The description of the vehicle is:

“Image: A four-wheeled vehicle that appears to be a cross between a bicycle, a go-cart, and a mini-truck”

There’s really nothing about that vehicle that’s bicycle-like. First of all, it has more than 2 wheels, so it’s not a bicycle. In addition, you don’t move it by pedalling. You also sit inside it, not on it.

It’s really more of a cross between a golf cart and a delivery truck. It might legally get through loopholes meant for bicycles, but there’s nothing about it that looks bicycle-like.

Trikes and quads might share characteristics with bicycles, but they’re not bicycles because they don’t have two wheels.

“a vehicle with two wheels tandem”

“a two-wheeled vehicle that you sit on”

“a vehicle with two wheels in tandem”

“Bicycle is a two-wheeled vehicle powered by the rider”

“bicycle, two-wheeled steerable machine that is pedaled by the rider’s feet”

“a bicycle, a bike: a two-wheeled vehicle moved by pressing down on pedals with your feet”

Sometimes you could argue that there’s a grey area between a moped and a bicycle, or an e-bike and a bicycle. But, the two wheels is a key part of the definition. As soon as it’s more (or less) than two permanently attached wheels, it’s no longer a bicycle. That’s why we have words like unicycle, tricycle, etc.

I wonder if there were Nazis that in 1944 said something like “ok, that’s the last straw, I’m going to have to quit the Nazi party.”

Jobs paid enough so one person could stay home is how it worked

That’s a fantasy. In the 1800s and before there was so much at-home work to be done that it was a full time job for someone (virtually always the wife). She had to do the baking, cooking, mending clothes, cleaning, etc. all without any electrical appliances. That included no refrigerator or freezer, so shopping had to be done a lot more often. There were also no cars, so people either had to walk to do their shopping, or they used a horse. But, if they used a horse, then there was extra work related to keeping the horse alive and in good shape. Clothes were also a lot more expensive, so a lot more time was spent either making clothes at home and mending clothes that had holes, worn spots, etc. It wasn’t “to do chores and whatnot”, it was a full-time job involving more work than a typical a typical job from modern days.

Then there was WWI, then the “roaring 20s”, which is when electrical appliances first started appearing, and then the stock market crashed and the great depression hit. During the great depression, if either the wife or the husband could find work, they were lucky, and probably had to support the whole family. During the great depression, a lot of worker protections were put in place through the New Deal. But, the jobs weren’t there.

Then WWII hit, and for a while the US was manufacturing things for the rest of the world without being in the war itself. That helped the economy get going again. When the US joined the war, the economy was really going, but there was rationing in place so the workers who were earning money weren’t able to spend it. When the war ended, the US was in an incredibly strong position. Workers had savings to spend once rationing was removed. Every other country had had its industrial base smashed by the war. As a result, the US manufacturing was in high demand all over the world. For contrast, even though the UK was also one of the “winners” of WWII, rationing was in place until 1954.

So, high demand for industrial workers, worker protections left over from the New Deal era, labour-saving electrical appliances being available for the first time, cars everywhere… it was a unique set of circumstances that meant for maybe the first time in history a man could work a blue collar job and have a wife who stayed at home and just did “chores and whatnot”. That lasted a few decades. People blame Reagan for a lot of it, but really by the time he was elected that golden period for blue collar workers was already ending.

Also, keep in mind that strong protections for workers didn’t just happen. The government didn’t just decide that it would be nice to workers. Workers had to fight hard for those rights. The 8 hour day is the result of fights that were very violent. Bombs were thrown at cops. Supposed ringleaders were hanged by the government after show trials. FDR pushed for laws to protect workers because the alternative was rioting. If today’s workers want to share in the wealth, they need to riot, they need to be prepared to die. Nothing’s going to change if it’s just complaining that “this isn’t how it should be”.

Zen is a reskinned Firefox. Firefox depends on Google’s funding to stay afloat.

Everything else, other than Safari on Mac is either chrome-based or firefox-based.

The 2026 FBI recommends that you vote for Trump, or else.

In that case, Mexico and Canada can have their own final, and Mexico can win, as is tradition.

And then the only countries involved are Mexico, USA and Canada. Then Mexico beats the US, as is tradition.

This polling seems to work extremely hard to avoid noticing the elephant in the room: a company isn’t going to build a datacenter in the middle of Beverly Hills.

The data from the article seems to suggest that people in the top quartile of income resisted 14 DCs out of the 365 projects considered.

They then decided that that is a resistance rate of 14 / 365 * 100 = 3.836%.

Um. No.

The resistance rate is number resisted / number proposed for that income quartile. If only 14 were proposed in upper-income areas, and 14 were resisted, that would mean that the resistance rate for high income areas was 100%.

Could be 100x fewer, or 10,000x fewer. 5x fewer would mean that rich people and poor people resist DCs at the same rate, but that there are 5x fewer DCs in rich areas. But, my guess is that rich people would actually resist a lot more if someone dared to consider building a DC in their area… but that probably never happens, because why would a company buy up expensive real estate for a DC?

Any day now.

Till then, maybe it would be a good idea to try to improve what we have now.

For me: Gnome + extensions.

The default Gnome feels way too locked down to me, and I don’t like some of the choices. But, with the right extensions “locked down” becomes “simplified enough to get out of your way”.

Also sleep in a poorly ventilated room, in a tiny hammock, with 50 other men. Don’t worry, you’d probably sleep well because you’d be so exhausted from the crushing physical labour. You’d be eating simple, unflavoured bread / crackers that are so hard that they need to be dunked in water for several minutes so they don’t break your teeth. And, speaking of teeth, your new job does come with healthcare, but that’s mostly tooth pulling and limb amputations. Anything else and you just need to suck it up. No sick days either, you show up for your shifts, 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week. Sickness is probably pretty common. 50 men sleeping in the same crowded, airless room. No washing, no soap. Toilets are simply a plank with a hole above the ocean. No toilet paper either.

But, you do get to sing sea shanties.

Ok, and? What point are you trying to make? Capitalism bad? Great, what’s your workable alternative?

You’re still spending money because you employ the people doing the spreading. They could be doing other things, so even if they were slaves there’s an opportunity cost.

Yes, they’re different enough that the distinction matters.

Advertising is about selling things. The company buying an ad simply wants to sell their product or service. The advertiser simply wants to make money by showing an ad. An advertiser might accept an ad from Palantir one day and one from Amnesty International the next day. Or, in the case of Meta or Google, selling ads for both simultaneously.

Propaganda isn’t about making money. It’s a money-losing venture. The idea is to change people’s minds, typically by deceit. Some people might say that a piece about the dangers of drinking and driving is propaganda, I think most would say it’s an informational message.

There are cases where advertising and propaganda overlap. But, there are also many cases where they don’t. It’s very useful to have two distinct words to describe the two different phenomena.

That’s not propaganda. That’s advertising. Google and Meta are ad companies.

That has always been the case, unless you were a farmer. If you’re a farmer today you can grow your own food. The difference is that we just don’t need as many farmers because technology has improved.

Google and Meta aren’t controlling propaganda. They’re just trying to make ad dollars.

Propaganda is something you lose money doing, because you’re spending money (or using influence) to change minds.

I wonder if there are other " genericized trademark" companies that have failed that spectacularly. You can still buy Frigidaire refrigerators. Vaccuuming is known as “hoovering” in the UK, and Hoover is still around.

It would be pretty interesting if “a GoPro” exists as a word for an action camera and the company / brand no longer exists.