jehb

I'm not sure I understand the question. Drupal is a headless CMS if you want it to be. Do you mean what would be a reason for using Drupal's front-end over developing your own? I came to Drupal from managing community sites with lots of different user roles that each need complex permission sets, and I'd say it really excels over other CMS front-ends for that. Drupal.org is itself an example of this kind of site: thousands of different users (including untrusted users) logging in and creating and editing and moderating content in real-time. Sure, you could rebuild all of this functionality with the exposed APIs, but that'd be a ton of work.

Drupal is a great CMS framework. With Drupal and a capable development team, you can use Drupal to build an awesome CMS, and if you want to, also an awesome website on top of the CMS.

Drupal is not a great piece of software to try to use out of the box as both a CMS and a website front-end. Drupal doesn't have the same kind of ecosystem as WordPress. Many of the best themes and modules are really there to assist your development of your own features, as opposed to being plug-and-play solutions.

I wonder how much the demand for this vehicle has changed since it was first announced.

I was definitely on the bandwagon from this thing from the first time I saw it. Four years of Elon's dumb antics and I now absolutely will not spend a dime at any company he's associated with.

Can we please stop treating GitHub like it's an open platform? It's not. It's a closed, walled garden like every other one. The fact that they host a bunch of open source projects you use doesn't make them better; if anything, it makes them worse, because they've helped these projects wall off a part of their contribution infrastructure behind the lock and key of a corporate account.

It’s returning money to investors

I believe the parent commenter's point was exactly this. Giving money to the investor class and expecting it to benefit everyone is the definition of trickle-down economics.

I went on a microcrusade of sending correction requests last week after a series of articles (coincidentally, also in North Carolina and also about macrobiology) were published about a chigger-borne illness coming to the state, but all of the stories used a lede image of a red velvet mite, not a chigger.

The reason? It's one of the first images that pop up when you punch 'chigger' into Google, and it appears to be licensed (and mislabeled) by Getty. Tracking the image back to its original source, it was clearly identified as a red velvet mite.

I wish publications wouldn't do this. A completely random lede image would be better than showing a picture of an animal that people will now believe is the one the article was talking about.

You don't intentionally buy food at the most expensive store just to make the store more sustainable/profitable, do you?

I do, actually, because I want my local natural foods co-op to stay in business.

But your point still stands. The alternatives aren't actually comparable, because they're for-profit entities, and I don't want my food budget going to them.

I'm guessing this is to avoid running into licensing issues with the photos? Or just trying to make it easier for people to not have to use a different app to upload their shots? Or maybe just to make the associated bandwidth someone else's problem? I don't know, but I agree, "real" images would be a lot nicer.

It's especially misleading with that $54M part; obviously when people see that and the word Oracle, they assume this was all from one database license. /s

Interesting. I started on the other side, as a Google Music subscriber years ago and only realized how much I appreciated YouTube Red later on.

Of course, as soon as my credit card date needed to be updated, they kicked me off of the introductory pricing I was told I could keep forever. It's now about double that price (your price may vary for "reasons"). Then they killed Google Music in favor of the inferior YouTube Music.

Yep. I meant now that Mint is going away, I won't have a tool to do that.

For me the risk was acceptable because it was read-only access from a very small number of institutions. But those institutions have changed over the 15 years I used Mint, so having the historical data from places I used to have accounts was immensely helpful in understanding things like how much net worth changed over time. Especially when I could layer in other accounts manually as well as estimated real estate values from Zillow. So "I bought a house" wouldn't show up as "I lost $X dollars" but instead "I owe $X on a mortgage against a house worth $Y."

I came here to say exactly this. I don't need a budgeting tool, I need a single pane of glass that aggregates all of my accounts across multiple financial institutions and lets me run very basic reports against them. That's it. This product does not seem to exist.

You're right, I phrased that too generically.

What I mean is that they provide enough information to pair your first-party data with "anonymous" web traffic matched to the account level with enough granularity to line up the two.

That said, most of the companies in this space massively over promise and under deliver. The one thing they all have in common is that they're good at ABM, so they can sell to your CMO/CRO faster than you can call them out on their bullshit.

