Personally, I appreciate it.

If anyone wants an actual answer: iPhone has an option to “Save to Files” that lets you select a folder to save to just like on a desktop OS. I’ve personally never lost a file when I do this.

But that’s not what you wrote. You claimed that it doesn’t show new information because you can see the favicon and title. It does show new information.

When I shop online, I have many tabs from the same site open. The tab title is the store name + the item name, so the item name never fits. A bunch of identical ebay icons is way worse than this.

It’s not objectively better or worse. Some people will prefer it and some people won’t.

It’s hard to do well, but I disagree that it’s a slap in the face or a low blow. The gender swap of Starbuck from Battlestar Galactic was seen as sacrilege by fans, but she became one of the highlights of the show. Miles Morales was a creative way to do a race swap for Spider Man, and the narrative is richer for it. Jason Mamoa turned Aquaman from white to Polynesian, and the depiction was better than ever. Would Nick Fury be better as a white guy, as he was originally for decades, instead of Samuel L Jackson?

And then there are all the “swaps” that happen before the first day of filming, like Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Alien, who was originally (edit) going to be cast as a man. This was “controversial” at the time, with people decrying “political correctness”. I would not take “causing controversy” as a reliable indicator for whether something sucks.

Edit: point taken about gender neutral script. See discussion below.

This was my thought as well. A lot of these games are never made, even when the ads do very well (as evidenced by the ad continuing for years). Someone actually made the bait game for real, in recognition of the fact that the games have been advertised for many years and never made.

Even if OP’s explanation is sometimes correct, it doesn’t seem typically correct. In fact, it seems like a rare edge case, at best.

This is also how I read it. I actually really appreciate attacking the idea of “white as default”. It’s kind of like how some gamers think representing anything besides the “default” demographic is “political”.

I think this is the more revealing excerpt:

This is the defining irony of white film-making. The more oblivious your film is to matters of race, the whiter it plays. Because whiteness is often exactly that: the freedom not to see race, even when it’s right there in front of you.

Basically, being aware of whiteness makes for less racist movies. There’s nothing wrong with white movies, but it’s wrong when white movies pretend they’re not white, but universal and default. The article concludes:

Instead, our twofold expectation should be this: 1) The industry affords more film-makers of colour the same creative freedoms and commercial opportunities that are now afforded white film-makers, and 2) That the film culture – including the film-makers themselves – develop the confidence, insight and language to discuss and dethrone white cinema.

This does not sound like racist dog-whistling or white supremacy to me.

I only started biking regularly a few years ago. I am shocked by how much a rear basket, panniers, and bungee cords can carry.

This has been my experience. I was surprised by how much I prefer biking, especially for the feeling of freedom.

Also, it’s surprising what you can carry on a cargo bike. I carried our Christmas tree on a cargo bike this year. Also do all my shopping, including big costco trips. People are too quick to imagine limits that don’t exist in practice.

Is there a punchline to this I’m missing?

I don’t understand. Can someone explain this to me?