You can hire your prison population for those jobs.

You’ll never find such organized scam call centers with voluntary workers anywhere outside India. Of course there are scam call centers in Myanmar and Cambodia, but they kidnap people for those jobs. And African scammers aren’t that organized. They don’t have buildings full of scammers.

You read the full thing? The author isn’t overweight conservative.

It’s a decade long problem actually, influenced by Google so they can put more ads in the long article.

Thank you. Yes, you’re right. And writing paragraphs of text for a simple tutorial for making the article SEO friendly not only confuses the reader but it’s also a headache for the author. I’m never doing that.

Thanks for your comment. I agree with some of your points, but I really don’t understand why we should use JS frameworks for everything and render pages on the client’s device. I’m not against JavaScript, but no website should be made entirely of it.

A few years ago, I came across a Chinese e-commerce site where the product page falsely displayed an “out of stock” message until the website fully loaded. Imagine how many people left the page, thinking the product wasn’t available. This issue wouldn’t exist with server-side rendering.

Regarding companies that prioritize users with newer devices, this approach may not be economically beneficial and feels deceptive to users. If they don’t want users with older devices, they should clearly state it on their website by checking the user agent. Amazon.com works even without JavaScript and runs smoothly on all devices. Any company serious about its profits should prioritize user experience, and making a webpage lightweight is one of the best ways to achieve that. It seems like these JS frameworks and their modules aren’t really about improving user experience. What’s even more concerning is that many newcomers to programming rely on these frameworks without understanding basic HTML or JavaScript.

There are many older people who still use their old laptops, and buying newer models makes it harder for them to adapt. Throwing out older devices increases e-waste. This makes the behavior of big tech companies seem hypocritical—like Apple, which stopped including chargers with new iPhones while claiming to be environmentally friendly.

Back in 2011, we could use YouTube on our laptops without any issues. So why not make older versions available for older devices? I understand that companies want to block bots, but if that’s the goal, why allow old device user agents to access the site in the first place? If they assume all older devices are potential bots but still want users from those devices, why not provide an older frontend for signed-in users?

I’m sorry for the rant, but this is how I feel about modern web development.

He looked older at 20

I’m not sure about that. Not all cultures are equal. This type of thing happens in India every single day. It is so common in India that the media doesn’t even report it. The article is posted by a liberal Indian newspaper, which is trying to address the problem in their culture.

1 in a thousand is still a lot.

Use Debian or anything stable.

Don’t blame poverty! There are countries poorer than India but much cleaner.

It’s a sabotage against small websites by the big tech.

Prove that OP doesn’t wanna be a billionaire.

would you eat that?

There are countries that are poorer than India but cleaner.

Even Fedora or Ubuntu is more stable than PopOS. It is a bloated distro and shouldn’t be used by beginners wanting to learn Linux.

Pop OS looks cool at first, but it is one of the worst distro I’ve ever used in my 7 years of distro hopping. It is not stable and things will break after some updates.

it ruins your mental health

The skirt

Masturbating is worse than smoking