The relative number here might be more useful as long as it’s understood that Google already has significant emissions. It’s also sufficient to convey that they’re headed in the wrong direction relative to their goal of net zero. A number like 14.3 million tCO₂e isn’t as clear IMO.

I do, friend. I do.

I mean, yeah, exactly. Keep in mind scammers are targeting vulnerable people. Granted I don’t see how such a feature will work on my grandmother’s flip phone.

It might be a good feature for the elderly as long as it’s local and optionally enabled (especially if it can be enabled only for unknown callers).

Yes, I understand you would never really know if it’s not always enabled. But then again, you currently don’t know if anything similar isn’t already enabled.

For other users, again potentially useful if it’s opt in. However, many people (myself included) simply don’t answer the phone anymore unless it’s a caller we already know. I use Google’s call screening feature for any other caller not in my contact list already, and I would estimate about 1 in 20 or 5% of such calls I receive aren’t spam (marketing or fraud). Of those non-spam calls, the majority are appointment reminders I don’t need.

So would I turn this feature on? No, I don’t have a need. Could it be beneficial for the elderly? Yes, but probably not implemented in a way where it would actually be effective.

Sure, I agree.

Unfortunately, no such solution currently exists or has been widely adopted.

I use an app called Recipe Keeper. It’s amazing because I just share the page to the app, it extracts the recipe without any nonsense, and now I have a copy for later if I want to reuse it. I literally never bother scrolling recipe pages because of how terrible they all are, and I decide in the app if the recipe is one I want to keep.

It also bypasses paywalls and registration requirements for many sites because the recipe data is still on the page for crawlers even if it’s not rendered for a normal visitor.

You’re in the wrong Rochester!

The distinction is web workers and offline mode.

It means your PWA can preload everything it needs to run offline, and you can actually use it offline. That is different from a “cached website” which can only cache the pages you’ve already visited and otherwise does not allow you to update data locally.

Yes, although that recently changed in the EU (only) with the Digital Markets Act.

deleted by creator

You’re famous for being photographed shirtless on a horse. Is that because horses can’t judge you, or is it a new Russian policy for reducing laundry costs?

Can someone provide some context here? Why is he screaming at a coach?

Also side note: why is that even vaguely tolerable behavior for a professional sports player / role model?

0.1mm seems awfully thin for a double edged blade.

It’s also unreasonable to assume they will stack anywhere close to perfectly.

My guess is you’re off by at least a factor of 20.

I was thinking the same, but then realized it’s probably just quiche.

I disagree. You should have validation at each layer, as it’s easier to handle bad inputs and errors the earlier they are caught.

It’s especially important in this case with email because often one or more of the following comes into play when you’re dealing with an email input:

• You’re doing more than sending an email (for ex, creating a record for a new user).
• The UI isn’t waiting for you to send that email (for ex, it’s handled through a queue or some other background process).
• The API call to send an email has a cost (both time and money).
• You have multiple email recipients (better hope that external API error tells you which one failed).

I’m not suggesting that validation of an email should attempt to be exhaustive, but a well thought-out implementation validates all user inputs. Even the underlying API in this example is validating the email you give it before trying to send an email through its own underlying API.

Passing obvious garbage inputs down is just bad practice.

Yes, but no. Pretty much every application that accepts an email address on a form is going to turn around and make an API call to send that email. Guess what that API is going to do when you send it a string for a recipient address without an @ sign? It’s going to refuse it with an error.

Therefore the correct amount of validation is that which satisfies whatever format the underlying API requires.

For example, AWS SES requires addresses in the form UserName@[SubDomain.]Domain.TopLevelDomain along with other caveats. If the application is using SES to send emails, I’m not going to allow an input that doesn’t meet those requirements.

Honestly I don’t understand what’s wrong with the subscription model. You get YouTube ad free and YouTube music.

I suspect these are using additional tools to guide the AI beyond a simple prompt. For example the spiraling medieval village was generated with stable diffusion and controlnet.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/dreamy-ai-generated-geometric-scenes-mesmerize-social-media-users/

I don’t understand why your comment is downvoted. Chromium based Edge on Android is a great option.

There are two axes on the periodic table…