Throwing out a closed-source, Apple-only product as an "alternative" is hardly the counter to the Chrome/Google monoculture.
Surely freedom includes the freedom of others to use proprietary software? In this case, the huge proportion of affluent consumers (and I don't mean me) who browse the web on their iPhones, iPads and Macs using Safari provide an important incentive for web developers to avoid creating sites that work solely on Chrome. That indirectly benefits users of other browsers like Firefox.
So can or freeze it then. This fetish with "fresh" is primarily a fixation of the rich who feel the need to waste as much money and resources as possible.
This fixation makes a simple thing appear difficult for no good reason.
Freezing food is usually pretty good from a nutritional and perspective, but it utterly destroys the texture of many foods. Canning destroys both texture and nutrition. So frozen lamb tastes pretty decent, but frozen salmon is a totally different culinary experience from fresh. Frozen peas aren't too bad, but frozen strawberries are disastrous.
So, no. 'Fresh' is a fixation of those who care what they eat, not the rich. Fresh food can be incredibly cheap - root vegetables, the cabbage family (including kale, cauliflower, broccoli, kohl rabi, etc) taste amazing and cost next to nothing compared with processed food.
Fruit can be trucked maybe 1000 miles North or South before it loses its freshness. That extends the growing season of common fruit from weeks to months. After that, I'd prefer eat something else. Out of season fruit taste dreadful. Winter strawberries look great but are a flavour desert, for example.
On of my rules of thumb when assessing a new restaurant is to look at the dessert and vegetable menus. If they're advertising out of season stuff - maybe asparagus in autumn or berry fruit in spring - I go to a different place and the grounds that the chef doesn't understand the importance of high quality ingredients.
More important than the chemicals: what happens to the nutritional makeup of the food when it's stored for longer than normal? It might look fresh, but do vitamin levels fall, for example. Do some of the volatile chemicals that give it an attractive fragrance disappear. Or will the texture degrade over time?
As a consumer, I don't really want food to have a longer shelf life. I want fresh food. Long shelf lives just benefit supermarkets with inefficient supply chains.
From a business perspective, they have always believed in vertical integration. Using their own CPUs will also leverage their existing investments in A-series CPUs. If ARM Macbooks can sell for the same price as Intel Macbooks, Apple's profits will increase sharply and they will better control their own destiny.
From a user perspective, ARM Macbooks will likely be quieter, lighter and need to be recharged less often. Old software will need to be recompiled, but all major software packages (Office, Adobe stuff, etc) will become available immediately and smaller software houses will have no option but to offer ARM versions of their code. Besides, most things are done in the browser these days.
The only losers will be people who want to dual boot Windows. Maybe Microsoft will rescue them with ARM Windows, but I doubt Apple cares very much.
Inatead of moanong, I'm not sure why you - or, for that matter, the author of the original article - don't just grab hold of any conference calls that waste your time and make them more efficient.
In my experience, it's almost always clear who is chairing a conference call; I always know which voice belongs to which attendee as I rarely have calls with complete strangers; an agenda is usually circulated in advance so that people are well prepared; and invitees who do not believe that they are required are free to not join.
Conference calls serve a critical purpose by facilitating communication and decision making on a projects or transactions with geographically dispersed teams. Perhaps I'm spoiled as most of my calls are with lawyers or city bankers. That wouldn't tolerate the poor behaviour that this whining article describes.
These days, most people take photos only with their phone. They're happy with the editing tools provided by Google and Apple. A few people own DSLRs. For most of them, simple apps like Shotwell are good enough. A few are more demanding and a tool like Darktable will meet their needs.
A tiny, tiny minority make a living from photography. They need Adobe's software and Linux won't cut it. But I doubt they constitute more than 0.1% of the population.
International Telecommunication Union in the summary may say that higher resolution is of no added benefit, but a look at the cone density and focal length of the eye proves otherwise. While there are certainly diminishing returns, to say it is indistinguishable is simply incorrect.
Another issue with the standard analysis of distance v pixel size is that 20/20 vision, although typically used as a measure of normal visual acuity, is not perfect vision. Many people have much better vision than this.
