Honestly, this says more about online culture than about her. When even someone like Milly Alcock gets mocked, it shows the standard isn’t “beauty” — it’s control. There’s also a weird pattern where actresses in big franchises get judged on looks before talent. At some point, it stops being criticism and becomes normalized bullying. The real question is: are fans actually harder to please now, or are they just louder?

Exactly. And the worst part is that most people only figure that out after they already have kids. Nobody really warns you beforehand.

Good breakdown. One thing worth adding: the $200 median isn't just a motivation problem, it's a positioning problem that compounds over time. I've seen people grind delivery apps for 18 months while a single repositioned freelance offer, same skill set, different framing, would have gotten them to $2k/month in half the time. The burnout stat tracks too. 67% burning out makes sense when most people are essentially doing piecework with no pricing power. The ones who escape that pattern almost always did two things: they stopped competing on availability and started competing on specificity, and they built at least one income stream that doesn't reset to zero every month. On the AI automation consulting angle specifically, the demand is real but undersupplied in most local markets. Most small business owners have heard of ChatGPT and nothing else. Someone who walks in knowing Make or n8n is essentially unopposed. According to Upwork's own data, AI-related job postings grew roughly 300% year over year on the platform, yet most of that demand sits at the enterprise level. The small business gap is still wide open. The validation point from Small Business Trends is probably the most underrated stat in the whole piece. 4.1x more likely to reach profitability in six months just by testing before building. Most people skip that step entirely because it feels like procrastination. It isn't. It's the actual work.

It seems like something that would be really valuable for beginners. But the question remains: how accessible will it be to everyone, and how much will it cost us? Then I wonder: will the big influencers be able to maintain their status or even keep rising? I don't know.

The biggest concern we have about playing with our bodies is related to the health problems it can cause us. I remember that someone from the band '3 seconds to march' developed epilepsy because of these games.

A guy got his termination email at 9:03 AM. At 9:47 AM he still had full access to the systems. In 44 minutes you can erase years of a company's work, leak data from millions of customers, or plant a piece of code that only goes off 90 days later — when nobody remembers his name anymore. <br>This isn't science fiction. It happened at Tesla. It happened at Google. It happened at Coinbase in 2025. <br>And the part nobody wants to admit: what stopped it from being so much worse wasn't a firewall, wasn't a security protocol, wasn't some AI monitoring system. <br>It was the employee deciding to do nothing. <br>How long before that bet stops paying off?

I don't believe it's the government's intention to pass laws after the damage has been done. What happens is that things turn out differently than expected when they first started. Unfortunately, no one can predict the future.

**A market that grows at the expense of those who can't keep up** The numbers are impressive, but they conceal a troubling dynamic: AI adoption creates structural inequality in an already fragmented market, where firms with 20 or more attorneys gain measurable advantages while solo practitioners face investment barriers that are financially out of reach. The article treats this as a footnote. **Who pays the price:** Independent attorneys and small firms are the most exposed. A 39.3% increase in technology spending over five years is not absorbable by those operating on tight margins without access to institutional credit. The market consolidation the article predicts is not neutral — it is the gradual elimination of those without capital. Legal support professionals (paralegals, administrative assistants) are the biggest absentees from the analysis. Intake processing, document review, and medical record analysis functions are being directly absorbed by AI, yet the article celebrates this as "efficiency" without a single mention of the employment impact on those categories. Injured clients also suffer in less visible ways. When a case is processed by automated evaluation systems, the person who was actually hurt essentially becomes an input. AI-driven "settlement valuation" optimizes for speed and throughput — not necessarily for the best outcome for the client. **The root cause is structural, not technological.** The problem is not AI itself, but the fact that it arrives in a market with no clear regulation, no transparency requirements, and no protection mechanisms for those who cannot invest. The ABA and state bar associations are still developing guidance on AI use in legal practice, and questions around liability, confidentiality, and disclosure of AI-assisted work remain unresolved. That means technology is advancing faster than ethical safeguards — which in a sector dealing with vulnerable people is, at the very least, reckless. The argument that cloud platforms "democratize" AI access for small firms is particularly weak. Access to a tool is not the same as the capacity to implement, train, and integrate it. It is the equivalent of saying anyone can play professional football because they have access to a ball.

