This time last year there was around 38k active users.

I think this kind of slow growth is fine. We just need enough influx to replace people who naturally leave, and maybe a bit more. We don't have any CEOs or stockholders demanding exponential growth.

Old-school: hoodie and mirrorshades.

And let's not forget the hands....

Why Die Hard is a Christmas Movie:

• there's a grinch who spoils the party
• "You're, uh...?" "Clay. Bill Clay." (checks directory to see if naughty or nice)
• need help? call a plump do-gooder (the cop at the donut shop)
• anxiously expecting a vehicle to land on the roof
• "It's Christmas, Theo! It's the time of miracles, so be of good cheer!"
• a good guy climbs down the chimney / elevator shaft

Back in the 70s, men's hair had to be about an inch short. Women were very limited in what kind of jobs they could get, and were regularly groped if not assaulted. LGBT+ were literally considered mentally ill. If you were non-white, no way you could work in an office (except for janitorial maybe.) But yeah, America sure was Great back then... ~/s~

One of the things I learned as a scientist is that for any major accomplishment, there are thousands of people who did difficult, necessary, and not-widely-recognized work to make that accomplishment possible.

I suspect if you ask them who their bio pic is, you will get a very long explanation of who they are and why they like them.

Businesses get on board and start the horrible ad infestation

There were a couple years where businesses were "entering cyberspace" and still trying to figure it out. Mostly this involved static webpages, since they saw the web as a kind of yellow pages. i.e. a business' web page was their ad.

people are apparently fine with ads

It amazes me how accepting most people are of ads. I suspect Google's going to win, and their ultimate contribution to humanity will be forcing ads into everything.

The article is a lot more nuanced than the headline. Arab- and Muslim-Americans knew that neither candidate cared about them, and the article explains various ways that affected their thinking.

Unpopular opinion: blaming the voters is counterproductive. It's important to understand why they voted (or abstained) the way they did.

Yes, some percentage of voters are indeed racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. But hypothetically, another percentage are people who were unhappy because of economic reasons and felt they were presented with two bad options:

• an unreliable candidate who acknowledged they were unhappy
• an unknown candidate who said they were wrong and should just be happy

Is this hypothesis correct? I don't know, but just assuming the voters are ignorant, or just saying that leopards will eat their faces, isn't productive.

FTA:

...for at least 20 million U.S. households, there is good cause for disillusionment. The method the federal government uses to calculate real incomes tends to capture the economic realities of higher-income people better than those of working-class and middle-class Americans.

This year, Trump voters who supported abortion rights amendments may have decided to take Trump “at his word that he was not going to support a national ban,”

Trusting that Trump is telling the truth? What could possibly go wrong...

republicans have nobody to blame

They will always find someone to blame.