How much live sports does Hulu have to offer? ESPN + BAMTech has a lot. That plus the Disney catalog, plus Star Wars, plus Marvel gives them a pretty good start.
Meh. The problem with their model is that the number of people who want to watch only Disney content is remarkably small.
Some parents with kids might pay Disney for streaming access to Disney movies, but if they're smart, they'll buy the shows from iTunes or buy the DVD and not pay for the same content over and over and over again. After all, most kids seem to want to watch the same two or three movies over and over again anyway.
Netflix never carried live sports in the first place, so that's a no-op.
So basically, the only people who will be affected by this change are the ones who just occasionally think, "I'd kind of like to see that Disney movie." And I can tell you how many of those people will be willing to pay Disney a multi-dollar-per-month subscription fee for that privilege. Zero.
Zero.
The whole concept of each content provider making its own subscription service is fundamentally doomed right from the start, because each content provider thinks that it should get a bigger slice of the pie, and so charges more for the content than they were getting from Netflix. And users aren't going to say, "You know what, I'd like to pay 5x as much for the same content," so they will invariably respond by buying content from only one of the five vendors, and suddenly they're all still making the same amount of money, but their content is being seen by a fifth as many people. And because their reach decreases, there are fewer people talking about their content to other people, and thus less word-of-mouth advertising to drive people to their platform, and the result is a death spiral for all of the various services.
This keeps happening. Content providers keep making the same mistakes. And for some reason, they keep failing to learn from those mistakes. It's almost like they're all secretly hoping Apple will buy them and put their management out of its misery or something.
The cardinal question is whether the genders are different because they are different, or because we teach boys and girls to behave differently and solve their problems in different ways.
It is at the core of the debate, and unfortunately, there's no easy way to answer that question—mainly because taking a bunch of infants out into a forest and letting them be raised by wolves to see what happens turns out to be child abuse. Who knew?:-D
But in all seriousness, the actual answer to the question is probably that both nature and nurture play a role. If we assume that biology plays some role, then it stands to reason (at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that we would get more equal results if we teach boys with the learning styles that work best for them, and girls with the learning styles that work best for them, and whether those are or are not the same styles for any particular boy or girl is largely irrelevant. But it also stands to reason that many of the differences are likely compounded by early childhood development differences—boys playing games that involve more spatial reasoning and girls playing games that involve more socializing, in which case we might get better results by doing the exact opposite—teaching boys with approaches that girls would find easy, and vice versa.
I think the potential for experiments should be obvious here, but we should be sure to feed the wolves first.:-D
First, the physical strength requirements of construction are nowhere near as great as they were 50 years ago. Health and safety rules to prevent permanent injuries mean that most people of either gender can attain the required strength if they exercise enough (and working on a construction site is a really good way of getting that exercise).
This is certainly true, and that discrepancy between perception and reality no doubt exacerbates the lower number of women choosing to go into that field. The point still remains, though, that a larger percentage of men could walk onto a construction site and be immediately ready to do certain jobs—particularly drywall, which was one of the things on that list. If you've ever tried to lift a sheet of drywall, you know what I mean.
Second, your observation is the absolute core of racist or sexist attitudes: judging individuals based on (perceived or real) averages. Most men and women are a lot weaker than someone who works in construction.
This is true. My point wasn't that judging people based on gender is a good idea, nor that we should accept bias in hiring practices. Obviously, those things aren't cool.
My point is that to the extent that physical strength affects whether people choose a career in construction (and I think it clearly does, regardless of whether those decisions are based on an accurate perception of the amount of strength required or not), there are only two plausible ways to get an equal number of women in those fields:
Ensure that an equal number of men and women are strong enough to consider it as a profession (i.e. get more girls to lift weights at a young age)
Encourage a larger percentage of men to choose jobs in other fields instead of construction
The first approach (encouraging young girls to do strength training) is potentially a good idea (and mirrors what the tech industry is trying to do with various coding camps for girls and similar), but it only works if the differences in strength are the primary reason why women don't get into those jobs, as opposed to both the job choice and strength differences being caused by some other difference in the way men's and women's brains are wired, or social pressures that affect men and women differently (for whatever reason), or myriad other possible differences. The only way to know for sure is to run large-scale experiments and see if there's any change in the results.