The Wikipedia article on visual acuity says, 'Healthy young observers may have a binocular acuity superior to [20/20 vision]'. I am healthy (although definitely not young!) and throughout my life my visual acuity has consistently been measured by my optician to be around twice 20/20 vision.
So, for many people, higher resolution displays offer clear benefits without there being any need to press your nose against the pixels.
In the UK, there almost certainly is a law to protect consumers. Under the Consumer Rights Act, consumers have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund.
If the manufacturer of a sound system has stated that its devices may eventually cease to function, I find it hard to imagine that a court would find that it was as described when sold.
Look at Garmin's range before you buy and read the very detailed reviews on dcrainmaker. A Garmin is almost certainly a better fitness tracker but may not be the best match for your non fitness needs.
I have a Garmin Fenix 5 and I'm very happy with it. It serves me much better than an Apple Watch would.
I didn't say that solar doesn't work or provide any benefit. I simply drew attention to its principal drawback in a country like ours.
Instead of a meaningless argument over language, the issue is that solar energy doesn't contribute anything toward the UK's peak energy usage. It clearly reduces CO2 emissions when, during daylight hours, it allows fossil fuel power stations to be temporarily scaled back or shut down. But the capital cost of solar has to be incurred in addition to the capital cost of conventional power generation, not instead of it.
That doesn't make investment in solar power bad per se. It just makes it far more expensive than a naive assessment might suggest.
> Britain is a cold, dark country so we need lots of energy at night
No you don't. The night time load is about 1/2 the daytime, and that's why it's cheaper if you're on Economy 7 and 10.
You're missing the point.
Our peak electricity demand usually falls between 5.00pm and 6.00pm in winter when people get home and switch on their electric kettles, electric cookers, electric lights, electric TVs, electric showers, electric water heating and, in many cases, supplementary electric heating. In winter it's dark at that time of day; hence my use of the term 'night'. In the winter months, it's exceptionally rare for solar power to produce any of our power needs at the time of peak demand. Typically the only exception is Christmas Day when millions of turkeys and roast potatoes are simultaneously roasted whilst the weak winter sun feebly attempts to spark a photo-voltaic reaction through dense blankets of winter cloud.
Of course energy consumption falls dramatically later in the day when people do to bed, but it also rises again when they get up before dawn. The problem comes when it's cold and dark outside but we're all wide awake inside.
Solar works fine and it's now economic in a huge number of cases...
So here's the problem for the UK. As I write, renewables are doing well at 18.5% of power generation: a rare sunny day means that 15.1% is from solar with a gentle breeze producing a further 2.9%.
But the sun doesn't shine at night. Britain is a cold, dark country so we need lots of energy at night. At 6.30 this morning, only 4% of our energy came from renewables and, as a result, we had to import more than 10% of our energy requirements from France's largely nuclear power stations. Thanks, France - without you, my morning would have been a bleak one.
But the two things - Eich's departure and aping Chrome - are likely related and it's probably no coincidence that their market share fell away at the same time.
When the entire executive of a business is focussed on internal politics, the business quickly becomes rudderless. When the outcome is the loss of an inspirational leader, the period of naval gazing is even more damaging. Combine that with serious annoying a proportion of your previously loyal customer base and your doom is sealed.
I personally know several people who switched from Firefox as their main browser as a result of the 'sacking'. It's interesting that a long- term inflection occurred at that point in the Firefox adoption curve. I'm sure that'a not the only factor in Mozilla's decline, but it surely can't have helped.
Unsurprisingly, when I posted that observation on a few sites, I was downvoted into oblivion. It's hard to hear properly when your fingers are in your ears!
We use R and R markdown more than C#. I didn't mention it in my previous post because it's niche.
I personally use R as my preferred tool 90% of the time and Excel for the remainder. But sometimes big spreadsheets are by far the best tool for the job.
People still complain about this? Seriously, you get used to it, and its not nearly as horrible as slashtards keeping going on about. You going to make fun of systemd next? How about throwing around an M$ insult?
I can understand the principles of the ribbon, but the implementation in MS Office is dreadful. The icons shown on the ribbon include dozens of things that no normal user ever uses, while things that are used every couple of minutes are hidden away in pop-up modal dialogue boxes. Most of the cell formatting functionality in Excel can't be accessed through the ribbon, for example, even though almost all users need to prettify or format their spreadsheets. Other crazy omissions include one-click icons to email the document, to export to pdf or to save the file to a new folder.
