No, they don't. We know this already. And failing student on that basis is just a very quick path to losing lawsuits which will shortly eliminate this question as a serious concern.
Did you read the article? Have you used youtube in the past couple of days?
The change that has people upset isn't border radius. Rather than having the comments below the video and suggestions on the right, the suggested other videos are now below the video you are watching, and the comments are in the narrow slot on the right side of the screen, making it more difficult to read/scan comments.
My guess is by giving suggested other videos the prime real estate, it will cause the user to watch more videos and thus more ads. Reading and creating comments doesn't directly generate revenue. This could backfire because people who enjoy reading/writing comments may come back less frequently or stay less time because they enjoy the site less. It feels less like an ad hoc community and more of what it really is: an ad delivery service.
As someone who pays for ad-free youtube, I resent that not only do I still need to sit through or navigate through in-video ads, but now I find the experience of reading other people's comments and sharing my own more difficult.
Only below the 1000px breakpoint for tablets. Suggested videos probably keep people on the site/app longer than comments. They should have shown 5 videos with a "show more" drawer for the rest. But we know they care more about money than our happieness.
It's hard to tell from the screenshots but is the border radius really any different than the current/previous design already had it? Looks about identical comparing my current view.
Just means they failed to find evidence with the information they had access to (which sounds like not a lot)
> Dr. David Relman, a prominent scientist who has had access to the classified files involving the cases and representatives of people suffering from Havana syndrome, said the new studies were flawed. Many brain injuries are difficult to detect with scans or blood markers, he said.
It's a bunch of money being spent on on a silly story by three outlets who hoped they'd be fed enough nonsense by three letter agencies to dominate the news cycle with it for a week or two, being frontrun by a comprehensive study showing, yet again, that nothing happened to these people. So they rushed this out.
If anybody finds any factual claims about this device and this supposed syndrome, buried in the innuendo, please post it. But the boldfaced faux-abstract at the top doesn't indicate any new information at all.
You're too quick to dismiss things. There's without doubt a phenomenon here (a multitude of anecdotes of sudden symptoms, with some victims "medically retired from government service"), with two theories to explain it: a) there's no underlying physical cause, but it's basically random incidences in conjunction with selection bias, or b) there's an underlying physical cause, such as outlined in the article.
These are both possibilities. The article outlines "new evidence — in the form of intercepted Russian intelligence documents, travel logs, and call metadata, along with eyewitness testimony". They don't claim to have the device itself, or direct information about it.
Next, there are some studies that find differences, and some that don't find differences between the affected and a control group. If the studies look at different markers, that is consistent with non-obvious differences being there. The absence of evidence sometimes is evidence of absence, but not always.
I think the proper response for now is to suspend judgment.
It's the same disease that people got from unpowered 5G towers. If you go around asking people do you have headaches since the new tower is there, you will find people who do.
Amplifying this by the seriousness of 3 letter US agencies and whatnot and you get people medically retired. (And this is ongoing long enough that probably even some Russian agency has sent there someone to check, and then it got picked up by intelligence leaks. Or they leaked it to fuck with them.)
(And of course psychosomatic things need treatment too, and the investigations are warranted, it's not like US chanceries are the safest places in the world.)
> ..the symptoms began as an intense feeling of pressure, which started in the torso and radiated up to the head and neck. Then there was nausea, followed by a “high-pitched squeal.” Taylor raced to a bathroom to vomit before collapsing unconscious on the floor.
> Once back in the United States, Taylor was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.
>Taylor remembers confronting a tall, muscular man with a military bearing acting suspiciously across the road from the consulate residential complex. After a brief exchange with Taylor, the man responded with a strong Russian accent, shutting down the encounter and running off.
>Taylor did not hesitate in confirming that Gordienko was the suspect skulking around outside U.S. consulate housing.
No, it doesn't. And there are probably true positive cases of some hostile attack (and it's unsurprising if we will not be the first to get details on the exact nature of those, and how many, and where and when), but in general the "Havana Syndrome" is likely not that.
(2022 CIA: Foreign involvement was ruled out in 976 cases of the 1,000 reviewed, and ... In March 2024, the National Institutes of Health published two medical studies evaluating people reporting Havana syndrome symptoms, and found no evidence of brain injury, irregular blood biomarkers, or vocational impairment)
This doesn't address the coincidences that the GRU unit is consistently at the place where the "headaches" happen, get identified by the victims, and work with one of the only people (Russian professor) researching the rare disease that was diagnosed for one of the victims. There are documents in the article that link the group with the researcher, which explicitly mentions acoustic non-lethal attacks.
There were ~1000 cases reviewed, and these GRU gremlins were only at a few places, no?
So most likely is that there are a few true positives, and the vast majority of them are false positives. (And of course good luck telling this to anyone who works next to someone who just met a GRU operative, or works in a high-stress job and regularly feels that there are people out to get them.)