The second approach, of course, potentially results in a labor shortage by taking people who are capable of strenuous physical labor out of the workforce. I think we can all agree that such an approach is not a good idea in the short term, though perhaps it might be a good idea in the long term.
Given that the amount of time and money that can be spent on improving gender equality is limited, it makes more sense to focus those efforts on professions where physical strength is not a factor, because the lack of confounding factors makes it easier to move the needle there. If those experiments yield useful new information, we can apply that knowledge to fields with different starting abilities at a later date. Besides, in the long term, we'll still need more women in tech than we have now. In the long term, we won't even need the men who are currently in construction, because all the work will be done by robots programmed by men and women in tech.:-)
The issue here boils down to if there is something inherent to being female that makes a person less interested in technology, or if the interest is there but there are other reasons why women don't pursue it as a career as often. The latter isn't all about misogyny either, it's way more complex than that.
For example, one could reasonably ask if men are more likely to choose a career based on how much it pays. If so, then that explains why only 18% of CS grads these days are women.
There's only one thing I can pretty much guarantee is not the cause, and that's what lots of folks seem to argue is the cause: pay and hiring equity. Don't get me wrong, pay equity and hiring equity are both good things, and we should do more as an industry to guarantee that women get paid fairly and get hired equally based on their abilities. But nobody, and I mean nobody in her senior year in high school is thinking to herself, "I'd choose a career in CS if only the men in the industry would treat me more like an equal," because women don't get any experience with men in the industry for at least three or four years after they have chosen a major. By the time women have the opportunity to become jaded about it, it is too late to change majors realistically without spending an extra two or three years in college, so the number of people who change majors as a result of a bad internship is approximately zero.
Based on that, IMO, there's no plausible feedback mechanism in which anything happening in the industry itself could be causing low representation among women, with the sole possible exception of having fewer female parents who write software, and I'm just not buying that explanation; outside of the Silicon Valley, almost nobody writes software, yet a disproportionate number of men still go into CS from those parts of the country—more disproportionate, in fact, if my anecdotal experience growing up in a small town in Tennessee is any indication. None of the girls I went to high school with had parents who experienced gender inequality in high tech careers, because none of them had parents in CS at all. Yet the students in our small-town college's CS program were almost entirely male. If anything, the reverse seems to be true; being in California near the high tech corridor, whether your parents are in tech or not, seems to drive increased interest in tech among women.
So I think we really need to separate the discussion about pay and hiring equity—something that we should do merely because it is the right thing to do (and required by law)—from the discussion about getting more women into high-tech careers. If we don't, we'll never achieve the second one, because we'll be constantly trying to fix it by changing metrics that don't have any meaningful effect on the outcome.
As for why fewer women choose to get CS majors... that, I have no idea about, and it's worth having that discussion and trying to encourage more women to choose these careers. Maybe more men pick careers based on earning potential rather than interest in the field (which would generate more male grads, though not necessarily more good ones), or maybe girls are discouraged by seeing the kinds of guys who take an interest in computers early on and don't want to work with them, or maybe women actually do have biological differences that make them less likely to be interested in tech careers.
Rejecting that last possibility merely because it isn't considered socially acceptable could very well be preventing us from making real headway, because if we know that there's a real difference, we can screen for ability in women early on and encourage them more to counterbalance that biological tendency, or teach them in different ways that are more effective based on their biology. If we never ask the question, we may never be able to achieve better gender balance in CS. And that's the true misogyny.
Somehow there is no social plea for women to be pipelayers, or for more women to hang drywall.
ORLY? Seriously it took me like 5 seconds to find that there are similar concerns about the construction industry.
That seems kind of bizarre to me. After all, there are actual legitimate physical differences that are partially responsible for fewer women going into construction. I'm not saying women should be discouraged from going into that field, of course, but it's hard enough to get more women into high tech jobs where physical strength isn't a job qualification, much less into a field where physical strength is often a job requirement.
