the "ratchet effect" which is everywhere in software these days. The best you can do is defer clicking the ratchet forward for a while. You can't avoid it forever, and you can't ever turn it backwards.
Presumably they pay rent in those malls, and the bigger the store, the more rent they pay. The problem with that arrangement is that you need to be at a certain minimum scale in order to afford rent at all - you can't just occupy a free/basically free store to play around and make toys in. Taking a commission avoids that issue by making 'rent' scale with the amount of business you do, not how much floor space you need.
I'm not saying that 30% is the right amount - I really don't know. But the mall comparison doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry case to me at all.
Different domains, too: it comes up frequently in my - admittedly limited - experience with woodworking: _"Don't cut it 'til you need to cut it!"_.
There are some one-way doors (cutting a long piece of timber), or doors that inflict a big cost if you back-track through them (gluing a precisely cut joint), and you're well served by minimizing them and planning your operations to make sure those ones safe.
So, you 'sneak up' on a cut line incrementally rather than cut directly to it, allowing you to check fit as you go and ensure your final, precise cut is removing not a big, clumsy chunk but a tiny controllable shaving.
The key difference between tailwind and something like Pico is the semantics. Tailwind (AFAIK) totally divorces semantics and styles, so you as the dev have to apply everything. Pico aims to use as much of the HTML's semantics as possible, so you have to apply less yourself.
Personally, I love the semantic value of a well-structured HTML document, but both approaches definitely have their advantages.
Bootstrap and Bulma are both based on SCSS still - it's as popular as it's ever been (though I still cling to my beloved classic SASS syntax, it's not very popular at all).
This proposal seems to make the assumption that senders need their incentives adjusted - you need to pay some amount to send someone a message.
I can't see anything that stops a perverse incentive being created on the recipient's part: Why wouldn't I create a harvesting mailbox which signs up for as many messages as it can to generate income?
It seems like there would need to be a feedback mechanism so that senders could tell who was actually a recipient worth paying to talk to.
Part of the problem is that so many of the 'actions' people take with email are invisible to the sender: If the recipient marks you as spam, filters you to junk, blocks you as a sender or their client/provider auto-files you away somewhere, you as the sender get no indication of that. People won't click links in emails they've never opened, let alone read. 'Verification' tends to decay over time - even if I clicked that "yes, I definitely want this" link 6 months ago, it doesn't mean I haven't junked you since.
The reason "You haven't loaded images for n months" is used as a signal is that there's a cost in sending unwanted email to people, and there's often no other way to know if you're wanted or not.
Paraphrasing here, but I very much read that as "Every human has the right to work in just and favourable conditions", not "Every corporation has a right to operate under equal economic treatment."
I know what you're saying, but we _also_ need to focus on this specific government, because they make the situation bad from the get-go, rather than just potentially bad.
> why would this particular one be differently treated?
- Because the issuer has vastly more ability to use the app and the data it might collect in ways that impact you.
- Because it's the first app of this kind and scale being issued by the government in Australia.
- Because it's being pushed onto as much of an entire population as possible with great urgency, limiting the time and opportunity for proper precautions to be taken.
- Because the issuer has an objectively _terrible_ track record on technology and privacy related matters.
- Because the ratchet effect means that once granted, privileges are highly unlikely to be ever rolled back.
> I would be much more scared of the unknown apps from dodgy shops
You shouldn't be. No matter how bad an adware mobile game is, the publisher can't put you in jail.