The other problem with the ribbon is discoverability. I use Excel most days, but I regularly need to use google to help me find functionality that I use infrequently. The ribbon would be much more effective if it had a built-in search facility.
It's easy to sneer at big spreadsheets but, if you used them yourself, you'd realise that sometimes they really are the best tool for the job. If you were to try building flexible financial forecasts across a group of companies with fast-changing assumptions and a wide range of scenarios, you'd understand what I mean.
But there are other legitimate reasons for big spreadsheets. We have complex financial models that are coded in C# for production use but which also exist in spreadsheets for the purposes of documentation and independent model validation. Some models would take an age to refresh on a single core machine, which would seriously undermine our ability to test the production systems. How else would you suggest that we test the end to end results coming out of C#?
Strangely, I know no-one with an Apple watch but I know many people with Garmin watches and I'm personally eagerly awaiting the launch of the new Garmin Fenix 5. Of course, my friends are not representative of the world's population. My experience doesn't mean that no-one buys Apple watches or that Garmin is about to take over the world, but it does suggest that there is a strong market for non-Apple devices in certain niches and the claim that there is no Smartwatch segment, just an Apple Watch segment, is silly.
Garmin users won't switch to Apple any time soon: they want a specialist device that targets their lifestyle in the same way that no serious cyclist would ever use an iPhone as a bike computer. Sometimes the compromises associated with a general-purpose device are just too great.
These are the right questions. Near the start of your career, rather than asking, "What job shall I do next," instead ask, "What job will best qualify me for the job after next?"
You're missing the point. This is about explaining why the same amount of food (or energy) intake affects people differently. Research into metabolic syndrome has shown that there is no simple relation: eat less -> lose weight -> get healthy. Once you know what influences weight gain or loss, given a certain amount of food intake you can adjust for other parameters.
Absolute nonsense. From the Sunday Morning Herald summary (I don't have a Nature subscription):
They found that the gut microbiomes of the mice who lost weight were altered, and that these changes remained in place for many months and contributed to rapid and excessive weight gain if the mice were given high-fat diets again.
So the mice gained weight when they were fed a crap diet. And, quelle surprise, when human porkers give up their short-lived attempts to stick to a Mediterranean diet and shove their noses back in the McDonald's trough, they pile back on the pounds.
Neither article says that the mice had a calorie-controlled diet. It seem far more likely that the gut microbiome changes have an impact on appetite.
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
None of which is true.
It's all true.
The Momentum footage appeared on a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary. I've viewed it myself. Similar evidence was shown on a BBC1 Panorama report. Again, I've viewed it myself. The footage of the shadow chancellor was highlighted by the Daily Telegraph and it's also on YouTube. Once more, I've viewed it myself.
Your denial of reality demonstrates why video evidence is so important if the public is to know the truth.
to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
You comment as if such things would adversely affect a politician's election campaign. That doesn't seem to always be the case.
I'm not in the US, but my understanding from afar is that Hillary's 'deplorables' gaffe was accompanied by a measurable swing toward Trump. Then Trump's own gaffes come to prominence...
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
So, yes, election campaigns can definitely be affected by mobile phone footage.
One great benefit of the smartphone era is that we can easily find out when two-faced, dissembling politicians attempt to say things in private lectures that conflict with their publicly stated policy positions.
So let's imagine a typical fundraising dinner in Dave Chappelle's dystopian future. A keynote speech will be given by a prominent politician, and a comedian will lighten the mood with a short gig between dessert and the auction. The comedian insists that his intellectual property is protected by Yondr, so the politician is free to promise unpublicised tax-breaks for his loyal supporters, to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.
Just tested: 1 second for LibreOffice Writer cold (ie first time opened since turning on laptop). Hardware: Macbook Retine Pro 13"; Software: Ubuntu Gnome with LibreOffice 5.1.4.2 installed directly from repositories. Subsequent starts of LibreOffice are effectively instantaneous.
Based on experience with my rather more powerful work laptop, that's considerably faster than MS Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Throwing out a closed-source, Apple-only product as an "alternative" is hardly the counter to the Chrome/Google monoculture.