In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.
That definition is utterly wrong and would be a terrible concept if anyone attempted to implement it. The intent of net neutrality was never to prevent companies from charging different amounts of money for users that use different types of services, because different types of services have different needs. If someone uses a type of service that uses a lot of bandwidth (e.g. 4K video streaming), it's okay for the ISP to charge more money to that user, because he/she needs a faster average data rate and a higher data cap. No net neutrality proposal has ever tried to prevent service tiers based on performance or other evenly applied, concrete metrics.
No, net neutrality is actually intended to prevent ISPs from discriminating between different services of the same type. Specifically, net neutrality is intended to ensure that carriers don't abuse their monopolies to restrict consumer choice by:
throttling third-party services that compete with their own, in-house services
throttling third-party services unless those third-party services give them kickbacks
Both of those two behaviors have been reported frequently in the past, and are clear abuses of ISPs' monopoly power over consumers.
In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.
In reality, there's no such thing as a small ISP anymore. Those went extinct when modems went out of style. What we have now—even in small, rural communities—are giant cable conglomerates that span multiple states and giant telephone conglomerates that span multiple states. Occasionally, you have medium-sized CLECs for DSL, but even those are too slow to be practically usable these days, and are dying off as phone companies roll out fiber (which they aren't required to share).
The overwhelming majority of Americans have access to no more than one ISP that meets the 25/4 Mbps federal minimum standard for calling something broadband. (Just less than half have exactly one, but about a third don't even have one.) The notion of a free market where companies compete is fanciful and naïve. In reality, usable broadband is almost always a monopoly in the United States.
Even in the short term, it doesn't matter what we do to prop up the token number of small ISPs that still exist. They're done. They can't compete, because they can't provide viable broadband speeds without fiber, and the companies putting down the fiber don't share access to their lines, leading to a natural monopoly. In ten years, none of those small companies will still exist no matter what the FCC does, unless they require ILECs and cable companies that own fiber to lease access at cost to other ISPs (which there's no way a Republican-controlled FCC would even consider).
As a rule of thumb: consumers and vendors aren't on the same side. If you see every or nearly every major player voicing their support for something it is bad for consumers.
You'll never see every major player voicing their support for something, in practice. Instead, what you see are ISPs railing against net neutrality because they want to throttle Netflix if they don't pay protection money, and all the content providers screaming because the ISPs are abusing consumers.
I'm pretty sure the folks arguing in favor of net neutrality are on the right side of this, and I see nothing in the regulations to make me believe that these regulations do not achieve their stated goals. If you can point to concrete problems with the regulations that affect real-world companies that aren't doomed anyway, feel free to say what they are, though, and perhaps we can get those changes made while still leaving the fundamental foundation of the regulations intact.
Robots work in large factories. Not in the field repairing broken equipment or building one-offs.
Nope. And even if you were correct, that's still at best a temporary situation.
Besides, most of the big work involves things like pipeline construction or marine construction. Marine construction is already becoming automated, and pipeline construction is a prime candidate for automation, too, because it involves mostly welding the same joint on a large number of pipe segments over and over again. Even if the one-off jobs never become automated, it will still get harder and harder to make a living because fewer and fewer people will be needed.
Moreover, if we start from the assumption that we'll never get to the point where repair welding is automated, then this will still mean that many fewer welders will be needed in the future, so fewer and fewer people will go into that field. And because they'll all be doing less work, they'll have less practice, and the quality will suffer. At some point, the number of people who are still good enough to do hard repairs will drop below the amount of work to be done, resulting in skyrocketing costs, until at some point it will become so profitable to automate the work that the initial assumption becomes implausible.
Problem with that is malware. Malware authors are criminals. And an awful lot of them are from Russia . Ironically.
I'm not saying it should be trivial to sideload software. But it should be possible without having to download Xcode, get a developer account, and use cryptic commands in Terminal to manually re-sign a package (in such a way that then fundamentally prevents it from sharing data with the original app if you have an old version installed already and lost the ability to upgrade it).
