Låmp

Eh, bicycle helmet I guess?

That looks delicious. I wanna try.

Maybe do robotics (likely in a simplified way; surely “robots for dummies” is a thing?) and have them make their robots compete in some sort of competition at the end of the year.

I’m not even a competitive person at all, but when our school had us compete on Popsicle stick bridges, I had a ton of fun. Creative projects with a clear, real-world benchmark at the end are really fun.

That’s way too broad. Scripting is a pretty broad concept.

The return of mustaches.

Thanks! Hopefully my new tires are more resilient

Leftover powder on the road is a different beast. It’s often mixed up with a little bit of sand, and it’s been crushed into a powder that doesn’t feel like natural snow at all. It doesn’t stick and it slips like fine sand. Not a fun time. A little pile of 2-3 cm of the stuff was enough to almost make me completely lose control last year. Scary stuff.

Hmm, i see.

I’ll have a new bike with different winter tires this year but last year my bike would get dangerously destabilized by the smallest amount of leftover powder snow trail from the snow clearing machines, so I stayed well away from uncleared roads.

But for one, as you say, that was forgetting about how uncleared snow is not the same, and also, new tires this year.

I’ll give it a try next time. It’ll probably be safer to avoid the cars for a little bit longer anyway.

I live in the city though. It could easily recommend I use the street if it knew that winter is a thing. And uh… Idk, maybe cycling through deep snow works on a fat bike, but with a normal bike with winter tires like mine, I can’t just blast through 30+ cm of uncleared snow.

Often Google tries to have me cycle on a trail that has zero snow removal in the winter. So there’s that.

I hate that this is true. Why are we like this.

How should I go about that exactly?

Wait it was? How are we still seeing it and commenting on it?

I’m surprised that happens! Seems like a complicated mistake to make.

If I order an Americano and you serve me a filter black coffee, I swear …

That would work for projects important enough to be worth the government’s attention. But we don’t want every small project ever to be dependent on that.

Do you really see some teenager trying to meet a civil servant to explain how their Super Random RPG 2025 wiki is worth it, and the project is finally accepted (or refused, because the civil servant isn’t too hot about giving government money to something about video games) half a year later, when the most intense players, who would have contributed to such a platform a lot, have already finished the game?

I absolutely like that idea and I think it could be great for big sites like Wikipedia and various Internet Archive projects.

But I really don’t think it solves everything.

I’ve got a feeling that advertising companies have ways to differentiate real and fake clicks. Best case scenario, they wouldn’t count those. Worst case scenario, they could notice that too many clicks are fake and revoke the monetization for a website.

If captchas exist, surely they can use similar methods to catch ad cheats like that.

This is older, and not quite the same but back when I was into private Ragnarok Online servers, it was pretty well-known among server admins that you couldn’t ask people to click your ads. Either because you asked, either because they noticed unusual activity, Google would demonetize the ads pretty quickly.

Servers and bandwidth aren’t free. Someone needs to pay for it. There are roughly seven ways to fund a website:

• Complete volunteering, and maintainer pays all fees out of pocket. Only makes sense for very small projects, or when the maintainer is rich and has a great deal of passion or otherwise self-interest in the project.
• Strictly fund the website with donations. That’s more or less how Wikipedia works. It can be hard to make ends meet, and it typically only works if your website basically offers community service like a charity or if you have very passionate users.
• Freemium model: most users are just leeches and are subsidized by the few who pay for the premium version. This is more or less how free-to-play video games work, and some newspapers survive this way. It can be difficult to convince people.
• Members only: you literally cannot use the website unless you pay. A lot of SAAS websites, especially for businesses, work this way. It can be a hard sell for a lot of service categories.
• Ads. Sometimes combined with a freemium model, where you can pay to remove the ads. YouTube works this way.
• Sell user data to advertisers or more sinister entities. Only possible if you have valuable user data to sell. Most social networks get a significant portion of their revenue from this method, but they typically combine it with ads.
• Use venture capital to disturb an existing market at a loss, get massive mindshare and maybe even kill existing competition, and jack the prices up to repay your debts and turn a profit once you have customers and the market is more favourable. Airbnb works this way.

What would you do for review sites? News sites? Video game wikis?

Wouldn’t it suck if a wiki for an old game was just gone because there aren’t many players anymore, and now you just can’t access the info in it?

Marvelous. Thanks. Now I can make those super user-hostile websites usable.

Edit: wow blocking ads breaks a lot of interactivity on Fextralife though. The programming is weird I guess🤔