There are a lot of companies selling exactly this service. In some cases, they're able to do it pretty easily, because most people don't actually make any effort whatsoever to remain anonymous. And in a B2B setting, there's a good chance your own company is feeding their data into the same pool.

Some companies are trying to sell you on "AI based" solutions that take deanonymization a step further, but as far as I can tell, it's mostly horseshit and wishful thinking.

I think a lot of people forget this long, slow rollout. Even after most major libraries were ported, it took even longer to be able to count on every dependency having a Python 3 version available. RHEL didn't default to Python 3 until RHEL8 was released in 2019, for example.

I can't wait for e-paper to get cheaper for consumers, but I'm not looking forward to the inevitable increase in advertising displays this will accommodate when it does.

Those inducted are led to believe that they are on a righteous path, are part of a special few that have the true knowledge (while the rest of society are ignorant) and that the agenda is ultimately for a greater good.

You reference cults in the paragraph above, but honestly this sounds like a generalized recruiting message from everything from corporations to militaries to organized religion.

Counter-counter argument: A person creating a personal homepage has no obligation to cater to any particular audience. See, for example, jwz.org [NSFW when linked from here, very much on purpose]

I'm surprised at how many people took the bait to treat this as an either/or proposition. One criteria of evaluation is never sufficient to make a good decision - why not ask both? A smart consumer reads the product label and the user reviews.

Easy - just build everything on top of "enterprise" platforms that offer indemnification clauses. Then nothing is ever your fault, it's always the vendor.

I've delayed a number of purchase decisions for my new home because I don't have the time to research which devices won't have a software failure or phone home. At this point, I have to assume anything with a plug might have software-defined components that I don't want.

Anyone who thinks that managers can be replaced with AI this easily has only ever had terrible managers.

To be fair, though, a lot of people I know have only ever had terrible managers.

I have stopped using them for goods with an expiration date, and have severely curtailed my other purchases. It's a crap platform.

I hope for a future where their monopoly position is litigated away so that there is a fair marketplace with other options for next day delivery for common household items. I prefer to shop in brick and mortar stores, but there's definitely a legitimate use case for next-day delivery of household supplies. I have a family member currently experiencing severe mobility issues who lives several hours away from me in a rural area, and unfortunately Amazon is the only way I can get things like household medical supplies to her door on short notice.

There are a lot of interesting points being made in the conversation here.

What I haven't seen yet is a reminder that a Google Account is effectively Google's private property that they're letting you access in exchange for vacuuming up your personal data.

The only winning move is not to play.

Once you realize the full scope of reviews that Amazon deletes, it's hard to take anything left behind as credible whatsoever.

I went down a long odyssey recently of trying to get a refund for a food item that was four months expired the day it was delivered. Amazon refused. I escalated it. Amazon refused again. I tried to leave a bad review. Amazon deleted it. I reviewed the seller itself. Deleted again. Kept trying over and over again for several days, making ever so slight tweaks to conform to the policy. I came to the conclusion it was simply impossible to leave a negative piece of feedback.

Software engineering is what it is.

I think what's actually fuzzier is the definition of "real" engineering, whatever the hell that is. I'm not discounting that specific practices within engineering have clear definitions, but there's no one consistent way to lump every one of those professions together and have a cohesive "you're in or you're out" definition.

I do hope it's a fair and living wage for whomever is receiving it.

That said, I absolutely would take a significant pay cut to get to work on a project I cared about again. Golden handcuffs are not absolute.

"Tip" probably isn't the word anyone here would use, because they're not calculating a specific percentage. In practice, though, "keep the change" is something you'd be likely to hear at one.

My point is that this view of the "general population" is extremely skewed. I would wager that more than half of smartphone users do not have any use case for their phone aside from calling, texting, and scrolling social media. Despite years of the technology existing, no one has come forward with a use case for "smart" glasses that has even had remotely broad appeal with the general public. It's all hype backed up by descriptions of niche uses.

The headline says "Detroit man" but the article goes on to provide zero indication that the thief is a man or from Detroit.