I knew somebody was going use their own prejudices to turn Russia's making VPN's illegal into it being apple's fault. Thanks for being _that_ person...
No, it's not Apple's fault that VPNs are illegal in Russia. It's Apple's fault that people aren't able to choose to violate a law that intrinsically violates basic human rights.
Given how jackbooted Russia's enforcement is turning, spot checks on people's phones to check for the presence of VPN software is beyond likely.
That's completely irrelevant. It should be the user's choice whether to take that risk, and Apple is denying them that right.
So, mr Android zealot
Actually, you're completely wrong on that point. I'm an iOS user and developer who previously worked at Apple for almost thirteen years, and I pushed back internally over how hard it was for users to install software from outside the App Store even back when I worked there. You don't have to be an anti-Apple zealot to call Apple on the carpet for their bad decisions.
And this, right here, is a prime example of why Apple's walled garden is fundamentally antithetical to freedom. China and Russia would never be able to ban VPNs on Android phones, because you can trivially download them from somewhere else and sideload them. Apple's "App Store apps only" design plays right into the hands of authoritarian governments and makes possible a degree of control that could only have been dreamed about in the pre-lockdown era of computing.
Apple's management should be ashamed of themselves.
And yet, a dozen robots can do the welds more quickly, more accurately, and without collecting a salary. I think that was the point. Those are dead-end careers in the short-to-medium term. Nobody in his/her right mind should be trying to achieve great skills in that area, because by the time you reach that level, the skill won't be needed anymore.
The problem with laws like this is that they're useless and backwards. Pedestrians looking at their phones while crossing the street aren't a problem. They cross the street, and they're done. The problem is people unintentionally crossing a street while looking at their phones. It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
It at least has been true for CDMA-based U.S. carriers in the past, because they require you to actually register the device with them to activate it on their network, and they typically won't take a device that was originally sold for another network.
Obviously you can switch between AT&T and T-Mobile by swapping SIM cards, but if you ask the carrier, they'll often tell you that you can't, because they don't want to deal with the headache of managing devices that are band-limited to a subset of their supported bands.
Fortunately, on the whole, laws aren't based around protecting people's right to choose to harm others or themselves, but rather around protecting people's right to not be harmed by others. It might mildly inconvenience you to not be able to enjoy that jazz club "aroma", but it does not cause you any measurable harm. By contrast, that aroma gave the waiters and waitresses cancer, emphysema, and heart disease at rates that were as much as 4x the rate found in the general population.
But ideas are cheap indeed. Most ideas from "ideas people" are impossible/unfeasible, and it is too much refuting them all with a nice explanation of why it can't work. Hence ruder dismissals designed to keep "ideas people" away and give the impression of a hostile forum. A few of their ideas are feasible, but the reason nobody works on them is because everybody is working on some feasible idea of their own which is more interesting.
Ideas are cheap, good ideas less so. What you really need is not to drive people away, but rather to route them to an appropriate forum for suggestions and encourage (require?) them to search for existing threads that might already include that suggestion before posting. That way, you collect the ideas and can have people comment on them, vote on them, etc.
"Ideas people" are not special at all. All the useable ideas they come up with is stuff that devs are perfectly capable of coming up with themselves.
Then why don't they? The thing is, I've seen lots of software that was written by developers without adult supervision, and when developers all focus on their pet features without taking into account user needs, the result is almost invariably worse for it. Those pesky ideas people are your average users. They're the people you're trying to reach with your software (typically). And the tendency to push them away rather than to organize their ideas and prioritize them is the reason that so much open source software is, frankly, crap.
And I say that with all due respect, as I've contributed to open source software frequently in the past, and have even open sourced various things that I have written. When I read things like what you posted, my first reaction is to assume that the project is never going to go anywhere, and in a few years, will be replaced by some other project that is designed from the ground up around the features that users have been complaining about not having in the existing tools for years.
