That’s a rather poor state of affairs but is surely an issue to take up with our local authorities. Is that their only communication channel? There’s no website, RSS feed or at least mirror feed on an alternative platform?
We should have prevented Twitter/X and other platforms becoming quasi-official communications channels for public institutions.
If he salutes like a Nazi, pushes antisemitism like a Nazi, and promotes Nazi policies, he's probably a Nazi (or at best, functionally indistinguishable). Plus, his parents had close ties to Nazis:
Then can we please stop driving Volkwagens (original Nazi car), BMWs, Mercedez-Benz, Audis, Ford, and Porsches because they contributed to the actual holocaust and the Nazi regime.
Maybe stop using IBM's services, close your Deutsche Bank account and stop reading the Associated Press.
What you are describing is guilt via the sins of the father and diluting the word "Nazi" to become meaningless.
The renaming of Twitter, the MechaHitler incident, the Nazi salute, the 14 flags post, etc etc. It can't be any plainer. Not only does Musk ideologically align with Nazis, he can't stop expressing all sorts of literal Nazi symbols.
I hate Elon Musk with a passion, and he's definitely a Nazi, but he's been trying to do something with "x.com" since he bought the domain from Paypal in 1999.
> The National Trust, which owns the land, has previously warned pilgrims not to do so, as the area is ecologically sensitive, but it seems that people still do so.
Ah okay, laying a few stones is ecologically sensitive, but if a billion dollar company wants to dig up the entire beach for a cable, that's not a problem.
> Ah okay, laying a few stones is ecologically sensitive, but if a billion dollar company wants to dig up the entire beach for a cable, that's not a problem.
The billion dollar company is monitored by ecologists and other professionals to make sure they build things according to environmental impact laws and follow their permits (e.g., after digging, restoring the top soil, etc).
Randos moving and stacking stones, especially in large numbers, may alter habits for (small) animals and cause erosion:
You would think so but not the case for the construction of the controvsersial A69 highway in France.
Infractions are fixed through authorization change ...
> Around the beginning of the construction work, between 2022 and 2023, criticism of the project was given national media coverage, with several associations highlighting its negative environmental impact, as well as its high price for users and the fact that the current free expressways bypassing the towns of Puylaurens and Soual would be incorporated into the motorway and made toll-paying.[1][2] The project received unfavourable opinions from the National Council for the Protection of Nature [fr][3] and the Environmental Authority [fr].[4] Throughout 2023 and early 2024, demonstrations were organised, bringing together up to several thousand environmental activists. On 27 February 2025, the administrative court of Toulouse annulled the environmental permits, leading to the suspension of the construction work.[5] On 28 May, the administrative court of appeal of Toulouse, allowed the work to resume awaiting the final judgement planned for the 11 December 2025.[6]
Seems to illustrate my point: large projects are high profile and may be scrutinized. People making changes to the local environment in ones and twos will hardly be noticed individually, but if enough ones and twos are added up over time, in aggregate they can cause problems.
Certainly not as serious as oil spills or climate change, but it is also simpler for you to deal with than you trying to solve those two big issues: all you have to do is not touch/move the stones/rocks.
Still, people laying stones seems way less invasive, then digging it all up. So yes, people will continue to be there and the digging is once, but the impact seems literally deeper.
When we're talking damage to a sensitive environment an ecologist would have the opposite answer to yours. If you dig up a natural environment you can't "plant seed" to reclaim it.
An ecologist would readily note that we do restoration work on damaged environments on a regular basis, so it is clearly possible to undo some level of damage. They'd also likely note that consulting an ecologist as part of the process might limit the damage in a way that a bunch of Harry Potter fans making a pile would not know.
Not doing anything might indeed be better for the environment alone in isolation, but has to be balanced with other considerations, like the benefits of a power cable carrying clean power from wind farms to replace coal.
It is also entirely possible to plant native, locally appropriate seeds in a reasonably natural fashion. I am obviously not proposing a layer of lawn sod.
Where is the big damage in putting stones on a spot? So sure, that spot and the area around will be in use, so sensitive life won't prosper there, but apart from that?
> Where is the big damage in putting stones on a spot?
I think that's a question for the ecologists.
My guess, though, would be that part of the concern is people visiting the site on an ongoing basis as a tourist location, which won't happen with a buried power line.
I have literally never heard anyone associated with the environmental movement say:
"This area is ecologically insensitive. I'm not too worried what you do here."
Until they define some map or scale of what "ecologically sensitive" means, I put zero weight on that statement. It's meaningless. They say it about everything because it is their job to do so.
A common trick in mining is to send surveyors to an area they don’t want so the various interests just so happen to decide that the area being surveyed is the one with historical / ecological significance. After that has been established they send surveyors for the area they do want.
