I think people expect commercial social media networks to be something they can't be -- a kind of commons where you are exposed to the range of views that exist in your community. But that's not what makes social networks money, what makes them money is engagement, and consuming a variety of opinions is tiresome for users and bad for profits. When did you ever see social media trying to engage you with opinions you don't agree with or inform you about the breadth of opinion out there? It has never done that.

The old management of Twitter had a strategy of making it a big tent, comfortable for centrist views and centrist-adjacent views. This enabled it to function as a kind of limited town common for people who either weren't interested in politics, like authors or celebrities promoting their work, or who wanted to reach a large number of mainly apolitical people. This meant drawing lines on both sides of the political spectrum, and naturally people near the line on either side were continually furious with them.

It was an unnatural and unstable situation. As soon as Musk tried to broaden one side of the tent, polarization was inevitable. This means neither X nor Bluesky can be what Twitter was for advertisers and public figures looking for a broad audience.

At present I'm using Mastodon. For users of old Twitter, it must seem like an empty wasteland, but it's a non-commercial network, it has no business imperative to suck up every last free moment of my attention. I follow major news organizations who dutifully post major stories. I follow some interest groups which are active to a modest degree, some local groups who post on local issues, and a few celebrities like George Takei. *Everybody's* not on it, but that's OK; I don't want to spend more than a few minutes a day on the thing so I don't have time to follow everyone I might be interested in. Oh, and moderation is on a per-server basis, so you can choose a server where the admins have a policy you're OK with.

No, there are all kinds of information the government has that are legitimately not available. Sensitive data on private citizens, for example, which is why people are worried about unvetted DOGE employees getting unfettered access to federal systems. Information that would put witnesses in ongoing criminal investigations at risk. Military operations in progress and intelligence assets in use.

The problem is ever since there has been a legal means to keep that information secret, it's also been used to cover up government mistake and misconduct. It's perfectly reasonable for a government to keep things from its citizens *if there is a specific and articulable justification* that can withstand critical examination.

And sometimes those justifications are overridden by public interest concerns -- specifically when officials really want to bury something like the Pentagon Papers because they are embarrassing to the government. "Embarrassing to the government" should be an argument against secrecy, because of the public interest in knowing the government is doing embarrassing things. In the end, the embarrassment caused by the Pentagon Papers was *good* for the country.

All you need to know about RFK's fitness for office is out in public for everyone to see.

Why is it hard to Google for it? Other than an unrelated Wikipedia page, everything from DDG is on topic.

I didn't miss your point, but I don't think it's valid. All operating systems come with a minimum set of applications and tools that make it useful. Apple's selection might not be the best or the most functional, but they're good enough to at least get started. I don't think it's their job or right to sift through all the third party alternatives to select what they think is the best for their users, and nor do most people want the Linux experience where you get a dozen of everything and no help deciding which is the best to use.

I think youâ(TM)re overstating what a refurb is. The rolling stock isnâ(TM)t due for replacement until after the Piccadilly Line trains (also from 1973), but funding shortfalls might mean that doesnâ(TM)t happen until later 2030s or 2040s, putting the trains at twice their design age of about 70 years old.

What third part shit does Apple think is popular and preinstall? Never seen anything.

Nothing like HTML. Itâ(TM)s far more lightweight and interferes with legibility a lot less. I couldnâ(TM)t imagine trying to type Slack messages on my phone in HTML, what a nightmare, but its flavour of MD is fine. Iâ(TM)m surprised you havenâ(TM)t encountered because itâ(TM)s everywhere. I will have used it in GitLab, Jira and Slack by mid-morning, and maybe somewhere else too.

Thatâ(TM)s a stupid question, but you were just trying to whinge about something completely unrelated, werenâ(TM)t you? The only way this issue will be fixed is if /. fixes its bugs. Until then: weep. It must be frustrating knowing that /. will never fix this bug as they donâ(TM)t spend money and are just try to squeeze out a dwindling supply of revenue from a niche website with declining numbers and an audience whoâ(TM)s very proactive about blocking ads.

At least make it sound as if you're not being paid to write this, for crying out loud.

Back to the article: basing any insight on the number of job adverts is bogus. Everybody knows that most adverts are for jobs that don't exist (ask any recruitment agent that you know socially).

And the skills available come from self-reporting. Guess what? In a boom, everybody says they have the skills. A friend of mine is selling herself as an AI expert when she graduated in fashion and has worked in retail for decades. Don't get me wrong. She's a smart cookie in her domain. But AI expert? WTF?

Before GPS navigation, I would study my route in advance and write down a list of road numbers and towns. If I hadnâ(TM)t managed to memorise it, I had a summary that was really quick to check and refresh myself from. If I actually needed to look at the road atlas, I pulled over instead of driving dangerously. The modern equivalent of the turn by turn instructions from Google are ridiculous and way too detailed to the point of being useless. Eyes should be on the road.

30% is a BS number because this is only for the first year. This is also offset by the costs of running an App Store and processing financial transactions. But thatâ(TM)s assuming they win the lawsuit (which they did). The costs of this are irrelevant compared to choosing not to do business at all.

Why? It was a choice: they could have complied while the court case went on.

You've just made me realise that I haven't seen anybody walking their car for many years or stopped to help them push start it. Manuals still make up the majority of the cars on the road here in the UK, so maybe it's just a function of my lifestyle or perhaps people just wait for a jump start these days? It could be that push starting is just a nightmare on busy the roads of London?

I was shot down on this site for predicting this asking the simple question: what evidence is there to believe that consumers would pay less. I think some people got too caught up in somebody trying to stick it to Apple. At best, Epic might offer a small discount over Apple to try to tempt people over to their payment system. But it will never be more than 30% because then there is no point and they have the cost of running their own store and payment processing. Actually, it was always less than 30% because that number is BS and is steeply discounted by Apple after the first year.