Long term/ extended stay hotels exist that will provide these things. But the vast majority of people don’t even consider those. They rely on what they can search up on Google for the area and algorithms don’t take into account that you need to bring your dog, want a separate set of bedrooms in the same suite, or that you’re looking for a kitchen.

I see this every time AirBnB is mentioned and every time I wonder if people even know extended stay hotels exist.

I believe at least one of the anti-trust lawsuits Google lost was brought by the previous Trump Administration.

This is largely the problem with most social media, and generative AI has made this problem worse just like it has made other pretty terrible facets of human interactions worse.

Anyone who was paying attention on reddit the last couple years (even pre-pandemic) could see that bots were taking over. The main difference (love mods or hate them) was that mods who’s subreddits didn’t rely on bot content to stay active were moderating the bot problem as best they could.

Now, most of those mods aren’t mods anymore and the vast majority only really want the engagement anyway so of course they’ll let bots basically take over.

Reddit the corp never cared about keeping bots off the platform and they care even less now. Bot engagement counts. Bot views of ads count. Removing bots actively hurts their bottom line in the short term so of course they aren’t going to do anything with that.

The actual human users on Reddit don’t care because they’re there to consume. It doesn’t matter to them if the posts they engage with are made by bots or not.

So two things. They mention repeatedly that they used the Joycons on a desk. I think that’s the first problem with ergonomics. We know that the switch gets played pretty often in couch mode where you don’t have a table to lean on as you play. So you’d more likely use them on your thighs which makes a bit more sense ergonomically.

The second thing is there’s likely to be a whole cohort of extra peripheral upgrades to improve the ergonomics or the Joycons themselves (just like there were previously).

I have a hunch the reason the Joycons weren’t made more ergonomic in general is because this console is still targeting kids with smaller hands despite it’s larger footprint in the second iteration.

The market is still flooded with grips and cases to make the original switch/OLED models more ergonomic for longer play times. I doubt this will be any different.

I’d also wager that Nintendo will put out more mouse adjacent peripherals or hori and the like will do so.

That’s honestly hilarious though. They made Marvin and don’t see the problem with that.

Buy things up in the fallout. The power vacuum the collapse will create will be ripe for anyone who comes out financially ahead in such a situation.

Tech giants welcomed Trump because they thought he would enable two things. A roll-back of regulations, and to increase profits. The thing is, the monkey wrench in this situation is twofold. The first problem is Elon Musk being placed in a position of power that enables him to detrimentally effect the profits and regulations of these industries to benefit his companies first and foremost while also being detrimental to these other tech companies. We see that a lot with the data he’s been stealing from all kinds of government agencies under the guise of saving the government money.

This means that even regulations that are removed that pave the way for these companies to enact policy or even just products to enrich themselves are hindered by Musk being a direct competitor to a lot of them. Facebook/Instagram vs Twitter, Tesla vs Ford, SpaceX vs Blue origin.

The second problem is the tariff situation. It cuts off a majority of tech companies from the cheap manufacture of components, devices, and even just consumer electronics that a lot of tech companies rely on in order to get their products into the hands of users so they can siphon up user data.

A third problem is that Musk has his hands in so much stuff that he’s pressuring the government to place his companies first in the running for. SpaceX and Tesla especially for things like bullet proof vehicles (where previously the government had contracts with other automotive manufacturers), and SpaceX being used for missions that NASA might have previously handled using Boeing products etc.

All these tech companies went to Washington DC to “Kiss the Ring” with the intention not just of avoiding a lot of legislation being leveled at them by previous administrations, but also in the hopes that they could position themselves as Musk had. For further government contracts. Because long after Trump is dead and buried, the contracts would be lucrative.

But that assumes they survive all the upheaval his administration is causing (and not just survive it, but come out largely economically and financially unharmed).

Anything may be possible, but the market has to survive in order for these companies to remain supreme.

