April 2026

I had an inkling that this might be the case. I often think about how much we were able to do with limitations in thechnology. We don't (usually) program write software in machine code anymore and I wonder how much faster apps would be if we did. Of course there are drawbacks. Hardware architecture changes very fast and coding in high level languages affords us portability with our code, much like what the language Java promised us in the 90's.

It turns out that if you let it, some sites will download over 512MB of content due to how the advertising platform works. The site in question seems to think that using RSS will resolve this issue (it will) instead of fixing the web page to be more efficient (which the author of the original article pointed out). I first saw this post on Shubham Bose's website via HackerNews that depicts the 49MB website. The comments on HackerNews are good insight and Shubham points out that Windows 95 consumed less space than the post from NYT. As with the post about PC Gamer, NYT's page bloat is mostly due to ads. I hate ads and will block ad networks on my personal network. Browsing the web on another network is a real treat. I have maintained to myself when I see a pop-up asking me to disable my ad blocker taht I would not use one, if I could trust as servers. In the not too recent past I came to distrust second party ad platforms because Doubleclick was hijacked and malware was installed via banner ads. Lovely. Since then I've been wary.

There is discussion about ad blocking equating piracy and there is real merit to that argument. For my part, I usually do what I do when I'm hit with a paywall, I bounce from the site. I have a hope that some data nerd somewhere sees that I left as soon as I was asked to disable my ad blocker and brings that to someone who can make a decision about how ads are being served. I recognize that not all publishers can afford to have a department that manages their ad content and the tech skills required to keep that functional. I understand that decentralization is easier to work with, letting a dedicated external team handle the ads. That's another post for another time though. I pine for an Internet that feels more personal and less driven by capitalism.

Here is an article posted on the Seeker. I beleive that there are three camps regarding AI and AI Use.

1. The first is that AI is cool and the greatest thing ever. I find that these people have the talent to create on their own, but for some reason find this better.
2. The second is that AI is terrible and should be called out as such on sight. I find that these people cannot see any benefits to using AI and that it's terrible for everything. People, the planet, resources, etc.
3. The third group has really bad FOMO. They love, hate, or are indifferent to AI but are so afraid if being left behind (posisbly again) that they latch on to the technology.

I see a need to be familair and loathe to use it. I see the merits for AI and I also see that people shut off their brain when they use it. I am requently reminded some variation of this image back in the 90's:

Shamelessly stolen from here

And as I type this out, Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht on the latest Diggnation video podcast are espousing Apple for not jumping on the AI bandwagon early enough (rather, at all). :(

Kottke gets linked here again because of this wonderful site. Go read the article, I'll wait.

What I had not previously considered is that the mega corporations can build in a lack of competetion by buying all the competetion. The Buy it for Life crowd loves these old brands with good reason. I expect that the trick will be to find any of these items before 2000. The best place might be thrift stores. I have my backpack made by the shoe company Simple that I'm sure is at least from 1996. It needed repair, and I fixed it punk rock style. It gets regular use and is the first bag I grab when my satchel does not have enough capacity.

I'll poke around and see if I can find a how to find vintage gear site. I'll update this post if I do.

I forget exactly how I came to learn of this site and I was inspired. eWaste is a growing concern and the current AI fuckery is driving up the cost of components. Arguably, we need more servers/services and are throwing out older generation tech because it's too slow or won't run the latest and greatest operating system, apps, or games. Worse yet, some people throw out old tech because it's no longer "useful". I see a lot of waste in perfectly servicable equipment in corners of office spaces doing nothing at all. What if we borrowed from this venture and put not only older laptops, but other devices like old Android TV boxes (as long as they have wired ethernet) to use as personal web servers, mail servers or other small low-resource services.

The only set backs I see is electricity costs and "waste" heat, as a bunch of older equipment might draw more power than a single better equipped server. Still, we can solar power these low draw devices, or hack a standard power supply to power a few laptops and use the generated heat to warm places with the right ducting. It may not be as efficient, but it will keep "perfectly usable" equipment out of landfills. Perhaps non-working hardware can be donated to hacker spaces so that the individual components can be used to manufacture something else. Or maybe… a small business harvesting connectors and components can be built that can help other pieces of equipment from going to disuse.

This story from The New York times comes to us via Kottke.

I was able to read it, and you may not because of a paywall. The page is beautiful in design and interactivity. The basic premise is that policy has driven carmakers from producing vehicles for the lower 40% of americans, though the same metric applies to us in Canada. I'm not seeing a new vehcile anywhere near affordability for me, and even used is our of my budget and I make a fair amount of money for my area. The article is worth reading/experiencing if you can.

In Kottke's comments, I see people holding onto their aging vehicles and really digging the lack of screens on their dashboards. I have one of my two dream vehicles, a Honda Element. This SUV was more expensive than it's counterpart the CR-V and aimed at my generation of adevnture seekers. I would not have been able to afford it even in the year it was made. I expect that this could cost upwards of $60,000 if made today.

I reflected on if the high cost of vehicles would encourage more people to use public transportation. With little reflection, I realize that cost-cutting public transport over decades resulted in lower service and higher costs for riders. The city where I live has reduced hours and routes for the city bus compared to my youth.

Maybe ride sharing is the answer. For myself, I endeavour to keep the Element on the road as long as possible. I need the versatility and space. I would like to convert it to Electric if possible. The technology exists and I am skilled and foolinsh enough to make the attempt.