Can't speak for them, but I've had a smart monitor which shows live consumption. Took note of the consumption while using the oven against baseline consumption, and the same for the air fryer.
Air fryer consumed approximately half the electricity for an equivalent amount of time in my case, but it's made better by the air fryer needing less time to reach temperature and cook whatever it is I'm making.
Those titles don't, the person you're responding to is being sarcastic because the article sorta implies that removing the microtransactions from an indie title is somehow novel.
It's not configurable through the UI, but if you're the admin of an instance you can change the character limit with some fairly simple source code tweaks.
This data is for South Korea only, which unfortunately itself has the highest suicide rate of the OECD countries.
I don't think it's especially likely that you'll find consistently interesting, well-reasoned discussion through any platform bringing together anonymous strangers in an ephemeral manner.
I think consistently interesting discussion has shared stakeholding as a foundational aspect - participants need to actually care, either because the discussion is a product of some commitment they've each made (e.g. reading something for a book club), or because the participants are familiar with each other and the outcome tangibly matters (e.g. a physical town hall meeting).
Otherwise, I think you're more likely to get what you're looking for from adopting some tangential hobby and having those discussions with the friends you get through that.
Good.
I'm far from a social media fanatic, but make no mistake that the primary purpose of legislation like this is to increase the degree of control that parents can exert over their children - not to improve the wellbeing of young people.
For teenagers from marginalised groups living in oppressive households: social media can become an outlet for self-expression amongst trusted peers which might otherwise put them at risk of retaliation from abusive parents, or a venue for them to discover like-minded people and organisations who might be able to help them cope or increase their available options by offering sanctuary should they ever need it.
It also can't be overstated that social media is one of the main venues for political expression nowadays, particularly beyond the orthodoxy. There remain issues with misinformation and the far-right, but nonetheless the breadth of opinions can help people to develop a degree of political consciousness which they might not otherwise. Consider how infrequently sympathetic portrayals of protests, strikes, and unionisation drives make the mainstream media in comparison to social media.
It's unsurprising that the politicians most aggressively pursuing legislation like this are also the ones who are trying to prevent, for example, queer people and especially queer youth from being able to express themselves without fear of reprisal - and who are actively trying to prevent access to information and depictions which might contradict their political ideology through mechanisms like internet censorship and book bannings.
The rule of the 196 community is that you're supposed to post a submission of your own before leaving, and it's customary to include the word "rule" in your post in reference to that rule.
Some of the replies here are absolutely vile: if you're going to endorse locking people in cages for years if not decades and pretend that's a justified response to anything short of their being an immediate physical danger to the people around them, then the least you can do is accommodate their most basic needs and ethical positions.
Prisons are pitched to us as places of rehabilitation - somewhere to pay penance and right wrongs before returning to the community, better for having served the time. I think it's a deeply disingenuous characterisation which serves mainly to let people avoid facing up to the reality which is prison's purposeless and ultimately harmful cruelty, but it is the dominant characterisation nonetheless.
But, if we blindly accept the rehabilitation narrative, then how exactly do we expect to rehabilitate people by fracturing them psychologically? By forcing them to violate ethical commitments which are sacrosanct to them, by alienating them from their communities and forcing them to abide by a clockwork dictatorial regime without any semblance of comfort or dignity, by leaving them to rot miserably for years?
No, and no wonder prisons are factories for broken people and recidivism if this is how people think about them. Get a hold of yourselves.
Also, before anybody retreats to the flimsy position of "but prisoners shouldn't eat better than schoolchildren" or "but what about the poor" - yes, those people are also underserved, and we have resources available to improve conditions for all of them too. All that's lacking is will.
Last but not least, if you concede that you care about neither the incarcerated nor the society they come from and will return to in time - then there's also the question of why animals should suffer? If people aren't even worthy of being afforded their basic preferences, then why should the default be the option which necessitates the lifelong suffering of sentient beings on an industrial scale?
Seriously, develop a sense of empathy.
There actually is a Web 3.0, and it predates the cryptocurrency-oriented conceptualisation of "Web3" by quite some time.
Web 3.0 is otherwise known as the Semantic Web, a set of standards developed by the W3C for formally representing (meta)data and relationships between entities on the internet, and for facilitating the machine-reading and exchange thereof.
Subscription-based models are a plague, but at least Jetbrains products eventually offer a perpetual fallback license for if you stop paying.
It's absurd that Adobe can just take tools you might depend on away after years of paying the subscription.