The ecological studies also cover the surrounding areas. They can’t say that absolutely everything is significant so to make the stronger case they pile the significance into the area they think is the likely site to be developed. Then the miners are ‘responding’ to the feedback by relocating to a less significant location that already has been ecologically studied and deemed insignificant.
That's not how environmental surveys work, or the process for challenging them. They absolutely must include detailed information about the actual site and the activity proposed to occur at that site.
Subsequent developments can take advantage of the initial survey but must still provide an environmental study about how their own activity will impact their specific site.
The #1 reason for environmental surveys being deemed invalid in court is the course of action you discussed: developers trying to avoid scrutiny by not being sufficiently specific about what they are actually planning to do or where.
The miners were doing mining surveys for internal use only, the environmentalist were submitting the cultural / environmental surveys as complaints which they’re allowed to do as part of the law the local government made for itself since it was government land that was being leased. It was more of a public consultation process, if no one complained then that’s fine too. The miners already have strict environmental regulations they have to follow regardless of where they build. Having seen these submissions it’s often stuff like, there is a river and since rivers are where people tend to congregate if we were to look we might find some ancient stone age human artifact despite no such thing ever being found within 100s of kms. Also rivers move, especially small ones.
I think here it's worth distinguishing between actually ecologically important, and the ability of campaigners to raise environmental arguments to try to prevent development when their underlying reason is something else (i.e. not wanting a nuclear plant in their back yard). There are definitely ecologically unimportant places in England, but it's almost certain that if you try to put a power station there somebody will raise an environmental concern anyway. This will probably eventually be dismissed, but you can gum up the works procedurally for a pretty long time.
I mean that's my point, if the campaigners are not willing to be honest about ranking the places they actually care about beforehand (and occasionally letting a project happen), I'm not going to listen to anything they do say.
You started here with "associated with the environmental movement". That's not the same as everyone campaigning on a local issue who puts "environmental issues" into their big list of why some local development shouldn't happen: most of those people aren't associated with the environmental movement at all.
I guess my point is that I think the problem is nimbies, not environmentalists, and since I think we need a faster and cheaper planning system in the UK I think it's important to identify the actual problem. Getting the Campaign to Protect Rural England or whoever to produce a ranking of places by importance does nothing if we still have a system where local residents can raise objections about building on locations at the bottom of the ranking and it takes forever to push something through.
Sure, the environmentalism movement has sufficient independent organizations such that each of them can protest some site as environmentally sensitive while the others stay quiet. I'm sure some would conclude that this position of universally banning any human development everywhere is a pure accident and that distributed agreement to do so has no evidence of systematic coordination.
I can believe there is no systematic coordination across these organizations, but if I had to meet someone in San Francisco and I knew nothing about where and there was no way to coordinate, I think we'd both end up in front of the Ferry Building on the Embarcadero.
I think the point here is that there are two categories of "environmentalists", one of actual environmentalists who go out on the weekend and plant shrubs and monitor the Lesser Black-Tailed Whatever, and the other of people who don't want you to build something for other reasons but are willing to claim to be environmentalists to stop you. There's overlap between the groups of individuals, but their organisations are different.
The first group are generally willing to say "hey, here's a map of critical Ramsar-protected coastal wetlands and surroundings, we don't want you to put a pipe anywhere BUT if you really have to then this section is regrowth and was drained in the 60s".
The second group are just obstructing you by any means they can and want to push you to a neighbouring town, who will also obstruct you. They'll switch to heritage listing, archaeology, noise complaints, smell, neighbourhood character, the moral character of your workers, or literally anything they can use to shut you down. They're not going to accommodate you by shifting the pipe slightly left because they're generally motivated by not having a pipe near them at all.
Sure, the John Does who make up Climate Action Now CIO say yes through that instrument and will go over the next Tuesday to No Building Ever CIC to say no through that instrument. There is neither any distinction of any significance to the legal structures they use to block things nor is there any value in saying "I'm not going to block this through Company A; I'm going to use Company B". Whether one uses Blue Eyes White Dragon or Exodia The Forbidden One, one is doing the same thing.
As a matter of politics, prevalence matters more than existence. And since the actual environmentalists nonetheless act as rearguard for the others, the distinction is faint.
What do you mean "the distinction is faint"? The distinction is clear and obvious: does this thing have actual ecological value, and does this group suggest viable alternatives?
I mean "since the actual environmentalists nonetheless act as rearguard for the others, the distinction is faint". i.e. it's not interesting to me that person A wears mask M1 and suggests viable alternatives and then puts on mask M2 and opposes them. If they extend this to a system where A wears M1 to suggest alternatives S1 and oppose S2 and B wears M2 to oppose S1 and suggest S2 that doesn't change my evaluation of them.
