jehb

I'm not sure I understand the question. Drupal is a headless CMS if you want it to be. Do you mean what would be a reason for using Drupal's front-end over developing your own? I came to Drupal from managing community sites with lots of different user roles that each need complex permission sets, and I'd say it really excels over other CMS front-ends for that. Drupal.org is itself an example of this kind of site: thousands of different users (including untrusted users) logging in and creating and editing and moderating content in real-time. Sure, you could rebuild all of this functionality with the exposed APIs, but that'd be a ton of work.

Drupal is a great CMS framework. With Drupal and a capable development team, you can use Drupal to build an awesome CMS, and if you want to, also an awesome website on top of the CMS.

Drupal is not a great piece of software to try to use out of the box as both a CMS and a website front-end. Drupal doesn't have the same kind of ecosystem as WordPress. Many of the best themes and modules are really there to assist your development of your own features, as opposed to being plug-and-play solutions.

I wonder how much the demand for this vehicle has changed since it was first announced.

I was definitely on the bandwagon from this thing from the first time I saw it. Four years of Elon's dumb antics and I now absolutely will not spend a dime at any company he's associated with.

Can we please stop treating GitHub like it's an open platform? It's not. It's a closed, walled garden like every other one. The fact that they host a bunch of open source projects you use doesn't make them better; if anything, it makes them worse, because they've helped these projects wall off a part of their contribution infrastructure behind the lock and key of a corporate account.

> It’s returning money to investors

I believe the parent commenter's point was exactly this. Giving money to the investor class and expecting it to benefit everyone is the definition of trickle-down economics.

I went on a microcrusade of sending correction requests last week after a series of articles (coincidentally, also in North Carolina and also about macrobiology) were published about a chigger-borne illness coming to the state, but all of the stories used a lede image of a red velvet mite, not a chigger.

The reason? It's one of the first images that pop up when you punch 'chigger' into Google, and it appears to be licensed (and mislabeled) by Getty. Tracking the image back to its original source, it was clearly identified as a red velvet mite.

I wish publications wouldn't do this. A completely random lede image would be better than showing a picture of an animal that people will now believe is the one the article was talking about.

> You don't intentionally buy food at the most expensive store just to make the store more sustainable/profitable, do you?

I do, actually, because I want my local natural foods co-op to stay in business.

But your point still stands. The alternatives aren't actually comparable, because they're for-profit entities, and I don't want my food budget going to them.

I'm guessing this is to avoid running into licensing issues with the photos? Or just trying to make it easier for people to not have to use a different app to upload their shots? Or maybe just to make the associated bandwidth someone else's problem? I don't know, but I agree, "real" images would be a lot nicer.

It's especially misleading with that $54M part; obviously when people see that and the word Oracle, they assume this was all from one database license. /s

Interesting. I started on the other side, as a Google Music subscriber years ago and only realized how much I appreciated YouTube Red later on.

Of course, as soon as my credit card date needed to be updated, they kicked me off of the introductory pricing I was told I could keep forever. It's now about double that price (your price may vary for "reasons"). Then they killed Google Music in favor of the inferior YouTube Music.

Yep. I meant now that Mint is going away, I won't have a tool to do that.

For me the risk was acceptable because it was read-only access from a very small number of institutions. But those institutions have changed over the 15 years I used Mint, so having the historical data from places I used to have accounts was immensely helpful in understanding things like how much net worth changed over time. Especially when I could layer in other accounts manually as well as estimated real estate values from Zillow. So "I bought a house" wouldn't show up as "I lost $X dollars" but instead "I owe $X on a mortgage against a house worth $Y."

I came here to say exactly this. I don't need a budgeting tool, I need a single pane of glass that aggregates all of my accounts across multiple financial institutions and lets me run very basic reports against them. That's it. This product does not seem to exist.