Surely freedom includes the freedom of others to use proprietary software? In this case, the huge proportion of affluent consumers (and I don't mean me) who browse the web on their iPhones, iPads and Macs using Safari provide an important incentive for web developers to avoid creating sites that work solely on Chrome. That indirectly benefits users of other browsers like Firefox.
So can or freeze it then. This fetish with "fresh" is primarily a fixation of the rich who feel the need to waste as much money and resources as possible.
This fixation makes a simple thing appear difficult for no good reason.
Freezing food is usually pretty good from a nutritional and perspective, but it utterly destroys the texture of many foods. Canning destroys both texture and nutrition. So frozen lamb tastes pretty decent, but frozen salmon is a totally different culinary experience from fresh. Frozen peas aren't too bad, but frozen strawberries are disastrous.
So, no. 'Fresh' is a fixation of those who care what they eat, not the rich. Fresh food can be incredibly cheap - root vegetables, the cabbage family (including kale, cauliflower, broccoli, kohl rabi, etc) taste amazing and cost next to nothing compared with processed food.
Fruit can be trucked maybe 1000 miles North or South before it loses its freshness. That extends the growing season of common fruit from weeks to months. After that, I'd prefer eat something else. Out of season fruit taste dreadful. Winter strawberries look great but are a flavour desert, for example.
On of my rules of thumb when assessing a new restaurant is to look at the dessert and vegetable menus. If they're advertising out of season stuff - maybe asparagus in autumn or berry fruit in spring - I go to a different place and the grounds that the chef doesn't understand the importance of high quality ingredients.
More important than the chemicals: what happens to the nutritional makeup of the food when it's stored for longer than normal? It might look fresh, but do vitamin levels fall, for example. Do some of the volatile chemicals that give it an attractive fragrance disappear. Or will the texture degrade over time?
As a consumer, I don't really want food to have a longer shelf life. I want fresh food. Long shelf lives just benefit supermarkets with inefficient supply chains.
Mac on ARM makes a lot of sense for Apple.
From a business perspective, they have always believed in vertical integration. Using their own CPUs will also leverage their existing investments in A-series CPUs. If ARM Macbooks can sell for the same price as Intel Macbooks, Apple's profits will increase sharply and they will better control their own destiny.
From a user perspective, ARM Macbooks will likely be quieter, lighter and need to be recharged less often. Old software will need to be recompiled, but all major software packages (Office, Adobe stuff, etc) will become available immediately and smaller software houses will have no option but to offer ARM versions of their code. Besides, most things are done in the browser these days.
The only losers will be people who want to dual boot Windows. Maybe Microsoft will rescue them with ARM Windows, but I doubt Apple cares very much.
Inatead of moanong, I'm not sure why you - or, for that matter, the author of the original article - don't just grab hold of any conference calls that waste your time and make them more efficient.
In my experience, it's almost always clear who is chairing a conference call; I always know which voice belongs to which attendee as I rarely have calls with complete strangers; an agenda is usually circulated in advance so that people are well prepared; and invitees who do not believe that they are required are free to not join.
Conference calls serve a critical purpose by facilitating communication and decision making on a projects or transactions with geographically dispersed teams. Perhaps I'm spoiled as most of my calls are with lawyers or city bankers. That wouldn't tolerate the poor behaviour that this whining article describes.
Did you take a look at recent camera sales?
These days, most people take photos only with their phone. They're happy with the editing tools provided by Google and Apple. A few people own DSLRs. For most of them, simple apps like Shotwell are good enough. A few are more demanding and a tool like Darktable will meet their needs.
A tiny, tiny minority make a living from photography. They need Adobe's software and Linux won't cut it. But I doubt they constitute more than 0.1% of the population.
International Telecommunication Union in the summary may say that higher resolution is of no added benefit, but a look at the cone density and focal length of the eye proves otherwise. While there are certainly diminishing returns, to say it is indistinguishable is simply incorrect.
Another issue with the standard analysis of distance v pixel size is that 20/20 vision, although typically used as a measure of normal visual acuity, is not perfect vision. Many people have much better vision than this.
The Wikipedia article on visual acuity says, 'Healthy young observers may have a binocular acuity superior to [20/20 vision]'. I am healthy (although definitely not young!) and throughout my life my visual acuity has consistently been measured by my optician to be around twice 20/20 vision.