**"Virgin Galactic surged 83% in 5 days. Their product costs $750k a ticket and still hasn't carried a single passenger. Is this investing or science fiction with a stock ticker?"** What puzzles me about this whole story isn't the rally itself. Any company with 23% short interest can explode like this on positive news. What puzzles me is the narrative underneath: SPCE has gained over 83% in five sessions, but analysts have an average price target of $3.55, implying roughly a 21% drop from recent levels. The company continues to generate minimal revenue, trades at a price-to-sales ratio above 200, and remains deeply loss-making at the operating level. In other words: the market isn't pricing what the company *is* today. It's pricing what it *represents*: space tourism, the dream of a ticket to space. And now with the SpaceX IPO approaching, all this sector euphoria is "infecting" SPCE through emotional contagion. The question I like to leave open for debate: **is this any different from crypto speculation?** Technically yes. There's a real company, real engineers, a VSS Unity that actually flew. But financially, investor behavior looks exactly the same: people buy the narrative, not the balance sheet. The counterargument holds too: Amazon was considered overvalued for years before it dominated the world. Should someone with long-term vision be getting into SPCE now, before space tourism goes mainstream?

Trump promised peace and said no nation would control the Strait of Hormuz — but Middle Eastern leaders already believe Iran effectively controls the Strait regardless of any deal. In other words, the political rhetoric doesn't match the reality on the ground. The ones directly suffering are merchant ship crews, with at least five killed in attacks on vessels since March, and logistics companies that can't absorb the rising costs. Oil prices go up, insurers profit, and the dock worker or truck driver sees none of that reflected in their paycheck.

Interesting how the same people who champion 'the will of the people' passed this map after midnight, restricted the opposition's amendments, and ignored an open meetings law, all within a three-day special session. If a so-called 'third world' country did this, everyone would be calling it an electoral coup. Here they call it Republican governance.

I reply to everyone because my block list has already taken care of removing all the jerks from my life lol

Most devs reach for `<div>` soup or a `<ul>` for key-value layouts. But there's a native HTML element built exactly for that — with accessibility semantics baked in — that the majority of the industry just... ignores. How many production codebases have you seen that actually use `<dl>` correctly?

If you played the Western version and found it hard, you were actually playing a censored, watered-down version. The Japanese release has different bosses, more lore, and a completely different difficulty curve, it's almost a different game. How many of you actually know the real Dynamite Headdy?

One thing I'd add: the isolation problem compounds. The less you network, the less you know what skills are actually valued outside your current team, so you double down on the wrong things, which makes you even less relevant outside your bubble. I watched this happen to a senior dev I really respected. By the time he realized it, he was five years behind on everything that mattered in the market.

Moderators are free to flag a post, but we administrators do not flag posts in such situations

Moderators in each community and site administrators can flag a post when it violates community or site rules; these posts are then restricted from comments and upvotes and are automatically removed from the homepage

Well, you've got a point there.

I never let myself get pushed around; I plan my deliverables to leave room for leisure and rest, and when I realize a client is going to want results on a tight deadline, I'd rather just pass on the project. Losing out in those cases means gaining more peace of mind.

It’s something I’d like to try. I feel a little out of shape. But just the thought of going for hours without eating makes me give up mentally, lol.

Most people frame career change as a leap of faith. But the data tells a different story: the professionals who transition successfully don't jump, they build a bridge while still standing on the old shore. The real risk isn't changing. It's waiting so long that fear becomes identity.

This article completely changed my perspective on investing :)

We don't see any problem with keeping these features permanently. Are you pointing out a potential future issue?

