OP is absolutely mistaken that it's somehow ableist to stick to a meeting deadline or similar "punishment" for lateness, and t3rmit3 has said why much more eloquently than I could. However, you've said something that I can't let pass without a rebuttal.

perpetual lateness means someone values their time more than they do the commitment and the time of others. period.
[...]
perpetual lateness, though, is a statement, that individual could not give a shit what others needs and responsibilities are

This is making a moral judgment on what you believe is in someone's mind, and your judgment is based on a false premise. There exists an extremely common mental disorder (so common that some might consider it a form of neurodivergence) that when left untreated makes it much harder to do the things you want and are obligated to do. It's harder to start doing things, it's harder to stop, it's harder to focus yet too easy to focus, it's harder to remember important things, and it's harder to motivate yourself to do anything you aren't doing at any given moment, and anything you have to put effort into motivating yourself to do leaves you with less mental energy to do anything else in that category.

The one thing that can usually overcome all of these mental blocks is panic - when you're actually out of time and Consequences are approaching if you don't do something RIGHT NOW then you can finally do what you need to do and get something done - later than you wanted, worse than you wanted, more mentally drained, and with plenty of reasons to beat yourself up over it, not that it helps if you do. This is the reason behind why most people show up perpetually late. They might not let the emotional turmoil show, but if they're consistently a few minutes late for everything, I can just about promise it's not because they don't care.

People who have this disorder and receive prescription medication for it often describe the first dose as like receiving superpowers. The idea that they can decide they want to do something, and then just go do it? Without thinking about it? No buildup? No psyching yourself into it? No roundabout coping strategies? No reorganizing the entire structure of your life to make it happen? No bargaining with the goddamn monkey in your brain that almost never lets you do the rational thing? Wait, normal people don't have the monkey? They live like this every day, without any expensive pills? Impossible. It couldn't be that simple. Do they have any idea how lucky they are?

Your misplaced sense of moral superiority is unfortunately quite common, but it's not going to help these people, it's going to hurt them. If it's affecting their life, and it often is, they need treatment and training in how their brain works, not to be told they're a piece of shit who doesn't care about others and are choosing to inconvenience everyone else in their life including themselves. That's only going to put them in a worse place.

Why are you all so upset? These stock buybacks don't pay for themselves, you know!

God I hate the stock market.

It's very disappointing to see someone come to a post about a game bundle to support Palestine only to uncritically surface claims from a site with a blatant pro-Israel, pro-Zionism bias. Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Zionism is a sect of Judaism characterized by an extreme ethnic nationalist doctrine (with expected bedfellows). NGO Monitor repeats the utter nonsense that being Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel is somehow anti-Semitic. It's not - the earliest anti-Zionists were Jews. The idea that being against or critical of Zionism is the same as being racist against Jews is an absurd fiction pushed by Zionist foreign policy in order to insulate Israel from all forms of criticism; sadly, it seems to be working. In any case, I'm not inclined to believe one word printed by NGO Monitor where Israel or Palestine are involved.

The problem with YouTube Premium is the pricing tiers are completely out of touch with what people are willing to pay and what services they're willing to pay for.

Let me compare to Discovery+. For $9 a month, loads of shows that ran on TV for decades can be streamed at 1080p (or whatever resolution they were available in), on up to four devices at the same time. They still have some original shows that they spend money to make. This service does not have ads.

Let's also compare to Nebula, which like Discovery+ also has original content funded by the platform. Every content creator there is also an invited owner of the platform, so their cost structure is a bit different, but they still have to sustain the costs of running a streaming platform while compensating the creators of said content for views. Nebula is a microscopic $5 a month per user with no ads.

YouTube is a platform with entirely user-generated content (costs YT nothing except bandwidth) that is already supported at the free tier with a gratuitous amount of ads. This service has been available completely free with ad support for nearly two decades. The lowest "premium" tier they offer is $14 a month for one person to stream ad-free, at a better 1080p bitrate, be able to download videos or watch them in the background in the official app, pay creators for every view, and have a music streaming app thrown in for good measure. The only other tier is all the same stuff in a $22 monthly family plan for six users, but they all have to be in the same "household" or you're technically breaking TOS, so in practice it's often more like $22 for three people, and heaven forbid any of you travel for work.

Two of the "premium" features should be free anyway. You can't watch a video without downloading it at least once, so the bandwidth cost is the same. If you download it and play it more than once, that actually saves YouTube bandwidth, and therefore cost. Any video that's played more than once is probably going to be played a lot more than once, so this would add up, especially if the app downloads the ad spots ahead of time. Background play doesn't cost them any bandwidth at all and is a trivial feature to implement, so it's put behind a paywall as an artificial restriction for no other reason than to annoy users for not paying. Both of these are anti-features; to charge for them is anti-consumer. They engender spite in users, making them less willing to pay for Premium and more determined to find alternatives.