The gist was members of some GRU unit have been seen at the location of several Havana syndrome events, mainly experts in Russia have been affected, and the Russian government has reportedly given awards for the creation and use of such directed energy weapons. The article makes it sound like Russia has been at war with the US since 2014, but the US hasn't realized it, yet.
I would add that this is not just some random unit - the same unit has previously engaged in acts of sabotage and assassinations abroad including use of chemical agents. Pretty big smoking gun to say the least
Yet somehow this was not known beforehand for years and somehow only became "apparent" when Russia became the public enemy.
> The article makes it sound like Russia has been at war with the US since 2014, but the US hasn't realized it, yet.
This article makes it sound like military industrial complex fat cats don't get their pockets filled with tax money fast enough, so plebs need some pushing.
Retroactively changing the past to accommodate the present day narrative is a common political trick, similarly to how Radio Free Europe's reports on Ukrainian ultranationalists challenging the monopoly on violence had suddenly become "Russian propaganda".
Another tiny step closer to the hot phase of WWIII, I guess.
I don’t understand why the imaging done in these studies isn’t more focussed on the inner ear. Maybe it’s already been rules out, but I can’t find anything that suggests it has.
Things like Ménière’s disease are a PITA to image, but it’s possible.
Radical suggestion. Don't make your lander taller than wide. I'm the first to assume that the science nerds have thought of everything and that my uneducated self has nothing to say about it. But then I saw the lander. It looks very tippable.
So then here's my luddite take. Can't they just unfurl wider stabilizers from the legs that increase their footprint? At slow speeds in low gravity it seems like they wouldn't need to be heavy or strong.
In general, when it seems to my uneducated opinion that a bunch of experts have missed something obvious to me, it's almost always the case that the one who has missed something is me.
I feel exactly the same and this is the reason why I would absolutely love to read an expert article titled "Why super-wide Moon landing gear is not a good idea"
Stabilizers are made of matter, and matter has mass. Lifting mass off of the Earth and on to the Moon takes fuel. Fuel is made of matter too, and has mass. Lifting the fuel to lift the fuel to lift the mass is expensive.
So much cheaper just to have an altimeter and no extra stabilizers. Sadly, their altimeter didn’t work. They forgot to turn it on correctly.
Honestly, they’re lucky that it got so close to landing correctly; if it had been going faster the damage would have been even worse than just a crumpled landing leg.
To me, CSS frameworks break the whole point of CSS, generally add a lot of bloat, and aren't useful except in some instances where rapid prototyping is needed.
Tailwind exists largely because programmers don't like CSS. We no longer need frameworks for compatibility. The era of browser testing is over. And we don't need them to do things CSS can't do, as in the past couple of years nearly all browsers are handling the newer features.
My big gripe is simply that it makes a lot of sense to keep your structure, styles, and scripts separated. If something looks off I don't want to have to wonder whether it's classes, CSS, or scripts.
And ultimately, I don't think Tailwind does make things faster. I could come up with custom CSS helper classes AS NEEDED, and avoid all the problems I mentioned above. And the one I didn't mention is that this makes your code look like incomprehensible garbage. Tailwind HTML files using BEM are just not OK.
Keeping my html and CSS separate make everything I do faster and lighter. Most importantly, CSS is now mature and finally does all the things for all the browser that make the frameworks just enough less useful that they become bloat.
My two cents. I'm sure Tailwind is helpful for many. But I gotta preach the basics.
A lot of people seem to approach Tailwind as a set of helper classes, but I think this is a misunderstanding of what Tailwind is doing.
It's clearer to think about Tailwind as a DSL for writing CSS directly in your templates. If that sounds like a thing you don't want to do in the first place, then Tailwind probably won't add anything useful for you, but for a lot of developers, it's a very convenient way of encapsulating style, structure (and potentially behaviour) in a single unit. You can then compose these units together to create larger systems.
Like I say, that's not the only way to develop for the web, you can also take the approach of separating out style, structure, and behaviour, and there you're not really going to see much benefit from Tailwind directly.
Specifically, I think a lot of the success of Tailwind comes from the fact that it's very agnostic about how you build your units. A lot of tools for CSS encapsulation have typically either been bound to a single framework, or at least very bound to the Javascript ecosystem. For example, CSS Modules do in many way a very similar thing to Tailwind, but they're heavily connected to the JS concept of importing and bundling - they can't easily be used in Python, for example. On the other hand, Tailwind is just text - if the Tailwind compiler finds a file where you're using its DSL, it can build the correct CSS files from that, regardless of how the file has been written. This allows you to use Tailwind from HTML, JS, but also from arbitrary custom templating formats, or even other programming languages.
I don't think Tailwind has so much to do with "basics vs helper methods". To do a lot of useful things in Tailwind, you need to know CSS in the first place, and it really is just a DSL around arbitrary CSS declarations (although the more complex those declarations become, the less pleasant Tailwind becomes to use - it is by no means perfect, or even my favourite tool for encapsulated CSS). It's more a question of how you want to write your CSS: do you want to write it coupled to HTML in components, or so you want to write it decoupled as a whole-page stylesheet?
