>It’s not even clear that Boomers are that much more likely to be NIMBYs
Most Boomers aren't NIMBYs, but most NIMBYs are Boomers.
This is a thing that uniquely threatens them because their home is their primary investment, so anything that can be leveraged to keep prices high, they'll do. Environmentalism is usually the weapon they reach for, and because they have nothing but time, they have the advantage when it comes to a court system that privileges this kind of retireded spam.
>Social security
This is more because everyone under 40 or so doesn't trust social security will even be around for them to collect, so that group sees it, correctly, as an unfair wealth transfer from young to old. Combine that with the above, and combine that with the abject refusal to even entertain basic reforms (which goes double for non-US nations), and that's where the resentment comes from. Throwing good years after bad ones.
>Prospective parents are saying "fuck that shit" and simply choosing not to have children.
Or in other words, they've been priced out of the market.
If there will be no sociofinancial niche for their children to inhabit this is in fact the rational course of action. See also: South Korean current birth rates.
>it takes less power to move a lighter and smaller car
A smaller car has less space for battery than an SUV. Because batteries are extremely heavy, that smaller car needs to be overbuilt compared to its gasoline counterpart, which further reduces room for battery. Then, because safety standards are harder to meet with small cars, the smaller car needs to be overbuilt even more.
This means that you get cars that only have half the range a gasoline-powered car does, and the gas powered car recharges an order of magnitude faster than the EV does. Oh yeah, and the people who buy smaller cars like this tend to live in places where there's no charging other than going to a gas station anyway.
It wouldn't sell on the US market because better alternatives exist. It could sell on the Chinese market because there are no better alternatives.
I mean, yes. Because we don't give kids all their rights yet. That's fair in many regards (not all. Having schools able to silence dissent legally feels all sorts of wrong). It also add protections, like not letting a 12 yo work in a coal mine or be sent to war.
More importantly, it's a powerful political spin used to justify often heinous actions. People want to protect kids.
This is just straight up false. Qualcomm's current top of the line processors are about 3 years behind what you can get in Apple's cheapest product (that being the 16e), and the budget phones (and by "budget" I mean "the 600 dollar ones") are another 3 years behind that.
iPhones don't generally become too slow to realistically use until their support lifetime expires. Androids are like that out of the box unless you spend over a thousand dollars, and those only last for about half the time (a combination of inferior hardware and inferior software). It doesn't matter if you have a 120Hz screen if the UI only updates at 20.
This is why the only killer feature for Android (outside the cameras) is adblocking- which, of course, is what Google wants to prevent. They don't want you to run real Firefox (with the only effective adblock remaining), and they want you to pay for YouTube Premium rather than using NewPipe (or some other ReVanced successor) so you can't get out of paying 10 bucks to listen to a video with the screen off.
The reason Light Mode has been getting lighter is simple: because the default computer in 2025 is now a laptop or phone, whereas in 2009 it was a desktop.
Laptops and phones have easy and relatively coarse brightness adjustment settings for their screens. Desktops didn't, and still don't.
So it makes sense that you'd just make whites as bright as possible- if the user doesn't like that, they can just turn the brightness down. Otherwise you're just kind of leaving the monitor's available/potential contrast on the table.
Note that Dark Modes skyrocketed in popularity after the default computer changed from being a desktop to a laptop- but that's because laptop and phone screens couldn't (and still can't) get dim enough at night (for dark colors are still bright due to inherent backlight bleed-through).
The next change to this trend will occur, specifically to Dark Mode, 1-2 years after the average machine a software designer is issued for work has an OLED screen- because OLED screens actually can get that dim, the current color balance will likely be inappropriate.
> So it makes sense that you'd just make whites as bright as possible- if the user doesn't like that, they can just turn the brightness down. Otherwise you're just kind of leaving the monitor's available/potential contrast on the table.
No. 70% white backgrounds allowed light and dark contrast elements. 100% white backgrounds do not.
> but that's because laptop and phone screens couldn't (and still can't) get dim enough at night (for dark colors are still bright due to inherent backlight bleed-through).
Not really anymore these days, because most use OLED, miniLED, or sufficiently good LCD tech that backlight bleed is not much of an issue.
Omitting facts that are utterly irrelevant is not lying by omission. The media doesn't report what he ate for breakfast or which brand of clothing he buys either.
People's religion and political views aren't generally considered relevant to a homicide unless there's an indication they had something to do with the motive, at which point they get reported. Otherwise, the media sticks to basic biographical details like occupation and family status.
Otherwise, the media gets accused of sensationalizing things, implying someone's religion is relevant to stir up controversy, etc.
If it turns out this was either a hate crime or a politically-motivated crime, do you really think the media will suppress that? Spoiler: they don't.
Lying by omission has a specific requirement that the liar knows something relevant and chooses not to disclose it. That’s quite different than refraining from speculation about the killer’s motive.
Most Boomers aren't NIMBYs, but most NIMBYs are Boomers.
This is a thing that uniquely threatens them because their home is their primary investment, so anything that can be leveraged to keep prices high, they'll do. Environmentalism is usually the weapon they reach for, and because they have nothing but time, they have the advantage when it comes to a court system that privileges this kind of retireded spam.
>Social security
This is more because everyone under 40 or so doesn't trust social security will even be around for them to collect, so that group sees it, correctly, as an unfair wealth transfer from young to old. Combine that with the above, and combine that with the abject refusal to even entertain basic reforms (which goes double for non-US nations), and that's where the resentment comes from. Throwing good years after bad ones.
reply