So, for many people, higher resolution displays offer clear benefits without there being any need to press your nose against the pixels.
In the UK, there almost certainly is a law to protect consumers. Under the Consumer Rights Act, consumers have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund.
If the manufacturer of a sound system has stated that its devices may eventually cease to function, I find it hard to imagine that a court would find that it was as described when sold.
Look at Garmin's range before you buy and read the very detailed reviews on dcrainmaker. A Garmin is almost certainly a better fitness tracker but may not be the best match for your non fitness needs.
I have a Garmin Fenix 5 and I'm very happy with it. It serves me much better than an Apple Watch would.
I didn't say that solar doesn't work or provide any benefit. I simply drew attention to its principal drawback in a country like ours.
Instead of a meaningless argument over language, the issue is that solar energy doesn't contribute anything toward the UK's peak energy usage. It clearly reduces CO2 emissions when, during daylight hours, it allows fossil fuel power stations to be temporarily scaled back or shut down. But the capital cost of solar has to be incurred in addition to the capital cost of conventional power generation, not instead of it.
That doesn't make investment in solar power bad per se. It just makes it far more expensive than a naive assessment might suggest.
> Britain is a cold, dark country so we need lots of energy at night
No you don't. The night time load is about 1/2 the daytime, and that's why it's cheaper if you're on Economy 7 and 10.
You're missing the point.
Our peak electricity demand usually falls between 5.00pm and 6.00pm in winter when people get home and switch on their electric kettles, electric cookers, electric lights, electric TVs, electric showers, electric water heating and, in many cases, supplementary electric heating. In winter it's dark at that time of day; hence my use of the term 'night'. In the winter months, it's exceptionally rare for solar power to produce any of our power needs at the time of peak demand. Typically the only exception is Christmas Day when millions of turkeys and roast potatoes are simultaneously roasted whilst the weak winter sun feebly attempts to spark a photo-voltaic reaction through dense blankets of winter cloud.
Of course energy consumption falls dramatically later in the day when people do to bed, but it also rises again when they get up before dawn. The problem comes when it's cold and dark outside but we're all wide awake inside.
Solar works fine and it's now economic in a huge number of cases...
So here's the problem for the UK. As I write, renewables are doing well at 18.5% of power generation: a rare sunny day means that 15.1% is from solar with a gentle breeze producing a further 2.9%.
But the sun doesn't shine at night. Britain is a cold, dark country so we need lots of energy at night. At 6.30 this morning, only 4% of our energy came from renewables and, as a result, we had to import more than 10% of our energy requirements from France's largely nuclear power stations. Thanks, France - without you, my morning would have been a bleak one.
Data from here: http://nationalgrid.stephenmor...
But the two things - Eich's departure and aping Chrome - are likely related and it's probably no coincidence that their market share fell away at the same time.
When the entire executive of a business is focussed on internal politics, the business quickly becomes rudderless. When the outcome is the loss of an inspirational leader, the period of naval gazing is even more damaging. Combine that with serious annoying a proportion of your previously loyal customer base and your doom is sealed.
Politics and business rarely mix very well.
I personally know several people who switched from Firefox as their main browser as a result of the 'sacking'. It's interesting that a long- term inflection occurred at that point in the Firefox adoption curve. I'm sure that'a not the only factor in Mozilla's decline, but it surely can't have helped.
Unsurprisingly, when I posted that observation on a few sites, I was downvoted into oblivion. It's hard to hear properly when your fingers are in your ears!
We use R and R markdown more than C#. I didn't mention it in my previous post because it's niche.
I personally use R as my preferred tool 90% of the time and Excel for the remainder. But sometimes big spreadsheets are by far the best tool for the job.
People still complain about this? Seriously, you get used to it, and its not nearly as horrible as slashtards keeping going on about. You going to make fun of systemd next? How about throwing around an M$ insult?
I can understand the principles of the ribbon, but the implementation in MS Office is dreadful. The icons shown on the ribbon include dozens of things that no normal user ever uses, while things that are used every couple of minutes are hidden away in pop-up modal dialogue boxes. Most of the cell formatting functionality in Excel can't be accessed through the ribbon, for example, even though almost all users need to prettify or format their spreadsheets. Other crazy omissions include one-click icons to email the document, to export to pdf or to save the file to a new folder.
