Flip Windows and macOS and I think the meme works again.

Häagen-Dogs

As someone who doesn’t use these, the first things I think when I enter a home with them are:

• This smells nauseatingly, overwhelmingly artificial.
• This can’t be healthy (spoiler: correct).
• I wonder what they’re masking to want to spend money on these things.
• I would prefer to be outside right now.

OP, as the other comment said, keeping a relatively neutral smell hopefully is a good goal and then maybe add pleasant undertones later. Instead of trying to introduce positive smells (cook at home more often or grow some plants, and you’ll get a bit of that!):

• Make sure dirty laundry is kept in a hamper with a lid and washed at regular intervals.
• If you have pets, make sure they’re housetrained and that accidents are cleaned – preferably with an enzymatic cleaner. Bathe your pets regularly too. If you have small animals in an enclosure, keep that clean.
• Shower regularly, and clean your bedsheets regularly.
• Make sure the house isn’t excessively humid.
• Vacuum at least periodically.
• Make sure dirty dishes don’t just sit dirty out in the open for long periods.
• Make sure smelly garbage has a lid over it and is taken out routinely, especially if there’s stuff like meat scraps in it.
• Open the windows on nice days when it’s around room temperature.
• If it’s especially bad for some reason, an air purifier may help.
• Regularly clean your bathroom.
• Keep your fridge organized so food is less likely to go bad (or bad food gets caught quickly).
• If you have a shoe rack near the door and you want to be really extra, you can once in a while deodorize your shoes. Maybe I’m a freak that I don’t do this.
• Make sure the house isn’t excessively cluttered.

This isn’t all-or-nothing: any of these will help with the odor, and that’s the goal.

Because “asks them to leave” wouldn’t be as juicy to their fascist, racist audience as “asks them to self-deport”. The latter unduly connotes guilt in a way the former doesn’t and makes the regime seem more powerful.

Another in a line of “turn the desktop UI into a glorified mobile UI, completely negating the benefits of a desktop display so we don’t have to do as much work”.

Clearly these beavers don’t know the Rules of Acquisition.

MediaWiki works on wikitext and templates (and will also accept HTML elements, but deference is almost always given to the former two instead). There’s no reason for it to support Markdown, as it can do everything Markdown can and more, and the VisualEditor extension (shipped by default) gives you a WYSIWYG editing experience should you not want to edit the source directly.

I could’ve looked at other authors’ work, tried to find an editorial team, etc., but didn’t think it was worthwhile. When you frequently write and cite sources in said writing, this type of investigation often becomes second nature.

If it’s any consolation, I can show you something similar to potentially swap in which actually is written by experts. The Conversation is always written by subject-matter experts (usually professors of the subject) and covers the same breadth of topics. The Conversation is basically what the Daily Galaxy wishes it were, and it’s one of my favorite items on my feed.

That’s fair, and hopefully here I can give you something more concrete than just saying “wow dumb source lol”.

• The article is written by Arezki Amiri. This author puts out two or three articles per day on a very wide variety of topics, yet he lists no qualifications except: “expert specializing in health and technological innovations. He has extensive experience in sharing his knowledge on the impact of space technologies on health and science in general.”
• A ton of words are bolded with no rhyme or reason. Far from being something related to accessibility, this is done so your brain keeps seeing bolded text and subconsciously thinks “something important; better keep reading”.
• The article links to the Daily Galaxy at the words “sewage system” for absolutely no reason except for SEO. In this article about Bezos, it links to “1,300-Year-Old Royal Flush? Ancient Korean Palace Toilet Stuns Archaeologists!”. When legitimate news sources do this, it’s to enhance understanding; for example, a news outlet referencing an event from four years ago might link to one of their articles covering that topic for readers who may not be familiar.
• The words in this article (and other articles of Amiri’s) feel like they were at least assisted by an LLM. A big tell is that LLMs love to say “it’s not X; it’s Y”. They also absolutely adore em-dashes.
  • “This isn’t just about sewage; it’s about how the wealthiest individuals […]”
  • “This move wasn’t about being unreasonable; it was about fairness.”
  • Other articles of theirs reek even worse.
• Not a single one of their articles appears to be original reporting. It’s always a summary of one source.

TL;DR: I’m 99% sure that every article from the “Daily Galaxy” is just taking an existing article (journal, news, etc.), running it through an LLM to summarize it, randomly adding bolds everywhere for atrophied, dopamine-starved zoomer brains, and published two to three times daily per author. It’s a content mill.

