I'd love to see you try serving the exact same file for both but the trick is that you need to return different Content-Type headers depending on what is requested. When the browser requests /favicon from a navigation event it will use Accept: text/html etc, you return the file with Content-Type: text/html and inside the response you have a <link rel="favicon" href="/favicon" type="img/png"> literally the same resource but the browser will now likely fetch with Accept: image/... and you could return the same file with Content-Type: image/png and the same resource will get used for both. Unless the browser caches the response, I feel like this would work.

If you don't control the headers of your webserver (eg GitHub Pages) I would settle for a symlink favicon.png that just links back to favicon.html which I think would trick the server into returning different Content-Types.

I think your point still stands, but a correction that 1% of $6-7T is $60-70B, not $600-700B.

My mistake, I'm running on a lack of sleep.

What is the value prop to the package owner? Is it just that you expect this to be cheaper than existing options because random people who are already going somewhere anyway can make a few extra bucks by taking a parcel with them?

You could always just take people's parcels and use an existing solution at first and eat the price difference, then once you have enough volume on the parcel supply side you can onboard some carriers.

The issue is that the investors will want a return on that $17M at some point, so they're going to need to charge money for something eventually. If the revenue model is not obvious now, that only means they'll be pressured into something non-obvious later.

I also think that modern car seats are one of the main factors driving the adoption of unnecessarily large cars, which have far worse safety outcomes in crashes for everybody except the people inside them.

When I was growing up in the 90s with 2 siblings we had a small hatch. When I had my second child we had to upgrade from a small hatch to an SUV because we simply couldn't fit a car seat behind the driver. Even now, I'm not sure if a third would fit.

Sure, the SUV itself and the extra padding on the car seats might make my children safe in collisions with other big cars, but if we were all still driving hatches then maybe none of that would be necessary.

We are in the stupidest arms race.

I am an Australian Instagram user in my 30s. When setting up my profile a few years ago I set the birthday to some fake date near my real age. At no point, including when the ban went live, was I ever asked to prove my age through any means. Nobody I know has either (noting that everyone I've asked is an adult).

There is also shownew and highlights at least, I think maybe a few others still

I suppose both companies are well known for confidently stating absolute nonsense as fact, so it's a match made in heaven.

The link doesn't work for me as I don't have an X account, but you can see more in this Ars Technica interview with the X poster: https://youtu.be/sw0VfmXKq54?si=4YBBaqoOEKvs3iuN

A lot of companies have started doing this because a compromised account can be used to attack the service (logged in sessions avoid rate limits) or other users (spam). They aren't necessarily trying to protect you.