Duh... I can't add. But the observation is still valid.

That would be interesting. Some of that is available in IRS filings for instance, in 2023:
Their expenses were $39,845,284, with

• 8.3% ($3,287,433) of that being Executive Compensation (not counting Baker's $6,223,660)
• 25.4% ($10,106,669) for Other Salaries and Wages

Of course a lot of the increasing expenses over the years related to Mitchell Baker's ever ballooning compensation. I guess we'll find out this year if the new CEO is sucking up as much of the budget. But that's over $10M just for executives and the questionable value that they provide... all of the rest of the employees add up to less total cost.

This is the entire problem.

The manifesto remains correct. The theatrics which have been built around the *name* "Agile" are largely insanity.

I once saw it said that the only reliable way to know how long it will take to build a piece of software is to build it and then report how long it takes. This is a hard pill for people who are paying for software to be written to swallow, because they very reasonably want to know that the results will arrive on time and that they're getting something for their money during the chasm between work being started and something like a recognizable result being produced. The former thing is what the manifesto says we should do, the latter drives companies to create layer upon layer of "management" to attempt to control and understand the software writing process.

This sort of advertising, especially, is a cancer on our society and the entire human condition. It's trading down human experiences and interactions (like friendly smiles, etc) for profit until they no longer have value and positive meaning to people. The obvious long-term outcome of this is a worse world and the people pushing it must know that it is unambiguously evil.

I just freshly installed Ubuntu 24.04 on a piece of hardware only to find that systemd-resolved fails resolving after a hour of uptime due to some bizarre nonstandard way of handing server responses*. I've been using linux since before Slackware, so I guess I'm old, but I haven't seen this level of brokenness (that wasn't tied to lack of specific hardware support) in decades.

What's being pushed out to "stable" releases of mainsteam distributions under the banner of SystemD is some seriously amateur-level stuff.

* I can't be arsed to find the discussion of the error right now, but it has the obligatory Poettering reply that everybody else in the world is doing it wrong and that putting the resolver into a non-responsive state is the expected and correct thing to do.

What would you say about my case? I open tabs when there's some news item or search result I want to know more about. I close them when I have reviewed the thing, even if it's just to decide I am no longer interested. For example, I've opened six tabs from the /. front page today. I'll read the ones that are of the highest interest immediately (there were three this time) and leave the others for possible consumption in the future, if I have time, at which point they'll either be closed or left open as a bookmark of interesting information (if there's some follow-up I think I might do). The tab for this article, for example, will remain open for a day or so as a reminder to check for any replies. I don't have a problem going back to open tabs, but there is more information in the world than time so I accept that I may never get back to some of them.

I certainly exhibit some signs of ADHD, but I don't think my approach to tab management is one of them. I don't think thousands of open tabs is necessarily an indicator.

That said, thanks for bringing it up as a possibility.

Disorganized?! Quite the reverse. Linear tab lists are how I organize things. One window per desktop, each window a different type of browsing (e.g. news/research/productivity) and then open tabs in each window. Disorganized would be somehow trying to track all of those URLs some *other* way. What, do you have thousands of bookmarks? How would you manage to relate them back to the type of task they're related to, and the time they were bookmarked?

Untrue. I run Firefox with a dozen windows each of which has hundreds of tabs. All it takes is enough RAM, but I make sure I have plenty. If RAM pressure is a problem for you then look up the BarTab extension (it's defunct, but I believe there are some active forks). Firefox absolutely can do this.

Now Chrome, that's where you'll have trouble. IT was really not designed for a large number of open tabs. Its minimum tab width is ~48px and once you have enough of those to fill the horizontal bar new tabs open on the right *hidden*. Unlikely Firefox there is no window into a current set. The only way to interact with them extra tabs is via the "Search tabs" menu, which is highly inconvenient. Chrome's UI assumes no more than about 75 tabs open at a time.

It's not laziness. I typically run at least low hundreds of tabs open, frequently up into the low thousands. I know I've cleared 5,000 before, but I'm not in the business of tracking too closely--I'm just not interested in how many there are.

Bookmarks are not the same thing as open tabs; a site can vanish but still be available in browser cache/memory. A bookmark may help you find a page you were on earlier, but it's hard to know *why* you bookmarked it, to organize them linearly, and to distinguish between an ephemeral interest and a permanent reference. Really, bookmarks are a vestigial feature of the pre-Google web. Do you remember when we all had "home page"s that given over to collections of links to commonly-used sites? That, too, has gone. In my case these have been replaced by tabs.

It's all part of an efficient workflow. I see people do something like: Google search, click a result, read some of it, click back, click the next result. This pattern is inefficient and drives me nuts; when I do a search I scan through the results and open anything that seems helpful new tabs--I may even refine my search a few times and open some tabs for each variation--, then I C-tab and begin to review. I can go from zero to 20 tabs in moments without even noticing it, then I read through them and close tabs that are irrelevant. When I get to the end of the subject I am researching I'll close most or all; I may leave open a tab with an answer or something I need to refer back to as I go back to what I was doing. With news it's the same: I open in a new tab each story that I want to read more about. I may not read them all the same day, but I leave the tabs open as a linear queue of interest and get to them eventually. It often happens that the queue grows faster than it shrinks, and that's fine. I come back through later and close out unread tabs that no longer seem interesting.

I can't imagine *not* doing this. It's not lack of window management; I currently have 11 browser windows open and they *each* have dozens or hundreds or thousands of tabs. It's *not* laziness. This is simply a way to organize information that maps well to the way my brain works.

The day that Firefox removed tab groups was a sad day indeed. There have been few tab management features which actually improved my ability to organize, but that was one of therm.

Ya cheap bastards

That sounds like criminal conspiracy. Until people involved in actions like this aren't able to successfully hide behind the corporation anymore, this sort of thing will happen again and again.

Looks like they are jelly of Alexa's driving features and care more about upselling their AI in cars than selling consumer AI speakers.

I fully expect Google to sunset all their home automation eventually. It is what they do best.

Yep, never trust Google with your time or data.

It doesn’t sound like fun to me, but what do you think is responsible for these jankers having to go to such lengths to get what would amount to a few bucks worth of product if it wasn’t illegal. It sounds like a medical problem, honestly. Once you get the cops involved, now you have two problems.

This is what happens when law enforcement gets to interfere with our country's healthcare. The idea that an entire society has to suffer poorer healthcare because a minuscule fraction of the population will use a drug to have fun is something only authoritarian goons could dream up.

The same situation is currently playing out with several ADHD drugs as we speak (mass shortages based on arbitrary DEA-imposed restrictions). It has also held back research into various psychedelic drugs as effective treatments for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and others.

The DEA has got to go, but a good first start would be keeping them far away from our medicines and healthcare. The idea that we have to have an entire office of armed police with the sole aim of making sure that a small subset of the population can't get high or self-medicate is asinine.