I really like the idea of making websites very simple, but in this specific case I'm wondering how accessible it is, though. For example, obviously no way to use an alt attribute for the doggo image or the flow chart. Of course you could add a plain text description underneath or above the image, but when the screenreader reaches the image itself, I can only imagine the mess it becomes.
I'm quite surprised he continued counting his number of chews after his first try, that sounds very tedious. It's obviously better to take the time to chew, there are even scientific studies on the subject: https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)01072-1/fulltext But ultimately, this is mainly a social problem, i.e. having the time to eat slowly. In some jobs, the lunch break is very short and you just can't take the time to eat normally the amount of food you need.
You could totally skip the lunch altogether and compensate by eating your meal after work. Yet the jobs with short breaks tend to be demanding physically, and in this case it may be a problem to postpone your lunch.
I don't understand why they pushed the table of contents like it was super important. Are there really people who need to have it all the time under their nose? Generally I just read it once to find the specific information I'm looking for, and that's it. On the other hand, I use language links a lot, and now I have to make an additional click to find them, that's just annoying.
I think it cannot be good for society, but regulation is tricky and I don't have any silver bullet solution to offer. Maybe some smart people will find a solution eventually. Though on the question of an alternative to ads as a source of income, I like the idea of partly subsidizing press through public library subscriptions.
However, while this "library model" already exists for paid online press, I absolutely don't see it working for social media like TikTok, Twitter, Reddit, etc. (but maybe it's just a lack of imagination from my part).
That's pretty rough for people in web publishing/social media whose business model relies on advertisement, as basically anything retaining people attention other than their product is a competitor. Even having a having a face-to-face discussion with a friend over a meal may amount to competition.
I have a couple of very good friends, volunteer in a support group, and otherwise play badminton, which is fun and protects well against losing sight of the essential.
That's a drop in the ocean. Even power users might not be aware of browser extensions that do that. Look at the number of people who use adblockers: it's a minority, even though advertisement is a major annoyance to absolutely every single one internet user.
I find it ludicrous, at least for my personal use. 99% of the time, I read the table of contents just once, to find the specific information I'm looking for. I rarely read an article in its entirety, and when I do, I do it continuously. I never go back and forth between sections, as in terms of length wikipedia articles are not reference books.
I'm genuinely surprised that apparently many other users have a different method for reading Wikipedia articles, given the number of people who defend this layout choice.
For my part, I'm really annoyed by this floating menu, in particular when it replaced links to other languages -links that I use much more often than the table of contents. But OK, let's agree to disagree, I can perfectly imagine that this layout may work for other people, it's just not the case for me.
To solve the issue I installed some browser extension rather than creating an account of wikipedia (as I have a severe case of account creation fatigue), so no harm no foul, but it is a shame that they did not plan to make it an easily accessible option.