This is already illegal, though.

Using third party parts/repairs is not cause to void a warranty in the US (Magnuson Moss), and most of Europe and Australia are stricter than the US is.

This is not in any way true.

SEO is an almost impossible to solve problem because sites know any search engine exists.

None of this is relevant to the fact that your claim isn’t even the weakest of weak evidence for your position. It is literally completely unconnected. SEO is a problem because searching through adversarial data inputs is not a problem anyone has shown any capacity to solve.

And Google’s search engine is a singular product. There is nothing to break it off from. Its position is exclusively the product of the fact that there is no other option that’s remotely functional. Search is hard and no one else even has developed even a mildly interesting alternative.

Except nothing else actually does meaningfully better than Google, even with Google being the only thing sites care about optimizing for.

It’s incredibly difficult to do a useful search if sites are hostile and doing everything possible to muddy the results.

Because they down ranked sites blatantly shoveling shit for the sole purpose of gaming their algorithm?

I’m not going to argue if it’s identical to ADHD chemically. I’m not sure we have the level of understanding of the low level mechanisms to differentiate (if it even is actually different), or even that ADHD is “one mechanism” and not a bundle of similar mechanisms of different types of disregulation with similar outcomes, because diagnosis of any mental difference is effectively all about checking boxes on patterns of behavior.

But even if there’s something you can point to as clearly a distinguishing factor to say “this isn’t ADHD as we’ve defined it”, which I’m not sure you can, I’m not sure how you say they’re not similar or related.

ADHD doesn’t even really mean short attention spans, it’s more of the inability to willingly direct attention. It’s the same way people incorrectly use “OCD” to mean liking things clean and/or orderly.

Both of these are the product of needing constant stimulation. I understand your point that hyper-focus is also part of ADD/ADHD, and I certainly am not going to make claims about how your brain is changing structurally without evidence behind it.

So this is mere conjecture for a mechanism:

What these apps (with short format video being the worst) do is train your brain to expect a constant stream of dopamine hits. Novelty (presumably even trash novelty like TikTok) triggers dopamine, your brain becomes dependent on that steady stream of dopamine fix, and your body starts craving it once you remove that pattern of behavior.

This is very similar to ADHD, which is also strongly connected to problems with how dopamine is regulated. It’s not as simple as just not enough dopamine or poor uptake or whatever, but it’s reasonably clear that it plays a role.

So both cases are a result of poor dopamine regulation causing a need for stimulation that has a negative impact on ability to function from day to day. They’re probably at minimum relatively similar.

Hey now.

The right amount of Kraft Mac and Cheese is also zero.

If they weren’t all insane, twitter’s format has value for following real time events. For sports, for example, following a personally curated selection of sports reporters makes it a lot easier to keep up with transactions across the leagues I care about.

Reddit’s is better for discussion of those events, but not everything gets that far.

Facebook’s is supposed to be for actual friends to keep up with what’s going on in each other’s lives. Obviously it’s not actually talking, and you still want to do that, but it makes it easier to keep up with a larger group of people.

The problem with all of them is that they’re owned and run by insane shitbags, so they’re not worth the trade off. And the problem with fediverse alternatives is that they all rely on network effect to have their value. But in theory they each have a place, which is how they all managed to coexist despite the strong constraint of needing volume to serve a purpose. They serve different uses.

Because they can’t use hardware decoding.

Which is fair, but AV1 isn’t new any more, and it’s pretty universally recognized as better.

According to the article, they basically copied and pasted code from the earlier version to a new place for some new purpose, which is the same thing Hashicorp did for the same purpose in their new version.

No idea what the actual details are, but that seems pretty likely to be permissible under the first license to me.