The other problem with the ribbon is discoverability. I use Excel most days, but I regularly need to use google to help me find functionality that I use infrequently. The ribbon would be much more effective if it had a built-in search facility.
It's easy to sneer at big spreadsheets but, if you used them yourself, you'd realise that sometimes they really are the best tool for the job. If you were to try building flexible financial forecasts across a group of companies with fast-changing assumptions and a wide range of scenarios, you'd understand what I mean.
But there are other legitimate reasons for big spreadsheets. We have complex financial models that are coded in C# for production use but which also exist in spreadsheets for the purposes of documentation and independent model validation. Some models would take an age to refresh on a single core machine, which would seriously undermine our ability to test the production systems. How else would you suggest that we test the end to end results coming out of C#?
Strangely, I know no-one with an Apple watch but I know many people with Garmin watches and I'm personally eagerly awaiting the launch of the new Garmin Fenix 5. Of course, my friends are not representative of the world's population. My experience doesn't mean that no-one buys Apple watches or that Garmin is about to take over the world, but it does suggest that there is a strong market for non-Apple devices in certain niches and the claim that there is no Smartwatch segment, just an Apple Watch segment, is silly.
Garmin users won't switch to Apple any time soon: they want a specialist device that targets their lifestyle in the same way that no serious cyclist would ever use an iPhone as a bike computer. Sometimes the compromises associated with a general-purpose device are just too great.
What do you want to do?
What do you like?
These are the right questions. Near the start of your career, rather than asking, "What job shall I do next," instead ask, "What job will best qualify me for the job after next?"
You're missing the point. This is about explaining why the same amount of food (or energy) intake affects people differently. Research into metabolic syndrome has shown that there is no simple relation: eat less -> lose weight -> get healthy. Once you know what influences weight gain or loss, given a certain amount of food intake you can adjust for other parameters.
Absolute nonsense. From the Sunday Morning Herald summary (I don't have a Nature subscription):
They found that the gut microbiomes of the mice who lost weight were altered, and that these changes remained in place for many months and contributed to rapid and excessive weight gain if the mice were given high-fat diets again.
So the mice gained weight when they were fed a crap diet. And, quelle surprise, when human porkers give up their short-lived attempts to stick to a Mediterranean diet and shove their noses back in the McDonald's trough, they pile back on the pounds.
Neither article says that the mice had a calorie-controlled diet. It seem far more likely that the gut microbiome changes have an impact on appetite.
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
None of which is true.
It's all true.
The Momentum footage appeared on a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary. I've viewed it myself. Similar evidence was shown on a BBC1 Panorama report. Again, I've viewed it myself. The footage of the shadow chancellor was highlighted by the Daily Telegraph and it's also on YouTube. Once more, I've viewed it myself.
Your denial of reality demonstrates why video evidence is so important if the public is to know the truth.
to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
You comment as if such things would adversely affect a politician's election campaign. That doesn't seem to always be the case.
I'm not in the US, but my understanding from afar is that Hillary's 'deplorables' gaffe was accompanied by a measurable swing toward Trump. Then Trump's own gaffes come to prominence...
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
So, yes, election campaigns can definitely be affected by mobile phone footage.
One great benefit of the smartphone era is that we can easily find out when two-faced, dissembling politicians attempt to say things in private lectures that conflict with their publicly stated policy positions.
So let's imagine a typical fundraising dinner in Dave Chappelle's dystopian future. A keynote speech will be given by a prominent politician, and a comedian will lighten the mood with a short gig between dessert and the auction. The comedian insists that his intellectual property is protected by Yondr, so the politician is free to promise unpublicised tax-breaks for his loyal supporters, to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.
Has libreoffice fixed the slow load times?
Just tested: 1 second for LibreOffice Writer cold (ie first time opened since turning on laptop). Hardware: Macbook Retine Pro 13"; Software: Ubuntu Gnome with LibreOffice 5.1.4.2 installed directly from repositories. Subsequent starts of LibreOffice are effectively instantaneous.
Based on experience with my rather more powerful work laptop, that's considerably faster than MS Office.