• It’s trivial to bypass the paywall.
• The paywall is only there if you’ve already read a certain number of articles.
• It’s still a considerably better read than this telephone game version from the “Daily Galaxy”. (Edit: reading it all the way, it’s almost guaranteed written by an LLM.)

Here’s the NYT article they’re aping instead of checks notes whatever the fuck the “Daily Galaxy” is.

Why is every, like, sixth word bolded? Like I know pragmatically why, but it’s so transparently designed for brainrotted zoomers who think 300 words is “long”. What a slop trough of an article.

I saw the word “pickup” and had a brain fart. Yup, you’re right. I’m 99% sure anyway that their pickup trucks in 2006 would’ve been Dodge RAMs.

• Yelling and triple exclaiming like a deranged boomer like that’s persuasive to anyone.
• Providing zero context for these flags for those who aren’t chronically investigating far-right symbolism.
• Failing to point out the likeliest explanation is that this flew under Walmart’s radar through their website’s third-party supplier program.
• Missing obvious, concrete reasons to boycott Walmart like the way they parasitize cities, abuse workers, etc.

The joke is that The Onion is parodying an obituary, where you remember someone’s life and the people close to them. So instead of saying “he leaves behind [family member(s)]”, they turn it into a Craigslist-style ad for his pickup truck convertible.

This man looks like the evil Karl Jobst.

most of the money on things that are Wikipedia

Assuming you meant “aren’t Wikipedia”, there are a few aspects to this.

• These are the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2024 financial statements.
• You can see how it’s organized here.
• Here’s a table of salaries. CEO Katherine Maher’s salary is about $790,000, which is very average for this role. Other salaries look average as well.
• I permanently hide donation drive banners in my preferences and so can’t speak to how they’ve been lately (read: last 8-ish years). I remember them being terrible. Genuinely hated them.
• Wikimedia is a lot bigger than just the English Wikipedia; it’s a movement, and one that’s been highly successful in a way it couldn’t have been just through volunteer work. For example, I heavily encourage you to check out Wikipedia’s sister projects sometime. Not all of them are created equal, but Wiktionary for example to me is the best single dictionary in the world. I wish many of these received similar levels of appreciation to Wikipedia. And far from being tacked-on side projects, most of these factor into a coherent ecosystem in their own way.
• The WMF’s legal team in my eyes especially has been phenomenal. The movement I volunteer so many hours for would be heavily fractured and probably dead in the water if it weren’t for them.
• On top of obvious things like developing MediaWiki, I actively want the WMF to be doing outreach through programs like grants. If the WMF just sits by and coasts on hosting costs and maybe MediaWiki bug fixes, it will die. Figuring out how to make editing more inviting, more accessible, and more efficient is crucial not just to keeping Wikipedia alive but its sister projects and even to improving other non-WMF wikis.

In summary, I don’t like the banners but have seen zero issue with how they handle finances. The money donated that’s used beyond maintaining a skeleton crew and keeping the lights on is profoundly useful to me as an editor and directly helps me write the articles that the people donating expect their money to go to.

Some of it’s going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he’s really dead. With Wikipedia, that’s a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I’ve also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn’t mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia’s standards but worked out in the end.

I think it’s a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we’re running different races, and we couldn’t run ours if they didn’t run theirs.

I don’t have a specific favorite singular edit. If I did, it’d have to be the time I nominated ‘David Joyner (business executive)’ for deletion shortly after the killing of Brian Thompson. Whereas I could’ve waited for things to cool down, I didn’t want to politick. This circulated around BlueSky, well-meaning people who didn’t understand how we handle article inclusion brigaded the discussion, and some moron writing for Gizmodo accused me personally of being a paid CVS shill conspiring to hide Joyner’s name (despite the fact that this name was proudly displayed on CVS’ website as the first result in a search engine). The situation was just so stupid and made me lose some faith in Gizmodo’s ability to do basic research.

Favorite series of edits? Definitely the time in 2021 I started a good article review for the article ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’ and it got so out-of-hand that I ended up overhauling the entire thing because I kept finding problems (well outside the scope of a GA review). I thought it was really good by the time I was done, and it was really satisfying reading an article where MTG bitched at some local rally about her Wikipedia article – a sign I’d done something right.

These two examples aren’t representative of my edits at all.