There’s a huge difference between saying ‘antibiotics are available OTC’ and ‘topical antibiotics are available OTC’. One is misleading clickbait nonsense, the other is true.
Yeah, I don’t see it. Jezebel was mostly pop journalism with an at times dubiously feminist leaning. To prop them up not only as a valuable news source but ‘one of the last remaining feminist institutions’ is just silly. There are better, much more rigorous feminist news sources out there that aren’t focused exclusively on click-bait and outrage fuel.
That depends on what you want out of them. If you want to minimize the amount of stuff you’re carrying around as your top priority, sure, phones are great. But if you want ease of use for a specific task without unwanted interference? They’re not always the best.
Like, if I were doing any sort of meaningful photography, I’d want my actual camera. It’s easier to shoot with, it allows for more control, and no notifications or phone calls are going to suddenly interrupt a shot.
When it comes to a music player, it’s mostly good, but what if I want to keep listening to music while doing other stuff on my phone, or while talking to someone? Phones are pretty bad at that sort of multitasking. There are certain websites I can’t read while listening to spotify, because something completely inaudible takes over the sound channel as soon as I load the page.
As to making phone calls? The number of dropped calls or calls with one-way audio is absolutely absurd, and not something I ever ran into on older dumb phones.
Convenience ultimately depends on use case. It is nice to always have some kind of camera on me, even if it’s kind of a half assed one. Ditto to a computer, a music player, and a phone. But they’re definitely not more convenient to use.
There’s a reason dials, macropads, tablets, midi devices, and things like that are popular. It’s usually a lot easier to control physical stuff sitting in front of you than it is to interface with some abstracted UI. Like, typing is so bad on phones that it spurred the creation of contemporary AI.
I definitely see some of the concerns that they have with this GARM stuff, but I also don’t particularly feel like I’ve seen much under the umbrella of the Gawker media group in general that I’d classify as “high-quality journalism”. There are decent articles here and there, but the standard for what qualifies to be published has always struck me as not particularly high.
I get that there’s a place for aggressive journalism, sometimes it’s exactly what’s called for. But Gawker always kind of felt like it was just aggressive for its own sake in order to attract eyeballs. Not to say that they never shed light on anything important, but a lot of the time it seemed like they were tilting at windmills just trying to keep that energy up.
Advertising really doesn’t seem like a great long-term solution for journalism’s funding, though. Nobody really wants ads, and people are increasingly able to just not interact with them. At the same time, nobody wants a paywall either.
Government funding, maybe? Some big public foundation? We certainly need something to prop journalism up financially or it’s just going to keep getting worse.
In US, most people in service industries that pay minimum wage aren’t teenagers. They’re people across all ages. Teenagers may be more represented there than in other sectors, but there are probably a lot more people in the US making minimum wage or a wage tied to minimum than you think.
A looot of service jobs that don’t pay minimum wage are still within a couple dollars of it or so.