bunga-bunga

> I’d rather go into a real shop anyway

You’re assuming that scams don’t make their way into regular distributors as they try to cut corners and maintain competitiveness.

You already see established brands lower the quality of their products after the first round of reviews online. If found out, they just blame manufacturing. Sorry.

You vastly overestimate the possibility that this news makes it into the mind of fliers and that they actually understand the consequences.

Government says it’s ok, so it must be ok. That’s all people think.

That’s what you get when you fire the last actual mappers and just leave developers to keep it running. Google thrives on data quantity, not on quality.

More constructive comments please. What does this mean?

If you don’t have a spoon you probably should get one. I don’t think you can cook without at least 1 utensil, unless you want to stir with your fingers.

Fried rice (literally “nasi goreng”) is common across east Asia and varies by local taste. I agree it’s easy to make, I just add whatever sauce, veggies and meat I have and it’s great every time.

Speaking of nasi goreng, the one from the Aceh region of Indonesia is my favorite.

Article mode isn't perfect and not compatible with non-articles. Markdown forces content to be just content.

> would have to be restricted not to include any html tags

The point of this would be to deliver pure content, so "any tag" would definitely not be allowed. My user agent would decide what to render and how.

This specific attack could also be easily mitigated by dictating your passwords instead.

I really wish we could have browser “Accept: text/markdown” for raw documents, but that boat sailed the moment we got CSS.

Finally I read my sentiment online. We don't need clicks nor pointer events, we need high-level “visit” event.

Same boat. My blood pressure increased just reading your comment. The web is run by a bunch of amateurs who don’t know the single core concept of the web: links.

> Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale?

No scale, yet we have plenty of beauty contests, so I'd start there for an answer. Humans are regularly compared to others. We have different tastes but, socially, "beauty" is intended as an average.

Art studies could also point you in the direction of "objective beauty"

> it's not offensively bad either

In your opinion. W3fools only pulled an “it’s ok now bro, don’t sue us” update. Anytime I give it a go, I’m still presented with inaccurate and harmfully incomplete results.

Want to learn from a “for dummies” website? Be my guest. But my hate is fully justified.

That’s why I said “good looking” and “physical attraction” rather than generically “beautiful”. No doubt people can be “beautiful in person” but still “objectively ugly”

I don’t think many 80-year-olds are objectively good looking. It's not fair to judge the people who stay together for love and not for physical attraction past a certain age.

> that tells random strangers they are ugly

I don't go around telling people my lover's weaknesses, but that's how statistics are made.