The fact that A is part of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Environmentalists and B is part of the Environmentalist Church of Latter Day Fundamentalists and that these are entirely different organizations with entirely different objectives does not change the fact that they arrive at the same Schelling point consistently as a co-ordinated multi-prong action.
There is no distinction to me between such players and a single person playing both roles. It's a pretty standard organizational Sybil attack constrained by the number of times they have to visit Companies House. Though I suppose if you are eager to distinguish between them, then that's the point where we must drop the discussion.
If I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that if person A and person B have different proposals that inconvenience you in vaguely similar ways, you believe they are functionally identical people, even if they're fighting each other too.
This seems nuts to me! It's a very conspiratorial way of seeing the world. It seems like it would take a huge amount of coordination for persons A and B to fake their own conflicts.
Can you be more precise? Like an actual area on the map. Because when I look at England's map of greenbelt areas [1] literally everything around Birmingham is protected.
Green belt areas mostly are not markers of ecologically important areas. They're a planning tool that largely exists to prevent urban sprawl. A lot of the green belt area is unremarkable commercial agricultural land.
I think they were joking. In a literal sense, cities require green spaces for water management. Otherwise you end up like Chicago where they paved everything and flood constantly.
I mean, not really, right? Permeability would help, but the first and second principal components of our flooding situation are the fact that we're built on a flat swamp, so water has no natural place to go, and we're built around an undersized combined sewer system that would be dazzlingly expensive to replace.
There's some open space near my house with a fenced off area saying to stay on trail to protect the ecosystem, but of course oil and gas companies can drive their trucks through to setup fracking rigs.
Humanity collectively benefits by having electrical infrastructure so there can be more of us who can accomplish more things. I'm so sick of these effectively Original Sin arguments dressed up as pretending to care more about some fish or shore birds than about your fellow humans. I'm not sorry for existing, and I want lots of cheap power :)
For me, sound is more impactful than screen resolution or aspect ratio. Subwoofer arrays powerful enough for the audience to feel sub-bass are expensive, large, and need to be placed precisely in the room. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a movie theater that had acoustics rivaling a top-tier music venue or concert hall.
I went through a period of home theatre building. What I learned from that, is that cinema sound is so badly calibrated and just downright awful in most cases.
Its one of the things that led to me no longer going to the cinema. You can get a much better and immersive sound stage at home for not much money.
I've seen non-IMAX 70mm referred to 5/70 because the image uses five perforations per frame; IMAX 70mm is then 15/70 because it uses fifteen perforations.
How much can we trust the "Reddit IMAX community"? The people heavily invested in a technology as their hobby aren't always the best sources of objective technical information; is /r/imax more of an "audiophile forum" or more of a forum of people who actually know their stuff?
Certainly we need to be mindful of biases, but you can also simply be falling into a tu quoque, ad hominem fallacy.
At the end of the day, are these 'fancy' theatre experiences (IMAX and the others out there) worth the extra ticket price to you? Certainly Christopher Nolan thinks so since he was willing to put up with the hassle of the IMAX gear for months on end (including airlifting them up to top of mountains), but what will you get out of it watching is something on you can answer.
Of course the largest complaint I tend to hear about Nolan films is the audio mixing, not the visuals.
>"Certainly Christopher Nolan thinks so since he was willing to put up with the hassle of the IMAX gear for months on end (including airlifting them up to top of mountains), but what will you get out of it watching is something on you can answer."
The 70MM IMAX showings at Lincoln Square are still completely sold out 4x/day for the next month. People are filling the theater at 6AM on a Saturday to see it. The market has clearly spoken.
The eyepieces (and editing views) on that equipment shows the other aspect ratios so they know what will be in and out for the other 99%. Anyway plenty of art is only consumable by the 1%.
Passionate hobbyists are often a great source of technical information, and usually more objective than industry sources. The thing to watch out for is people who have become so absorbed by their hobby, they start to put great subjective weight on distinctions that would be without difference to a "normal" person. Audio gear, gourmet food, fine wine, running shoes... It's XKCD 915 all the way down. I also recommend Penn & Teller: Bullshit! S03E12 ("The Best") on this subject.
Good for the hobbyists, if it enhances their enjoyment, but if you're a casual, microscopic variations are going to be dwarfed by other factors.
I think we're giving too much credit to audiophiles. We're talking people who might have discussions on their forums about whether audio buffers in memory allocated with malloc or in memory allocated with C++'s `new` sounds best. Stuff which doesn't have "microscopic effects dwarfed by other factors" but stuff which has literally no effect.
Tried both, 70mm (65mm is video, 5mm is audio) is just superior in every way. There's nothing out there that compares, digital projections are still far behind.
I was referring to regular 70mm, in which 65mm is for the picture and 5mm is to allow for the sound channels. I am not surprised - squeezing even more out of the film, that IMAX would just put audio separately.
