I don't disagree, but Windows' built in screen casting is hard to find and clunky to use. Linux is even worse off. Until earlier this year there was no real support from any Linux desktop environment. There's a GNOME project that's supposed to be putting together support. It was announced to ship with GNOME 46, but I'm not a GNOME user so I just tried to install the flatpak on my Kubuntu machine. It detects my TV but fails to connect with it. Definitely still needs work.

Some of that focus involves adding features that have become table-stakes in other browsers.

Speaking of this, does anyone else feel like Firefox's lack of ability to wirelessly screencast is a major problem when it comes to convincing others to switch away from chromium browsers? I know chromecast and airplay themselves are both proprietary, and therefore counter to firefox's open source philosophy, but they could at least implement first party support for miracast (or DLNA?) A surprising number of smart TVs work well with those protocols. They just tend not to advertise it because most people don't know what they are.

I admit that I haven't looked much into this since some years ago when I first switched over to firefox as my main browser, but at the time I found that there weren't even any decent addons for screen casting functionality. I've learned to live without it, but I know a lot of people who use that functionality on a daily basis and could (quite justifiably) never be convinced to switch without an equivalent.

If you were actually hoping to buy one but the rounded corners are a dealbreaker, then you may be interested to know that the DIY edition lets you mix and match the older display with the newer motherboards. Looks like opting for the older display even saves you $130 on the purchase price.

Searx is a search aggregator. It masks your identity from the search providers, but under the hood it's still just a middle man for google/bing results. I don't see how this helps if the results themselves are getting worse.

You might be interested in the pop-sci book Soonish: ten emerging technologies that'll improve and/or ruin everything. I haven't read it myself, but I've read the authors' other book about space colonization, and it was excellent so I would expect this one to be as well.

I mean, this is definitely going to be a disaster but I think the title and article here are a little misleading. The author implies that Warner Brothers is spearheading (and paying for) this venture, but I just read through the buzzword salad of a press release and it barely mentions them. The project is driven by an independent company that licensed the ready player one IP from WB. The whole thing very carefully avoids any details about money changing hands, but my guess is either that WB is getting paid, or they've negotiated a cut of any theoretical future profits. Of course, the chances of there ever being profits are slim to none, but I'd say at worst they're net $0 on the deal, and at best they actually made some money by getting paid up front. They might suffer some reputation damage if it becomes a real catastrophe, but as the author of the article mentioned they are billions in debt, so its probably a risk they're happy to take.

This is the one I came here to say. For anyone living in or visiting Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory is a lovely place to spend a few hours on a cold winter day.

Youtube in has done a remarkably good job carrying the torch of high quality documentaries and educational content beyond the realm of traditional media. Science, art, technology, history. It's all there, and much of it meets or exceeds the quality of anything the old guard of cable TV channels ever managed to produce.

I'm actually only now realizing that some of the most established channels have been reaching a wide audience with consistent and high quality content for the better part of a decade, and yet I can't think of any who have successfully broken into more "traditional" media such as television or or even streaming services. That seems exceptionally strange to me. I mean, last month there were headlines about Netflix giving $55 million to an unproven director who proceeded to blow it all on expensive cars instead of filming the show he was hired to make. Who decides to hire that guy over any number of youtube creators who have spent the last ten years cranking out a short video a week along with occasional longer form projects, all with a small crew on a shoestring budget. I can imagine three possible reasons for this. No idea which one(s) could be the real reason, or if there's something else entirely going on.

1. Hollywood^1^ is so insular that they don't even realize these people exist.
2. Hollywood is so stuck in its ways that they refuse to believe these people could be successful running a larger production.
3. Offers have been made, but those offers have been so restrictive that any number of youtubers have turned them down despite, one would assume, a large amount of money being on the table if they go along with it.

That last one in particular seems unlikely, but I do recall that the popular Primitive Technology channel went quiet for a year or more before abruptly coming back to life. Rumors swirled that he had been hired to turn the concept into a TV show, but the production company kept trying to change things and he eventually gave up and went back to doing it his way on youtube.

^1^ used here as shorthand for the more corporate and structured entertainment industry at large.

Are there any viable alternative sites you're aware of?

I remember reading a comment a while ago (on Reddit, ironically) which pointed out that SFW subreddits naming themselves [subject]porn are borrowing the wrong part from the word "pornography". "Porn" is from greek pornē meaning "prostitute", but the suffix -graphy means "to write" and is often used to indicate "the study of" the thing it's attached to (e.g. geography, cryptography, demography, etc.)

It would be more accurate, and perhaps less controversial, if these communities named themselves earthography, spaceography, unixograpy, etc. As an added bonus, the -grapy suffix is also prominent in "photography" which is appropriate considering that many of these communities are places where people share photos of the subject matter.

I read something a while ago that really put all these "ancient mysteries" into perspective: Modern humans with modern brains have existed in our current form for at least tens of thousands of years. During that time we've seen huge advancement as a society thanks to the accumulation and sharing of scientific knowledge, but any individual human today has no more brainpower than one living 10,000 years ago.

In other words, if we can sit around today and brainstorm a dozen different ways to build a pyramid with nothing but ramps and levers, there's absolutely no reason to think that the smartest builders in ancient egypt couldn't have come up withl the same ideas or better.

Attributing these achievements to aliens, or divine intervention, or anything other than raw human ingenuity is a disservice to our ancestors.

Slightly off topic, but as long as we're ranting about DNS...

Proxmox handles DNS for each container as a setting in the hypervisor. It's not a bad way of simplifying things, but if, hypothetically, you didn't know about that, then you could find yourself in a situation where you spend an entire afternoon trying every single one of the million different ways to edit DNS in Linux and getting increasingly frustrated because the IP gets overwritten every time you restart the container no matter what you do, until eventually you figure out that the solution is just like three clicks and a text entry box in the Proxmox GUI!

...Hypothetically, of course.