My favorite part of Rails 8 is the focus on reducing infrastructure and just defaulting to the DB for queue (SolidQueue) / caching (SolidCache), such a nice out of the box experience.

If you scroll Instagram for a few minutes you'll see what they have been working on and that are also making a ridiculous amount of cash by selling and serving ads while burning some on side projects like that.

I had to laugh to the point of tears the other day when I saw my friend scrolling through Instagram and they encountered an "Ad Break". The app simply doesn't let you scroll through another post, story or reel until you sit there like a good boy and let the ad sit for 10 seconds or whatever.

How people put up with that kinda crap and continue to use these apps daily for hours on end is mind blowing to me.

I wonder if the prevalence of adblock has helped make a lot of things like this possible. Like, it's hard to imagine people putting up with this without literally protesting in the streets. But the people who can't tolerate it have mostly gone through the effort of opting out, and those who can just put up with it. And thus, the frog boils.

Mastodon and X both switched to “posts”. Toots was the old name.

Which has been the correct name since before Twitter existed. You can also use "message", or "comment" if its in reply to something else.

In what way? I haven’t seen someone say “toot” in a very long time. Tweet I did but that was arguably more entrenched in pop culture over the years.

I guess it depends on what community/bubble are you in. Many fediverse users I know have always been, and will always be tooting.

Thats a bit of an odd comparison as they are in pretty different categories and don’t really compete against each other.

They don't in this case, because there's plenty of other airlines offering competing service, but when disruptions do prevent air travel, for example with the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, travelers cruising to their destination will burn far more fuel.

Granted, the difference in emissions of either form of traveling are absolutely nothing compared to the emissions of Eyjafjallajökull itself.

The speed of the ship makes a huge difference in fuel consumption. Cruise ships/ocean liners usually go as fast as practicable, which leads to terrible fuel efficiency. Reducing speed from 20 knots to 15 knots may cut fuel consumption in half or more.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of comparisons you’ll see will have, for example, a 5-day journey by cruise ship compared with an airline flight covering the same distance. Usually measured not in fuel consumed but carbon emissions. Ok, but shouldn’t the more accurate comparison be a 5-day cruise compared to an airplane trip plus 5 days in a hotel?

I once bought an overnight train ticket from France to Italy, instead of spending more on a high-speed train ticket and a hotel night. It would have been a great idea, if the train didn't have its heater stuck on, in August, and a broken emergency pull cord in an unknown car, which resulted in multiple unintended stops that required the staff enter every cabin to reset the pull cords, before resuming. I learned to check the reputation of the train line, like I would a hotel.

Anyway, traveling efficiency is a factor of the speed and size of the vessel and the viscosity of what it's traveling through. It's non-linear, and scaling up the vessel size slowly adds efficiency, and speeding up the vehicle or increasing the viscosity quickly reduces efficiency.

Boats have an advantage by getting very big, but a really, really big disadvantage if they go fast, which is why huge boats going slow is their most common use, mostly for cargo, but sometimes for people, when the ship itself can be a destination. Trains can't get very big, but air is much less viscous than water, so they can go a few times faster without major losses. This is why rail is really popular for transporting cargo across the US and Canada, although it's not fast enough for long distance passenger travel.

The absolute peak in energy efficiency comes from a large vessel moving through a very-low viscosity atmosphere, which is what airliners are able to do, by traveling in the stratosphere, eliminating the majority of the drag, and allowing for effectively uncapped speeds. Really, the faster an airplane can travel, the higher it can go, further reducing drag and increasing efficiency. The limit is technological, not physical, but current airplanes traveling around mach 0.8 get very high cruise efficiency from both being large and being in a low-viscosity atmosphere.

Most people don't care that much. When I read some comments on Mastodon I get the impression that people absolutely hate it, then I'm reading some comments on X and people love it and build things with it. Then I'm talking to friends and they are excited about what ChatGPT can do for them and don't even think about the bigger picture outside of a "AI will take our jobs haha" joke.

That's kinda implying that they only got elected because they had money and a good campaign instead of addressing issues that are not addresses in an effective way by the other parties.

This is probably the case of both things being true at the same time.

I don't disagree but I see this more psychologically by now. Certain mechanisms are just tried and tested, what worked for Mussolini works just as well today, and it's always the same kind of people who are attracted to it.

Of course, it's not just the support by various enemies of Europe and Germany, there are many factors like always. In this particular case there are also historical reasons for the rise of Neonazism in parts of the former GDR and many other former East Bloc countries. I don't want to go into the details, everybody knows that story, but it's worth noting the Skinnheads Sächsische Schweiz of the 90s are now the fathers of young voters and particularly few things had been done against this trend in Saxony. When you allow Neonazi movements to become a major youth culture, you're bound to get serious problems. Since the AfD has absorbed the NPD, it's just the political arm of a vast movement there.

Did the Brexit campaign address the issues of the people who voted for it? Are all those people now better off because of it? Did Trump and his 'no new wars' and '$1.99 gas' and 'Drain the swamp' and 'Balance the budget' address the issues of the people who voted for him?

Or did they just lie out of their ass and leave everyone worse off?

> Or did they just lie out of their ass and leave everyone worse off?

This, but I guess I should've been more clear in my parent comment in saying that by "addressing" should come in heavy quotation marks.

they connect ideas all day. xenophobia is that, making fast and loose connections.

unfortunately we are deep into the TikTok times, and simple, but catchy ideas dominate. it's flat Earth, QAnon, anti-vax, anti-economics but now in 4K.

Welcome to the internet.

Not location based, but movie related: https://www.imcdb.org

Lots of links that get submitted here could qualify for that, it's often a content marketing blog post or a funnel to consulting / a service but that doesn't mean it can't be interesting to read (Hence the upvotes).

Nice! I've tried to build something similar with Unifi cameras (https://github.com/dewey/birdhomie) and it worked pretty well, the species detection wasn't that accurate but I'll continue on that project in the winter.