The context for the downvoters is that at the time, Lance attributed his performance to treatment for TC. (And being down even one T would almost certainly improve saddle comfort.)
People in the education field have casually dismissed substantive studies for a long time, too.
The study itself acknowledges prior research in the area, and is far beyond mere empirical results confirming a hunch educators have had (and insufficiently addressed) for a long time.
Prospective adoptive parents need to assume a difficult years-long process with no guarantee of placement, mid to high five-figures expenses or more (prohibitive for the average non-FAANG Americans), assume major undisclosed and significantly heritable mental health disorders, assume undisclosed in-utero substance exposure requiring challenging and costly care, and be aware of revocation periods up to one year in length.
I've seen people exhaust themselves financially after many years of trying only to be told by agencies they were now above the age limit. I've seen people learn later of a family history of not just Cluster C or even B disorders, but A. I've seen revocation on the last day of eligibility at the one year mark.
International agencies are notorious for not disclosing previously diagnosed FAS, drug exposure, autism, and other major medical issues to the receiving stateside agency a consistent problem adopting out of Eastern Europe, especially.
Too many good homes who would love to adopt are being put off of the process. We need major adoption reform so eligible parents have a relatively smooth process they can trust.
In what way? Here in the US it takes too long and costs too much, but there are lots of charities that assist with this. Otherwise it's fairly straightforward. I say this as someone dealing with fertility issues and in the process of pursuing adoption myself.
I just filled out the comment. And yes, just taking too long and costing to much is already a major hurdle that leaves children in another broken pipeline for far too long awaiting placement when they could be bonding with their adoptive parents.
For all my horror stories I've also seen it work out wonderfully for people, and wish you the best. In my book it's one of the noblest things anyone can do.
Sometimes you endorse Firefox on the Librem 5 as a good experience, sometimes you indicate that due to it being fairly underpowered, JavaScript needs to be disabled on a number of sites in order to have a usable experience.
Setting aside the functional implications of disabling JS, can you help me square the two?
The browser itself did not become slower. JS-heavy websites did. But a lot of other websites still work fine, including HN. This confirms that there is no need to make newer software slower. It's the bloat that makes software and websites slow, not new features.
Apple fans are arguing that simple, local apps require more resources, and it's normal:
> Userspace apps spend more time paging and are slower.
This is right in the current thread.
In reality, both local apps and websites do not have to get heavier in order to provide more features. Apple is effectively slowing down everything (as do typical web developers). And yet KDE, Firefox, HN, Mastodon prove that this is not exactly unavoidable.
Firefox is a terrible example for you to pick as their app size on iOS ballooned from 35MB in 2015 to 373MB in 2026. That's over a 10x increase in bloat.
The developers of Firefox for iOS made the willful choice to bloat their app, not Apple.
We can replace the primary and (formerly) indispensable product of a company with a $4T market cap for $5-10/month (less if annualized), and some people still gripe.
Have you ever looked at the browsing history of a non-technical, non-tech-addicted older person? I'm usually surprised by how little activity there typically is.
The $5 plan is great for gifting Kagi to non-tech friends and relatives who won't come close to exhausting that plan. I pay for it for older relatives I don't want to get burned by Google's decades-long unwillingness to police predatory tech support scam ads and organic listings. $54 annually for 3,600 searches is a bargain for the product they get.
I appreciate that Kagi doesn't try too hard to squeeze $10 out of people who would never need it.
> Have you ever looked at the browsing history of a non-technical, non-tech-addicted older person? I'm usually surprised by how little activity there typically is.
Non-technical, tech-addicted younger people too!
Internet usage is primarily via social media apps with infinite scrolling, so there aren't actually all that many web searches happening.
> The $5 plan is great for gifting Kagi to non-tech friends and relatives who won't come close to exhausting that plan. I pay for it for older relatives I don't want to get burned by Google's decades-long unwillingness to police predatory tech support scam ads and organic listings. $54 annually for 3,600 searches is a bargain for the product they get.
This is a good idea!
I've got a Team plan through work, but there's no way for me to cover family members with that.
> Have you ever looked at the browsing history of a non-technical, non-tech-addicted older person?
Search-wise, all they know is Google. I've seen people open Internet Explorer, search 'google' via a Bing search box, then click on google.com where they finally searched for a website they basically opened every day. IMO had they known Bing is also a search engine, they would've skipped searching for Google, so I'm a bit skeptical to people changing search habits. If anything, AI could be the replacement.
I'm a tech person and 300 searches per month sounds like quite a lot to me, certainly if it's used outside of work. That's 10 searches/day, every day.
Everything I access regularly is bookmarked. If I know the site I'm going to, such as wikipedia.org, I type it in the URL bar. I think 300 searches would be more than enough.
I've worked with a lot of people in tech over the years who weren't "tech people". Idk. The one thing I've always seen with "tech people" is a certain obsession for knowledge and learning.
You're right, it does, and my edit was my emotion getting the better of me. But when you realize you're interacting with an account that only posts about the same few talking points and never contributed to tech discussion, I think it's a reasonable conclusion to come to. I was wound up enough to check his profile, which yea...don't do that, but he got me. Bot and troll accounts are good at that, whereas generally discussion on hn is alright, even if the viewpoints are disagreeable.
Not commenting one way or the other, but here is what authorizes this:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)[0]
SEC. 370. DENIAL OF PASSPORTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT.
(a) HHS Certification Procedure.—
(1) Secretarial responsibility.—Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652), as amended by section 345 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
“(k)(1) If the Secretary receives a certification by a State agency in accordance with the requirements of section 454(31) that an individual owes arrearages of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action (with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of passports) pursuant to paragraph (2).
“(2) The Secretary of State shall, upon certification by the Secretary transmitted under paragraph (1), refuse to issue a passport to such individual, and may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued previously to such individual.[1]
The above may have predated the amended copy, as a threshold of $2,500 seemed to be the case at least 3 years ago, for whatever that is worth.
