For me, OSMAnd~ epitomizes FOSS: Can do literally everything, privacy friendly, completely offline, but incredibly ugly, and with a UX so horrible it keeps everyone but the idealists away.

I’ve been using the app for hiking for years and I still constantly find myself looking for the right menus or the back button behaving in unexpected ways. The search function is also basically unusable.

The joke is already too old for Leo.

I’m still surprised they didn’t find any. Not that I think Saddam actually had them, but I thought they’d find them anyway.

There are ways of dealing with this, but they’re far less ideal than simply having big spinning turbines with large mass and inertia - even if the voltage or frequency of the system changes, the turbine still spins.

Spending more than 40 billion pounds over one and a half decades to build two energy storage flywheels that also produces radioactive waste is probably the most absurd undertaking conceivable to man.

When one type of generation is suffering for whatever reason, the other types can pick up the slack.

But nuclear can’t pick up the slack quickly enough, that’s the problem.

It’s much more expensive when considering lifetime costs, uranium will run out eventually, and because it can’t react quickly to changing demand it meshes horribly with renewables. If we can build an excess of renewables and pair them with storage solutions, what do we need nuclear for?

While tech bros will not shut up about how theoretical nuclear energy™ is the future, actual nuclear energy is so much worse than renewables it’s almost comical.

I mean they’re still not giving it back, right? It’s an important gesture, but it also doesn’t really change anything.

They’ll be basquing in fame.

No. Enshittification imho requires intent. When Google makes you watch twelve ads before a YT video, that’s enshittification. If SEO ruins search engines as a whole, that’s not enshittification.

Even in glorious Europe with socialized healthcare*, it’s very easy to rack up 100k or more in liabilities. Possibly decades of lost wages, improving their homes accessibility, caretakers, damages for pain and suffering and so on. E.g., German law mandates a minimum of 7.5 million Euros of coverage.

The US healthcare system sucks, but, completely independently, these coverages just aren’t enough.

*Details vary.

deleted by creator

Imagine how cheap it could’ve been if we started 50 years ago.

But that’s still not what they said in their original comment. They were directly linking Google’s search becoming worse to Google’s monopoly, while the same is happening to all other providers as well, no matter how niche they are.

Sure we can tranform this into some handwavy “capitalism bad” statement (and I agree), but that’s not what they said and has basically no substance.

Enshittification isn’t when companies make their products worse on purpose, for the sake of making it worse. The goal isn’t to get worse, the goal is to maintain competitive force and increase profit margins by way of strategically “optimizing” previously good products to squeeze ever more profit.

Exactly. Google isn’t intentionally delivering shitty search results to maintain a competitive force or increase profit margins, but because they’re fighting a constant battle against people trying (and succeeding) to outsmart their algorithms.

The comment I replied to was specifically talking how Google was attempting to deliver a good product while they were small and is now leveraging it’s market position to deliver worse search reults.

And that’s just wrong, it has nothing to do with Google burning through venture capital back in the days or being the most popular search engine nowadays. Sure, the ads are annoying, they take all your data and all that could be reasonably called enshittification, but the crappy search results aren’t intentional.

This. Google is losing the fight against SEO (and now AI), they’re not intentionally giving you bad search results. Bing, DDG, etc. are all facing the same struggles.

We’re talking about glioblastoma here, there’s not much “continous” treatment to be had and temozolomide’s and bevacizumab’s patents have run out (edit: also bevacizumab doesn’t prolong overall survival at all and temozolomide is ineffective in MGMT-positive patients, i.e. about half).

That said, I’m not sure why the other commenter is so dismissive of your idea. There’s plenty of drugs that have been kept in the cupboard (e.g. desloratadine) or not seeking approval for certain illnesses so a “new”, more expensive drug could be sold (e.g. no rituximab trials for multiple sclerosis so Roche could sell Ocrelizumab, no Bevacizumab trials for macular degeneration so they could sell Ranibizumab) – and certainly many more that we never heard about.

Butterfly meme:

Literally everything bad vaguely related to tech

Lemmy users: “Is this enshittification?”

What are the dangers of protecting fish populations, the environment and parks?

In later trials, drugs aren’t compared against placebo, but a standard therapy regimen.

deleted by creator