get a travel agent?

Probably more reliable and corp ones exist.

> get a travel agent?

I think: to Uber founder, you’d have said get a driver or yellow cab :-)

To TurboTax founder, you’d have said get a tax accountant :-)

nope.

It won't even help you understand that the 20 second task you've been putting off for 6 months causing anxiety will only take 20 seconds (nor will we learn from this)

Or the fact that in the time it took me to read this thread I could have finished that task. Sometimes I really want to punch my brain in its stupid face lol.

> accessibility is like implementing braille and things for deaf and colourblind etc.

or

- larger fonts

- Better contrast controls,

- Non abstract art iconography,

- larger buttons and keyboard navigation,

- understanding that there are many types of colourblindness with different requriements,

- the ability to set lightmode on your app and website due to the issues reading text for anyone with astigmatisms,

- reducing the amount of animation or motion blur

The range of what accessibility is isn't small and some of it is going to be required for the vast majority of products. Also accessibility requirements change over time. eyes and hearing degrade. the desire to waste energy trying to find some stylish button that has no border and almost no contrast to indicate where it is goes away

sure, its much more likely even than your examples too...

was there a point you wanted to make or did you just want to elaborate on what accessibility means? im sure google can churn up tons more examples if u need em....

> microsoft unable to explain and show security model to federal cyber experts.

> There wouldn't be Chrome-only sites and tools if Safari wasn't holding the web back

Given the number of chrome-only sites that block firefox and not safari i think there are other issues in front end land

I agree. It's also interesting how much that overlaps with "Firefox is an ad blocker" CAPTCHAs/paywalls/ad network complaints.

> Well past time to stop listening to anything those grifting charlatans have to say.

Are you describing the "just build nukes" party here?

Cause we've been waiting a while for this nuke solution to actually ship but every example is far more expensive all while the nuke lovers block solar and wind for the same reasons.

There is no for-profit companies that are in it to save the planet, despite what the brochures say. Unfortunately for non-carbon power companies, their main competition is each other rather then fossil fuel sources.

No.

Those US companies that the US government bought part of and funded their expansions with no controls over the cartel...

given the max bandwidth of a starlink sat is in the 100Gb on a good day range why would you want to limit a DC to less bandwidth than a single cheap fibre?

Also in LEO you're going to have reentry become more of an issue (starlink burning up in the atmosphere isn't some free garbage removal it will have a measurable impact on the chemical make up (assuming it even burns up and doesn't just squash more farm buildings), Power supply more of an issue and still have huge problems with heat and radiation.

> SpaceX already has Starlink. They might need pretty high bandwidth

you mean the network that has less capacity than a fibre pair per coverage area?

5 to 7 months given they want 100kw Per ton and magical mystery sauce shielding is going to do shit all.