Yes. From the same site's review of a different device:
"Cyberdecks are, almost by their very definition, mostly about aesthetics. There are very few of them that are designed to serve a real, practical purpose that can’t be done better by a modern laptop or tablet."
thank you, im looking at my old netbook which i still use from time to time and wondering how i can maybe lessen it's usefulness while making it more aesthetically interesting.
I was thinking e-ink and mechanical keys with a lightweight battery and retractable antennas
the idea of a plain old html internet makes me weak at the knees in the right kind of way. I love the thought of scrolling and the overall speed of a site that is as close to plain text as possible. We might be in the minority now, but the days of a lightweight internet can surely come back. I have resorted to (not disparagingly) using terminal based browsers for most of my recreational time online.
I feel this too, almost daily. the "need" for web browsers to provide more than just the data I want to find/read frustrates me. I have no issues with reasonably placed adverts for content that is relevant.
the performance of my pc is not so much an issue for me, as much as the continued stream of advertising/trackng/bloat/images/etc that are attached to the most basic of sites.
while HN is as much of a social network I am willing to join, I do miss the days when email/newsgroups/irc/rss were capable of almost every task I needed online.
email more and more feels like an invasion of privacy, a distraction from what I actually want when online.
newsgroups were great as it was just a shitty text stream and I could read it without bells and whistles.
irc was the same.
rss I miss the most as the glory days of everything having an rss feed and it being text heavy, advertising light and focused are gone.
who wants to be penpals in 2021 with me?
We have a kerbside collection 2 times a year for "large rubbish" removal by the local council. You could mistake it for a street festival at times as you see people walking down the road with what they find of use/value and people in utes or towing trailers picking up an old couch they can use.
then a few days later, they council picks up whats left and disposes of it.
we have a local e-waste facility that also 2 times a year hold a free drop off weekend so households can drop off old batteries/car batteries/lights and such that either are not part of the council pickup or could result in broken glass etc in public spaces.
we initially trialed a giveaway/barter event which had limited success (terrible timing) and the council took what was left for disposal and were happier about it being in a carpark than the usual cleanup of a swapmeet on a grassed field.
this is exactly it. sheltered workplaces exist purely to provide a sense of community and actual value to people with disabilities lives. While some of us begrudge working the 9-5, there are a lot of people excluded from the societal norm of the day to day. With the costs of running Sheltered Workplaces far outweighing the income produced (and no expectation for it ever to) these are considered positive expenses for most communities.
I'm not sure if the real issue there was the foster and medical system in America 30 years or so ago or the sheltered workshop. Each sheltered workshop (Australian Disability Enterprises) I have volunteered with or worked with has been funded privately and/or run at a loss. They are not able to shunt a child with a disability into a position where they are sorting nuts and bolts etc. The other choice for a lot of these employees is to stay home or attend care centers. There are more benefits to including people in a work environment than excluding, even if it means creating one for them specifically.
In general, there’s an ongoing debate over whether sheltered workshops represent a social service to people with disabilities, allowing them to perform work even if they are essentially not paid for it, or if they are exploitative and discriminatory because they don’t pay a fair wage. I think it’s a complex issue, but I tend to come down with the people with disabilities who speak out against them (nothing about us, without us).
This again appears a system issue, not workshop issue. In a lot of the statements I have seen against the programs on offer here in Aus, were from people incorrectly assessed as being appropriate for sheltered workplaces. Appropriate medical assessment/intervention/care could result in a few instances of people being assessed job capable outside of the ADE but this in itself is a fault in a system that has one option of being ADE employment.
The discussion around it seems incredibly emotional to purposefully distort the opinion of people that ADE/SW are sweatshops or some Dickensian nightmare. I guess profit driven societies have taken advantage of it, like they have with the jail systems, education, law enforcement, military, healthcare...
In short, the DOJ has generally contended in the past decade or so that sheltered workshops represent discrimination based on disability, and has been suing to shut them down or force them to pay their employees minimum wage.
This is mostly argument with regards to legal matters though, not actual outcomes of those with severe disabilities. Most sheltered workshops will shut down before being able to pay employees minimum wage. For those that legitimately are incapable of holding down a normal job, they will then have nothing. And having a job has repeatedly been shown to improve outcomes for the disabled.
I think this is a problem that doesn't have a single right answer. Either way some people will get the short end of the stick.
"I'm not going to share my advertising accounts with you; I'm just going to ask you to trust that when I get my laptop out and show my results to my 'marketing skeptical' friends, they stop being skeptical."
I'm not publishing a paper in the comments. This is HN. Regardless, you cherry picked one aspect of my comment, and it's very hard from my perspective to see that it was done in good faith.
I'd like to be proven otherwise, so, here are my key points, which you didn't contend with:
-> It's possible to completely isolate the effect of advertising spend, thereby making the effectiveness (or not) measurable.
-> I pointed to growing revenues on Google/FB's platforms, two platforms which make isolated measurement feasible.
In terms of _externally_ verifiable facts, that's the best I'll be able to give you.
The rest, you (and others) have to take on a/ good faith b/ using basic logic, that I'm telling the truth.
charities can appeal for help vs compete against other charities for the available $$$.