Instead of trying to figure out what people are actually willing to pay for, which is the expected behavior of a market actor, Google continues to behave like a monopoly that can dictate terms to its users. This is why people refuse to pay for Premium. If they made the anti-features free, and introduced a Premium tier that is $7 a month to one user for nothing more than better bitrate streaming with no ads, people would sign up in droves. There could be a $9 tier for streaming boxes like Roku or Chromecast that offers Premium service for any account viewed from that one specific device, without having to sign up each individual account for premium, which satisfies another niche. The $14 tier could remain for those who also want music streaming (an extra $7 is still much cheaper than Spotify premium), and the $22 tier could still be a significant value proposition for actual families.

It's not that the price offered for the $14 premium plan isn't reasonable for what it offers - the issue is that what it offers doesn't match the actual needs of many people who use adblockers or third-party clients, on top of insulting users with anti-features. Until YouTube management can be made to understand this, they will continue to screech impotently about ad-blockers while driving users away and leaving potential revenue on the table.

Ctrl-f: genocide
Phrase not found

It's frustrating that so many who even talk about this are apparently too chickenshit to say what it actually is. Israel is openly committing Genocide. History will not be kind to Benjamin Netanyahu or the IDF.

We keep saying that blocking ads is a security feature, and it keeps being true.

It's not even about selling you something, it's about selling you, period. They sell the user's attention to advertisers, and don't much care about anything else because anything else is too hard to quantify in a spreadsheet.

These days I mostly go for paid content like Nebula, alternative platforms like Odysee or PeerTube, or even Newgrounds - remember them? It's not always possible to avoid YouTube entirely since some creators I follow only have a presence there, but transitions like this take time.

The linked article is two sentences long and offers no context or understanding of the situation. It might as well be a headline. The only useful part of it is the photo of the wind farm being dismantled, which also shows a completely different wind farm in the background, on the other side of the expanding mine, that is not being dismantled:

But you wouldn't realize that just from reading the article.

My understanding based on this much better article from Recharge News is that the following information is critical to understanding this decision:

First, the wind farm being dismantled is the Keyenberg-Holzweiler wind farm, which consists of 8 turbines built over 20 years ago in 2001, totaling just over 10 MW of capacity (1.3 MW each). Recently constructed wind turbine power outputs are estimated at a 42% capacity factor, which is to say they generate about 42% of the peak power they're rated for because wind isn't always blowing; this would likely be lower for the older wind farm, but we'll use the current amount. The 10 MW wind farm would have made 3 GWh per month, which based on an average of 893 kWh per month per household is enough to power... 3386 homes [edit: corrected my horrible math]. Not nothing, but not a lot by modern standards considering the Chinese just built a single wind turbine that outdoes the entire Keyenberg-Holzweiler wind farm by half and then some.

Furthermore, as the turbines were built 20 years ago, they were always going to be decommissioned around this time, and that's documented in the agreements back then under which the turbines were built. RWE continues to construct many turbines elsewhere, claiming 7.2 GW of turbines are currently under construction, 720 times the rated output of the Keyenberg-Holzweiler wind farm. They've also built 200 MW of wind capacity in that locality, likely what we see in the background of that image.

If RWE were to replace the turbines that are being decommissioned, the coal underneath them will be worthless by the time the new turbines are decommissioned, and it's supposedly the last of the coal they will be allowed to dig up. They've clearly made huge investments in building out wind power, so this represents the last vestiges of cleaning up their act.

I could not advocate more strongly that coal should be left in the ground, but this all comes down to corporate investors who care more about money than the environment, and agreements made 20 years ago, as well as the fact Germany and much of the EU is still desperate for any source of energy to maintain their current level of industry right now while they're still building out carbon-free generation to fully replace coal/oil/gas. Reality is complex, and to me this isn't as big of an insult to clean energy advocacy as the microscopic EUObserver "article" could lead one to think it is.

Coal is still dying in the West, so let's not go thinking this one last gasp means that trend has changed. If we're lucky, and demand for coal falls quickly enough, they might even scrap this mine before they've gotten everything out of it. Keep pushing!

Friendly reminder to everyone that mobile Firefox is perfectly compatible with uBlock Origin. To not block ads on the modern web is a security risk.

It's almost silly to look into bird deaths and realize just how low wind power is on the list, even with its rapid growth in recent years. It was recently estimated that with the expected growth of wind power, it will be killing about 2.2 million birds a year in the US... in 2050. Meanwhile, power lines kill anywhere from 12 to 48 million a year right now, fossil-fueled power plants kill as many as 14 million a year right now, communication towers kill over 5 million, cars 60-80 million, pesticides as much as 90 million, and cats well over a billion. Every year. The numbers aren't that hard to find. Replacing all fossil-fueled power plants with wind turbines would be a net positive for bird populations, and the facts make that very clear.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/weekly-data-how-many-birds-are-really-killed-by-wind-turbines/

You can still do that by adopting kids someone else made. No sense adding to the population when some kids already don't have parents.

It's odd that the article makes no mention at all of his @ElonJet account on Mastodon, which was spun up after the Twitter account was banned. I don't see how it's "moving" anywhere, especially given the Threads/Instagram account just got suspended: Sweeney posted about it on his Twitter, and Engadget updated their article.