The Space.com article touches on something interesting that goes beyond the simple “will we see auroras or not.” It highlights how we’re in a rare phase of the solar cycle where even relatively modest events can produce visible effects at unusual latitudes. What stands out is that we’re talking about a weak geomagnetic storm, a G1 level, and yet there’s still a chance of auroras in places like Michigan and Maine. That says a lot about the current state of the Sun. Even though we may be past the peak of the cycle, solar activity is still elevated enough that small brushes with solar ejections can create noticeable effects on Earth. Another point worth noting is the unpredictability. The article mentions a “glancing blow,” meaning a partial impact from a coronal mass ejection. Events like this are a reminder that space weather is still very much a game of probabilities. Small changes in trajectory or magnetic orientation can turn an ordinary night into a light show or nothing at all. In that sense, aurora watching feels closer to meteorology than traditional astronomy. There’s also a broader angle to consider. When auroras start appearing farther south, most people focus on the visual spectacle. But it’s the same phenomenon that can affect satellites, communications, and even power grids, even if only mildly in this case. Every unusual aurora is also a subtle stress test of how exposed our infrastructure is to solar activity. If you want to push the discussion further, there’s an interesting takeaway here. We may be entering a period where “ordinary” solar events matter more than they seem. Not because they are extreme, but because they occur in a world that increasingly depends on space-sensitive technology. The aurora becomes a visible signal of something much bigger happening behind the scenes.

It’s funny how 15GB always felt like the “default,” and now suddenly it’s something you have to unlock. It’s not even about the storage itself, it’s the shift in how things work. Makes you wonder if we’re going to see more of these quiet changes in “free” services.

I've lived this from both sides and what the article describes as a "moral inventory" is exactly what happens, except nobody calls it that in the moment. You don't realise you've become a judge. It happens gradually, a comparison here, a passing thought there. What stayed with me from this piece is that the problem starts long before the request. It starts in the kind of friendship we build, where we never learned to talk about money naturally, as if doing so would damage something sacred. By the time the request comes, it's already too late to have the right conversation.

I’m not sure how scalable this is. It works for generics, but what about more complex medications? That’s a different story.

I really liked how the post connects simplicity with decision making. I went through something similar in a project where the more features I added, the more confusing the product became. The turning point was when I removed half of what I had built and focused only on the main flow. Surprisingly, that’s when I started getting real positive feedback. Less stuff, but clearer, changes everything.

There’s an interesting pattern here: when the index gets close to “psychological” levels like 8000, enthusiasm ramps up way faster than fundamentals. It’s like the market also has a thing for round numbers, almost like a collective superstition with Bloomberg open on the screen.

The Musk v. OpenAI trial in Oakland is one of those rare events where Silicon Valley drops the mask and lets the world see what really happens behind the polished presentations and speeches about "saving humanity." The core point is simple but devastating: former CTO Mira Murati testified under oath that Sam Altman would say one thing to one person and the complete opposite to another, creating an environment of chaos and acting deceptively with her and other senior leaders. And the detail that ties everything together with an almost unbearable irony: even while describing that chaos, Murati said she wanted to keep Altman as CEO because she feared the company would collapse without him. A company so central to the future of AI that, according to its own executives, couldn't function with him or without him. But the circus doesn't stop there. Greg Brockman pushed back on Musk's narrative, testifying that it was Musk himself who pushed for OpenAI to create a for-profit entity and fought bitterly for absolute control over it. Meanwhile, Shivon Zilis, mother of four of Musk's children and former OpenAI board member, revealed that Musk once offered Altman a seat on Tesla's board as part of a proposed merger. In other words: the man now suing OpenAI for going for-profit was the same one who tried to absorb it into one of his most commercially aggressive companies. The contradiction is staggering. Brockman also revealed that before the trial began, Musk allegedly told him he would make both Altman and him "the most hated men in America" if they didn't settle. That doesn't sound like someone driven by altruistic principles around safe AI. What makes this trial genuinely fascinating goes beyond the personal drama. It's a rare window into how the company that shaped the global conversation on artificial intelligence actually made its most critical decisions. And the answer seems to be: with a lot of improvisation, a lot of internal distrust, and founders who couldn't agree on what the company was even supposed to be. Murati said she wanted to keep Altman despite distrusting him because she feared the company would fall apart. Does that reveal more about the limits of corporate governance in high-stakes startups, or about human nature itself? If Musk genuinely tried to merge OpenAI into Tesla and push himself into the CEO role, how does he sustain the argument that the problem was the company abandoning its nonprofit mission? Given everything being revealed, do you think it's still possible to believe that any party in this trial is genuinely concerned about safe AI development, or has this become a war of ego and money dressed up as a cause?