Loud music is also proven to cause hearing loss. People know this, and choose to go to clubs and concerts - or to not go. But nobody seems to cry for a ban of loud music, or use arguments like "I should not be required to increase my risk of hearing loss to go to a club, simple as that".
Bad analogy. You have a choice about whether to go to a club that plays loud music or not, and whether to wear hearing protection. And clubs are required by law to provide their employees with hearing protection if it exceeds OSHA's safety thresholds. But in the days before the public smoking bans, when nearly every restaurant, bar, and club in many states allowed smoking, you didn't have a choice about whether to be subjected to it. If you wanted to eat without cooking food yourself, you were subjected to it. And neither workers nor patrons had any practical way to avoid breathing it.
My wife and I make half that, live in the most expensive county in the country, and are sending the oldest of our two children to college in a few weeks.
There is no way you could afford to live in SF on less than $150k/yr and send a kid to college.
SF county isn't the most expensive place in the U.S.; in fact, SF proper is barely even in the top 10 (#9). Washington D.C. is the most expensive, largely because of higher child care costs.
If you're willing to live in the South Bay, it isn't that hard to live on less than $150k per year. Buy a mobile home at ~$300k, pay for it over ten years, and once you're clear of that, you're spending $1k a month on rent for 1800 square feet, and your overall cost of living isn't that much worse than anywhere else in the country.
More likely they deliberately decided to use known technology without paying the inventor(s).
More likely, they deliberately added technology based on one of the patents that they have a permanent joint license for from IBM/Motorola as part of their AIM Alliance deal in the late 90s, and the technology just happens to be very similar to what these folks independently invented and patented a few years later.
The really advanced designs were on DEC Alpha chips, whose patents are now held, I believe, by HP.
Apple, IBM, and Motorola did some pretty significant branch prediction work on PowerPC, too, e.g. US5659752. I'm not saying that any of their patents are necessarily prior art, but some of them probably are. IBM, in particular, filed a *lot* of patents.
I'm in TSA Pre, but if I weren't, I would tie up an entire security line for half an hour under these rules. I typically travel with:
two laptops
a power cord for the laptops
two cell phones
power cords for two cell phones
about eight camera lenses and teleconverters
several spare camera batteries
a battery charger
a wireless remote
the receiver for the wireless remote (with cables)
a bag of batteries for the external remote and its receiver (because it runs down the batteries if you leave them in it)
an external camera flash
two laptop hard drives
retractable USB and HDMI cables with adapters
multiple SD cards in multiple places
multiple CF cards in multiple places
at least one or two flash card readers.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something. My entire bag is basically a solid block of electronics, all carefully packed, all of which fits in there in exactly one way, and would fill about five bins.
Why do I get the distinct feeling that they haven't thought this through. At all.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. The problem with their model is that the number of people who want to watch only Disney content is remarkably small.
Some parents with kids might pay Disney for streaming access to Disney movies, but if they're smart, they'll buy the shows from iTunes or buy the DVD and not pay for the same content over and over and over again. After all, most kids seem to want to watch the same two or three movies over and over again anyway.
Netflix never carried live sports in the first place, so that's a no-op.
So basically, the only people who will be affected by this change are the ones who just occasionally think, "I'd kind of like to see that Disney movie." And I can tell you how many of those people will be willing to pay Disney a multi-dollar-per-month subscription fee for that privilege. Zero.
Zero.
The whole concept of each content provider making its own subscription service is fundamentally doomed right from the start, because each content provider thinks that it should get a bigger slice of the pie, and so charges more for the content than they were getting from Netflix. And users aren't going to say, "You know what, I'd like to pay 5x as much for the same content," so they will invariably respond by buying content from only one of the five vendors, and suddenly they're all still making the same amount of money, but their content is being seen by a fifth as many people. And because their reach decreases, there are fewer people talking about their content to other people, and thus less word-of-mouth advertising to drive people to their platform, and the result is a death spiral for all of the various services.
This keeps happening. Content providers keep making the same mistakes. And for some reason, they keep failing to learn from those mistakes. It's almost like they're all secretly hoping Apple will buy them and put their management out of its misery or something.
