Very interesting. Although honestly, I’m not sure the tradeoffs are worth it here.

Like, yes, sustainability is great, but how much power are these blankets really consuming? Relative to the sustainability cost of repairing an F1 car from a wreck? In material, energy use, all of that, I don’t imagine removing these blankets for an entire season of F1 would offset the environmental cost of even one additional crash in a year, and I think you’d be lucky if it ends up being that few, especially in the first season of this change.

So I’m just not sure that reasoning tracks. If they want to say “hey, additional challenge for the drivers, we think it’ll make racing more exciting”, then they should just say that.

I used an extension a while ago that changed CSS colour values (#ababab) into little coloured dots, that became a colour picker when clicking on them (while still letting you input RGB or Hex, ofc), and it was pretty awesome!

So, I could unironically see this being really nice. Although… I think this would need a pretty narrow context, something like if x == true would look pretty confusing as a toggle, I imagine. But assigning x = true? Bring it on.

Agreed, I attended the Canada GP this year, from the grass quite close to the track. Lots of earplugs around, I myself kept my AirPods in to block loud noise. It’s already at potential hearing damage, and feels… just incredible to have one whip past you.

I can’t imagine how loud “bringing back engine noise” would be, or why I’d want it.

Thank you! Was looking for this just today, as I’d seen it on Reddit before making the jump, but couldn’t find it!

Wow. I guess it shouldn’t be all that surprising. Starfield is a massive endeavour for Bethesda, so for the sake of a stable, not too buggy launch, it’d be a sensible choice for them to just pick one platform and focus on it. And ofc that would’ve been PlayStation.

Personally, I’m subscribing to the belief that the fediverse’s attribute of “true censorship is impossible” is a benefit, not a curse. Every prior example of censorship has just morphed into “advertiser palatable”. Which is bad for everyone.

More than happy to have access to instances that will take the kind of drastic action you’re suggesting, access to my own “block” function, etc. Let them come.

The fediverse will inevitably host some messed up stuff. Counting it a blessing that those people have a clear place to go to and sequester themselves off.

So ultimately? More than happy to have an instance that agrees with this extreme anti-censorship posture. Sh.itjustworks is fine in my books. I can block the community, just like I could block subreddits on Reddit without abandoning the whole platform. Hell, even write a script to block everyone who’s subscribed to the community. The power is yours now, and nobody can take that away. That’s the fediverse.

Y’know, I’m not nearly as against this concept as this suggests. News is… clearly unprofitable in the modern era, and the quality of the average news outlet has fallen drastically in the past few decades. So I’m down for some drastic attempts to recapture that value and reward good reporting.

Obviously this isn’t perfect, it might even be full-out stupid, but I don’t think perfect exists here, and it’s worth trying something here.

Man, have to hand it to CDPR, they’ve really stuck with this one. I think they’ve recognized how important their reputation was, and honestly have put in the pretty ridiculous amount of work it takes to earn a lot of that trust back. Still wouldn’t pre-order their next title, but it’s worth getting excited for it!

Yeah, true. If the definition of “news” here is really as poor as “posted by a “News” site”, then you’re likely right that that would incentivize much of the same behaviour.

Even still though… even companies like Buzzfeed will occasionally fund “hard hitting journalism”. Handing them money blindly like that, though obviously inefficient, may still serve to make more “real journalism” financially viable. And I think there’s still people out there with a passion to do that, provided they could survive doing that.

Agreed in general though, even as a first pass at the idea, this is an awkward and subpar stab at it, with some obvious issues.

Maybe I’m missing something, but what corps stand to make a lot of money here? This sounds like it’ll cost the social media networks a fair bit of money, and the benefactors are Canadian news networks, none of which are worth a fortune, as far as I’m aware. Seems to me that Meta would’ve been lobbying against this a lot harder than any news sites could’ve afforded to lobby for it. Heck, even news sites seem shaky on it, at least based on the CBC reporter quoted in the article.

Happy to be corrected, I’m just finding it hard to figure out who the “big corps” are that would stand to benefit from this.