It was very unpopular, lead to people fleeing the country, and was pushed out of the public eye as soon as they figured out how to forcefully volunteer people instead.

The three dots at the right, for some reason, is the menu. It's labelled "Settings and more", and contains the gear icon you were thinking of, but also all of the normal menu items like new window and print. It also contains "Save page", but befuddlingly that one is hidden under another flyout menu called "More tools".

When opening a PDF file in Edge, it loads up some kind of Acrobat embedding for me, and that one has its very own "save file" button, though with identical iconography to Edge's. Thankfully, the button is visible without any further menu diving, but is also placed at the top right, with an extremely faint border delineating it from the Edge chrome.

  5W/user * 200e6 user * 4h/24h = 167 MW
  11 MWh/a/home = 0.00125 MW/home
  167 MW / (0.00125 MW/home) = 133 000 home

https://archive.org/details/ParalanguageInElectronicMail-ACa...

I had assumed you'd just tap the "answer" button, but that failed more often than not. It never would have occurred to me to swipe a minimum of 3cm, starting with the answer button, and I must assume this knowledge has spread to users by osmosis rather than discovery.

To that end, I'm curious about their cache invalidation solution. Are there timestamps, or is it a flag system?

In general, height is the easiest thing to restrict, but doing so restricts dynamic performance optimizations - you can't use splay trees, for instance

The third common use that I've seen is linking to other videos, and that's the one that YouTube's replacements systems tackle.

Another somewhat noteworthy thing is that the annotation system is tied to YouTube's channel logo overlay. Once the annotations go, it's likely that the logo will not be hideable anymore.

Imagine you get the expected result of one win and one loss and had staked 5%: you'll end up with 1.055×0.95=1.002 wealth. If you had picked a 50% stake, you'd be sitting at 1.55×0.5=0.775 wealth instead, since the loss more than erases your winnings.

The unstated contrast is to models where e.g. there are only a limited number of investment opportunities, losses aren't total, or there are capital infusions.

Now, I don't really have a solid base of experience to form these generalizations with, so a lot of it is just being judgmental. But I want to make the point that while the endorphin loop of loot boxes (or worse, time boosts) is rightly condemned, the WoW model of milking your audience for literally billions was - aside from revolutionary - malignant. It wasn't just the good old days, it was a cash cow that consumed Blizzard for a decade until they too switched to the loot box model.