I have never seen that in real life though, only regular 70 mm film of which 65 mm is definitely used for the picture and audio channels for the rest. E.g Lawrence of Arabia
I wish Go had something like Ruff! A lot of languages are getting amazing tool but Go has a very fragmented ecosystem with a lot of tools but none of them feel as high quality has the likes of Ruff, Oxc, Biome or even PHP's Mago
It is fairly new so not well known but it is what powers go fix and go vet under the hood. And I believe the Go team is currently working on making it possible for module authors to easily describe their own custom analysis passes that would run automatically when running go fix.
It is extremely easy to define your own analysis.Analyzer struct that describes your own static analysis pass. You get access to all sorts of useful information such as the AST, types, even SSA info and you can even compose the information between analyzers. Then you can easily compile it into a binary and run it by passing that binary to go fix with a command line flag. The go toolchain itself handles all the complex caching logic so that your analyzers run fast.
Since it is made by the go team itself and part of the toolchain it should slowly become the unified standard you are looking for. So hopefully golangci-lint and others should eventually all unify under this framework.
You can easily give it a go by telling some AI agent to write some Go Analysis analyzers and telling them to drive them with go fix. My Go projects tend to accumulate a bunch of these to enforce all sorts of rules deterministically and automatically instead of some imprecise markdown file.
That sounds amazing! I do hope golangci-lint and the likes pick it up, I'm a big fan of the strict by default approach that Ruff and other linters have taken.
Gofmt is great but it's still not very strict, the amount of times my colleagues have argued about formatting in Go is still too great, stuff like consts, types, funcs, methods order, struct initialziation newlines and other details that do matter, but they should be decided one and then applied everywhere like that.
On problem of such go linters is they can only lint what the compiler sees so if you have multiple `build` tags, you need to run multiple lint passes. No other language's linter operates like they, they all operate on file level.
Yeah, that's how much Astral changed python. UV and Ruff are amazing tools.
Go can get there, but like I said, I think everyone is building some partial tools that solve some problems, but there is not that one player building that one great tool.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by a fragmented ecosystem? Go has first-party formatting and linting and the language is deliberately restricted to ensure it is written in a certain way, even when written by complete novices.
Compare that to Python or TypeScript which are Wild West languages without opinionated first-party tooling, and it’s clear why Ruff/Biome feel great.
Go has a good start for that, but It's not enough for me.
Gofmt is a great idea but it isn't strict enough for my taste. Go does not have any first party static analyzers, closest is Staticcheck which is even sponsored by Google themselves
I don't believe you can add custom analyzers to `go vet`, which arguably rules it out.
But it is extremely simple to make a custom vet-like tool, because it's a trivial binary wrapper around the analysis framework, which is first-party (though it's structurally pretty limited by design, and won't handle all linting needs): https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.26.5:src/...
I've been using golangci-lint for years, it's okay but it's slow even with a cache, as soon as you have good amount of lints enabled your ci can suddendly take minutes.
That's not the fault of golangci-lint, it's just the concept of bringing together a bunch of different linters and keeping it fast is impossible. And the configuration is a bit wild too, because every linter obviously has their own decisions on how it wants to be configured.
What? I feel go has one of the best language tooling out there without requiring a bully ide to do stuff. golangci-lint is quite comprehensive. What do you miss otherwise?
(Honestly go's distributing itself has covered a lot of it)
golangci-lint is good, but you have to glue together a bunch of linters, and it adds up. You can easily get runtimes of several minutes, there are caches etc but the main problem is that golangci-lint doesn't own the lints, so it will never be as fast as something like Ruff.
I have actually tried. But I'm not very knowledgable in the area, so it's more LLM slop than my good ideas. And I'm not sure I have the energy and passion to maintain it long term.
It's definitely possible, if Google would put like one or two smart minds on the problem full time they could easily solve this problem and make the ecosystem so much stronger. But I'm guessing they already have something like this in-house and no interest in open sourcing it.
I really didn't enjoy the cheap plastic construction of the Moonlander. I had two of them for home and work. I even modded a mousepad onto the wristrests to make it more comftable.
But in the end the housing being out of plastic, it creaked, wobbled and just was not satisfying to type on.
I came from premium mechnical keyboards with solid steel or aluminum construction.
I ended up with the Neo Ergo, a middle ground. Not as ergonomic, but solid feel, no plastic and great looks too.
Yea I used the kinesis 360 for a short time but couldn't stand how cheap it felt. Such a big difference from nicer custom keyboards, and it's essentially the same price which is a shame.
A custom one is worth it in my opinion. Mine feels quite nice. Not 100% of a gasket mount heavy keyboard, but pretty darn close. Took a while to find the switches that worked for me, but I love it. Also, I have lots of sound deadening in it that help make it feel and sound more solid.
But yeah, the stock browns are pretty bad and the plasticky case doesn't sound great stock.