It is at the core of the debate, and unfortunately, there's no easy way to answer that question—mainly because taking a bunch of infants out into a forest and letting them be raised by wolves to see what happens turns out to be child abuse. Who knew? :-D
But in all seriousness, the actual answer to the question is probably that both nature and nurture play a role. If we assume that biology plays some role, then it stands to reason (at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that we would get more equal results if we teach boys with the learning styles that work best for them, and girls with the learning styles that work best for them, and whether those are or are not the same styles for any particular boy or girl is largely irrelevant. But it also stands to reason that many of the differences are likely compounded by early childhood development differences—boys playing games that involve more spatial reasoning and girls playing games that involve more socializing, in which case we might get better results by doing the exact opposite—teaching boys with approaches that girls would find easy, and vice versa.
I think the potential for experiments should be obvious here, but we should be sure to feed the wolves first. :-D
This is certainly true, and that discrepancy between perception and reality no doubt exacerbates the lower number of women choosing to go into that field. The point still remains, though, that a larger percentage of men could walk onto a construction site and be immediately ready to do certain jobs—particularly drywall, which was one of the things on that list. If you've ever tried to lift a sheet of drywall, you know what I mean.
This is true. My point wasn't that judging people based on gender is a good idea, nor that we should accept bias in hiring practices. Obviously, those things aren't cool.
My point is that to the extent that physical strength affects whether people choose a career in construction (and I think it clearly does, regardless of whether those decisions are based on an accurate perception of the amount of strength required or not), there are only two plausible ways to get an equal number of women in those fields:
The first approach (encouraging young girls to do strength training) is potentially a good idea (and mirrors what the tech industry is trying to do with various coding camps for girls and similar), but it only works if the differences in strength are the primary reason why women don't get into those jobs, as opposed to both the job choice and strength differences being caused by some other difference in the way men's and women's brains are wired, or social pressures that affect men and women differently (for whatever reason), or myriad other possible differences. The only way to know for sure is to run large-scale experiments and see if there's any change in the results.
The second approach, of course, potentially results in a labor shortage by taking people who are capable of strenuous physical labor out of the workforce. I think we can all agree that such an approach is not a good idea in the short term, though perhaps it might be a good idea in the long term.
Given that the amount of time and money that can be spent on improving gender equality is limited, it makes more sense to focus those efforts on professions where physical strength is not a factor, because the lack of confounding factors makes it easier to move the needle there. If those experiments yield useful new information, we can apply that knowledge to fields with different starting abilities at a later date. Besides, in the long term, we'll still need more women in tech than we have now. In the long term, we won't even need the men who are currently in construction, because all the work will be done by robots programmed by men and women in tech. :-)
For example, one could reasonably ask if men are more likely to choose a career based on how much it pays. If so, then that explains why only 18% of CS grads these days are women.
There's only one thing I can pretty much guarantee is not the cause, and that's what lots of folks seem to argue is the cause: pay and hiring equity. Don't get me wrong, pay equity and hiring equity are both good things, and we should do more as an industry to guarantee that women get paid fairly and get hired equally based on their abilities. But nobody, and I mean nobody in her senior year in high school is thinking to herself, "I'd choose a career in CS if only the men in the industry would treat me more like an equal," because women don't get any experience with men in the industry for at least three or four years after they have chosen a major. By the time women have the opportunity to become jaded about it, it is too late to change majors realistically without spending an extra two or three years in college, so the number of people who change majors as a result of a bad internship is approximately zero.
Based on that, IMO, there's no plausible feedback mechanism in which anything happening in the industry itself could be causing low representation among women, with the sole possible exception of having fewer female parents who write software, and I'm just not buying that explanation; outside of the Silicon Valley, almost nobody writes software, yet a disproportionate number of men still go into CS from those parts of the country—more disproportionate, in fact, if my anecdotal experience growing up in a small town in Tennessee is any indication. None of the girls I went to high school with had parents who experienced gender inequality in high tech careers, because none of them had parents in CS at all. Yet the students in our small-town college's CS program were almost entirely male. If anything, the reverse seems to be true; being in California near the high tech corridor, whether your parents are in tech or not, seems to drive increased interest in tech among women.
