Sort of...? The protocol is, but I guess the command is not. Sounds like people are working on a new version of scp. More: https://lwn.net/Articles/835962/
I haven't checked it out yet, but... Wouldn't one not want html text in the feed, if one chose to use a blogging platform whose focus was text and simplicity? I prefer to read feeds with plain text myself.
You're right. I shouldn't have said many. I forgot some like to put memes in their articles. I still think the ability to use images can be important, depending on topic. Quite simply a blog about anything graphics-related would benefit.
I've been told Medium requires a huge photo at the top of each post, regardless if it makes sense or not for the article. Most of the time those articles are simply junk.
Agreed, but on a technical level it makes it harder for the client software to have to decide what to do with those resources. A plain-text post can sit on my drive for months until I get around to reading it with barely any impact on disk space usage.
With images I either have to eat the storage utilization for them or suffer a privacy leak by loading them when the post is opened. For the latter, there's always a small risk that a post could be deleted or an entire website vanish in between the time my feed updates and the time I open a post, in which case it would be left with text but broken images. I guess they could be inlined (like `<img src=""/>`) to avoid that risk. It's even more obnoxiously complex if we're using the modern `picture`/`srcset`/etc to serve multiple resolutions and image formats for various screen sizes, connection speeds, and platforms.
Most sane feed readers sanitize the html down to a dumb level; just headings, paragraphs, links and some inline images. If you only have the text to begin with, hyper-links won't work.
Low bandwidth could be a feature. You'd know that your winking product can't be sending a whole lot of information about you that way. Or at least it would take a while to do so.
The argument here seems to be that LSD can be dangerous, meditation is kind of like LSD, and therefore meditation can be dangerous.
It does seem like a possibility, but you'd think if someone were going to write about it they'd try to present evidence of some sort to support the point.
Meditation can cause severe psychotic episodes in some people [1]. The author may not present the best evidence but meditation is dangerous for some percentage of the population's mental health.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31668156/ is a survey of 19 studies that identified 28 cases. Conclusion: "Of the 28 cases reported, 14 patients had certain precipitating factors like insomnia, lack of food intake, history of mental illness, stress, and psychoactive substance use."
Given the millions who meditate I think risk is less than a range of ordinary daily activities we engage in that can entail a life changing injury: crossing the street, diving into a pool to swim, and eating peanut butter (aflatoxin risk) to name three. The suggestion to consult a mental health professional, in the absence of any prior psychological issues that were significant, seems to me to be a waste of time and money.
Based on the documented cases of psychotic break and the number of people who meditate, the odds are approximately a million to one in your favor of getting some benefit out of mediation vs. a psychotic break.
From what I've read, psychotic episodes were preceded by exceedingly long meditation sessions. Essentially, don't meditate for more than an hour a day and you should be okay, the psychotic breaks have a higher tendency to happen at meditation 'retreats' where they do like 8 hours a day of meditation.
I don't think that's the argument exactly. The parallel to LSD was brought up to demonstrate that something that may be good for one person's well being may not be good for another.
Changing your psychological state is something all of us do every day, and some people have problems with just doing that. Experimenting with it substantially has the capacity to damage, and it's reasonable to conclude that for some subset of the population, for whatever reasons, it is not a hood idea. I think that's the point of the article
Then maybe they should go try to find another place to be together, rather than trying to wreck the civilization the rest of us think is pretty important and helpful.
