Ruby was designed to evoke joy and they absolutely succeeded. Usually, programming is mostly a means to an end to me. But using Ruby just feels so amazing, it's almost impossible to even describe to somebody who has never used it before.

Depends on the area. For most of the corporate world, nothing changed.

Well, we are talking about consumer technology here.

For the same reason you didn't need 8gb of RAM just to open fucking Chrome back in 2010. Changing tabs was as instant back then on a shit computer as changing apps is nowadays on any phone, with significantly less resources needed for that.

There isn't quite another platform that has changed as dramatically as the web over the last few years. Just look at all those new APIs. Especially with the introduction of WebAssembly, we have reached a point where running actual software in the browser has become a viable option. Back in 2010, most websites consisted mainly of static content and maybe a bit of Flash and JavaScript here and there.

Loads of apps are little more than glorified "single page browsers", they just load a special version of the site with a couple extra bells and whistles. You can very easily run Spotify, Youtube, TikTok, Discord, Gmail, Xitter and more on a single browser and change tabs instantly with a single click.

Do so and check your memory usage.

And most games aim at the lowest common denominator (both regarding phone specs and "type of game") because they want to reach the widest audience possible. A lot of people use Unity to make simple 2D games, yet that thing is bloated as all hell. Does it facilitate development? Absolutely. That doesn't excuse it for being a mess.

Having a look at the list of most popular mobile games, you will see that recent ones usually aren't simple 2D games.

As a side note, did you know that the PS2 had 32MB of RAM and its main CPU was a custom RISC running at 300MHz? You know, the console that let people play God of War 1 and 2, GTA San Andreas. "Oh, but its sole purpose was for gaming and it had a specific graphics core" - true, but once your application is front and center in a phone, it can hog 90% of the CPU and eat any free RAM, which, if your phone has 2GB total, and ~1.5GB is used by other apps and the system, you still have some 400MB to play with. The OS can get in the way and does add overhead, which ends up mostly being extra CPU time.

That's really not comparable at all. Games back then were specifically optimized for a single console with a single hardware configuration. Android apps today target millions of different devices and mostly aren't even native. That's just how it works and it isn't really an issue since RAM has become dirt cheap. There isn't really any downside to just having a lot of RAM when it only increases the price by a few dollars.

A Galaxy S2, back on release, was really fast compared to its peers. Once its specs became mid-low end, it started to feel significantly slower, that's true. Could've been the bloat catching up.

Compared to it's peers? Maybe. But it definitely couldn't keep dozens of apps running in the background and allow immediate switching between them without reloads. Even with the lower requirements of apps back then.

Not every increase in complexity means an increase in bloat. Software today is much more capable than it was 12 years ago. People don't use their phones only to write SMS, do some calls and maybe basic web browsing (mobile sites used to be very limited to reduce resource requirements, by the way). They want to be able to have dozens of apps open at the same time, switch between them without any kind of lag, scroll through infinite feeds with pictures and videos auto playing, watch YouTube and Netflix videos at high resolutions and let me also remind you of the fact that the mobile gaming market is the largest of them all by far.

I'm not saying that there isn't any bloat but most people have replaced their PC with a phone because they can now do everything that once required a computer on their mobile device. So why shouldn't the phone have similar memory requirements to a PC?

And honestly, I don't remember Android phones from over a decade ago ever actually feeling fast. They might have been all right for a while but, in my experience, old phones would usually turn into a slog quickly.

Well, the website and mobile app are overwhelmingly hated (just look at the reviews on the PlayStore). I think there are two major things helping Reddit: It's easy to grasp (Lemmy has instances, dozens of different apps, etc.) and the fact that Reddit already has a community for basically everything.

The wasps you see are usually the ones only out for your food.

Yes, it's very common (mostly) in men at that age.

Yeah, but people also need ro make money.

What do you mean? I don't think any other operating system even comes close to Windows in regards to backwards compatibility. Most software designed for Windows 98 will still run fine on Windows 11.

There are thousands lines of code in the NT kernel with patches for specific programs. There is even a line patching an incompatibility with Lego Island, lol.

I don't. I chose to purchase the pro version for a few bucks.

I don't know any open source client that is even remotely as nice to use as Boost. Also, it's not like the developer is actively spying on you, that's just the default AdMob popup Google is now forced to show (They simply didn't ask for any kind of consent in the past).

Anyway, I simply paid a few bucks for ad-free Boost.

Honestly, I think Gmail's web client is pretty great. It actually has tons of power user features I found very handy in the past (like support for scripting).

This is one of my favorite pictures on the internet.

First time I see that website actually working.

I have been using a multi-monitor setup for years and never had any issues. Windows will usually appear on the screen you closed them on.

I'm calling out your use of it just lays in their nature as some sort of objective truth, yes. Feel free to support the notion.

I never claimed it was an objective truth, I just believe it to be likely. Breeding is used to reinforce desired traits and I see no reason to believe that 'inherent aggressiveness' can't be bred.

I'm not sure how "bred for X" is particularly relevant to your assertion that "X will Y".

Again, likelihood. It's possible that humans were ineffective at achieving their goal of breeding an aggressive dog for fighting but reality gives me no reason to doubt it.

Don't you think you should?

There is neither concrete evidence for or against it. Again, I came to my conclusion by applying the same logic I apply to other bred traits.

Has it become a "systematic problem"? I'm curious as to how you've drawn that conclusion. Media sensationalism does not a problem make.

Judging by the statistics, it has. Pitbulls are responsible for 65.6% of reported attacks in the US, yet only make up 6% of all dogs. Whether that's the fault of the dog or poor training from the owner doesn't change the fact that it is a systematic problem.

I don't think there is a proper short term solution to this problem. At least dogs don't live forever. A gun bought now can still be used to shoot somebody in a hundred years, a pitbull, on the other hand, has an average life expectancy of 12-14 years.

No need to get personal. I don't know what anecdotes you are talking about. Are you disagreeing with my assertion that certain breeds of dogs naturally exhibit certain traits? If not, then wouldn't it be much more of an anomaly if a breed that was bred for fighting didn't also possess appropriate traits? I do not have any studies to back up my statements, so I have not completely ruled out the possibility that there is no genetic basis, just found it unlikely.

Moreover, the same is true, of course, for any other dog breed that becomes a systematic problem.

Possible but unlikely. Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. It just lays in their nature.

And even if that was the case, banning a strong breed physically capable of causing lifelong disfigurement or even death could still help reducing the amount of incidents.

I'm obviously not asking for all pitbulls to be euthanized. I'm just asking for them not being allowed to reproduce.

You only allow people who already own a banned dog to keep it. After a few years it will become obvious that anybody who owns a young illegal dog must have purchased it after the ban.

Cat bites often become infected when not treated properly. But at least they are basically incapable of killing you immediately or causing lifelong disfigurement.