Trump’s first administration filed the lawsuit that led to the court determination that Google held a search monopoly. The result of that is the DOJ filed a proposal that Google sell chrome web browser to another entity. Google has been fighting this proposal tooth and nail.

So the answer is, I’ll believe Meta gets broken up when I see it.

That’s true. But that doesn’t mean they don’t get to choose a better option than Facebook or Google or Amazon. Amazon at the very least isn’t a main competitor of theirs because Amazon doesn’t have a short form video product that’s mainstream. And they can afford to buy Tik Tok. So there’s that at least.

They haven’t “won” until Meta has to pay damages. And even then, that win is hollow because not only will Meta try this again if the penalty isn’t high enough, but they’ll use the advantages of our weak leadership to further avoid any serious repercussions.

This article assumes Tik Tok wants to sell or that they are going to sell to a company that’s basically a direct competitor. I don’t understand this assumption.

It’s a bad time for an increase economically. But when you realize that we have been paying $60 USD for games since at least the 90’s and $60 in 90’s money is something like $150 in 2025 money, you realize just how good we’ve had it for a long time. And then take into account that games have become more and more expensive to make (yeah yeah I understand that a lot of the cost is down to a lot of non-game development relevant jobs), you don’t start to wonder why they didn’t increase prices before?

I’m not saying we like it. I’m saying that anyone who’s given it some thought can see why they might want to increase prices.

Some of them are just fine with the switch 2 hardware and even understand that game prices have been stagnant for some time. But Nintendo has been constantly showing us they aren’t a company we want to continue to support and if you couple that with affordability you’re gonna have a bad time.

They’re charging $90 for a game that plays better on non-oem hardware than it did on it’s original intended hardware, a game a lot of fans have already bought (who would still need to pay an additional $10 fee just to get the game running the way it probably should have run from the start).

I mean this in the best possible way, but Nintendo fans are avid collectors and they want this, but Nintendo dissuades them in multiple ways from showing support.

They have 2 good points though (even if I generally agree with you that this is a first world problem). The first is that this will likely show up for parents who have lost a child or potential parents having fertility issues and that does suck.

The second is that it’s just good UI to add a little box that says “never show this message again”. It wouldn’t take but the smallest iota of extra effort to do that. Annoying popups are honestly a first world problem. But they absolutely also show that these companies do not care, while these companies are trying to show they care.

Additionally, as others have said in the thread, programmers learn the skills required for debugging at least partially from writing code. So there goes a big part of the learning curve, turning into a bell curve.

Thanks! Fixed!

https://www.hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus-2025-part-1/

https://www.hackmosphere.fr/bypass-windows-defender-antivirus-2025-part-2/

This is what I could find.

It technically counts. It’s a cipher that uses the same key for encryption and decryption.

They already had to “hide the phones”. Literally France already passed a law stating that phones aren’t allowed in elementary and middle schools for students. Those phones previously had to be kept in a backpack or pocket and weren’t allowed to be used on the premises.

This new law does one singular thing, so far as I can tell (which isn’t made clear in either of the articles I read). It actually actively makes students surrender phones at the beginning of the school day and locks those phones away in a centralized location the students don’t have access to.

The problem with that is what I have been saying in subsequent comments. There are protocols in place for what happens when a student breaks the rules. But A. They mention nothing at all about how they will know a student is carrying around a phone in their pocket or using it in the bathroom. And B. they mention nothing about the repercussions for skirting such rules and regulations.

Additionally, if this is about student mental health (as they claimed), it does absolutely nothing to teach them about the dangers of cell phones, nor does it even remotely teach them to moderate cell phone use.

IP Laws that Enable Enshitifcation.

The article gives little to no detail about the law or what’s changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn’t access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn’t say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don’t have access to for the school day). It doesn’t state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.

It doesn’t explain what the “separation of student from phone” looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).

It gives literally no details, and doesn’t even link to the law in question.

A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children’s health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.

It doesn’t say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn’t follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.

Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven’t been answered. That’s literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.