So I think we really need to separate the discussion about pay and hiring equity—something that we should do merely because it is the right thing to do (and required by law)—from the discussion about getting more women into high-tech careers. If we don't, we'll never achieve the second one, because we'll be constantly trying to fix it by changing metrics that don't have any meaningful effect on the outcome.
As for why fewer women choose to get CS majors... that, I have no idea about, and it's worth having that discussion and trying to encourage more women to choose these careers. Maybe more men pick careers based on earning potential rather than interest in the field (which would generate more male grads, though not necessarily more good ones), or maybe girls are discouraged by seeing the kinds of guys who take an interest in computers early on and don't want to work with them, or maybe women actually do have biological differences that make them less likely to be interested in tech careers.
Rejecting that last possibility merely because it isn't considered socially acceptable could very well be preventing us from making real headway, because if we know that there's a real difference, we can screen for ability in women early on and encourage them more to counterbalance that biological tendency, or teach them in different ways that are more effective based on their biology. If we never ask the question, we may never be able to achieve better gender balance in CS. And that's the true misogyny.
That seems kind of bizarre to me. After all, there are actual legitimate physical differences that are partially responsible for fewer women going into construction. I'm not saying women should be discouraged from going into that field, of course, but it's hard enough to get more women into high tech jobs where physical strength isn't a job qualification, much less into a field where physical strength is often a job requirement.
That definition is utterly wrong and would be a terrible concept if anyone attempted to implement it. The intent of net neutrality was never to prevent companies from charging different amounts of money for users that use different types of services, because different types of services have different needs. If someone uses a type of service that uses a lot of bandwidth (e.g. 4K video streaming), it's okay for the ISP to charge more money to that user, because he/she needs a faster average data rate and a higher data cap. No net neutrality proposal has ever tried to prevent service tiers based on performance or other evenly applied, concrete metrics.
No, net neutrality is actually intended to prevent ISPs from discriminating between different services of the same type. Specifically, net neutrality is intended to ensure that carriers don't abuse their monopolies to restrict consumer choice by:
Both of those two behaviors have been reported frequently in the past, and are clear abuses of ISPs' monopoly power over consumers.
In reality, there's no such thing as a small ISP anymore. Those went extinct when modems went out of style. What we have now—even in small, rural communities—are giant cable conglomerates that span multiple states and giant telephone conglomerates that span multiple states. Occasionally, you have medium-sized CLECs for DSL, but even those are too slow to be practically usable these days, and are dying off as phone companies roll out fiber (which they aren't required to share).
The overwhelming majority of Americans have access to no more than one ISP that meets the 25/4 Mbps federal minimum standard for calling something broadband. (Just less than half have exactly one, but about a third don't even have one.) The notion of a free market where companies compete is fanciful and naïve. In reality, usable broadband is almost always a monopoly in the United States.
Even in the short term, it doesn't matter what we do to prop up the token number of small ISPs that still exist. They're done. They can't compete, because they can't provide viable broadband speeds without fiber, and the companies putting down the fiber don't share access to their lines, leading to a natural monopoly. In ten years, none of those small companies will still exist no matter what the FCC does, unless they require ILECs and cable companies that own fiber to lease access at cost to other ISPs (which there's no way a Republican-controlled FCC would even consider).
You'll never see every major player voicing their support for something, in practice. Instead, what you see are ISPs railing against net neutrality because they want to throttle Netflix if they don't pay protection money, and all the content providers screaming because the ISPs are abusing consumers.
I'm pretty sure the folks arguing in favor of net neutrality are on the right side of this, and I see nothing in the regulations to make me believe that these regulations do not achieve their stated goals. If you can point to concrete problems with the regulations that affect real-world companies that aren't doomed anyway, feel free to say what they are, though, and perhaps we can get those changes made while still leaving the fundamental foundation of the regulations intact.
Hillary Clinton lost because voters had a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Democrat running as a Republican....
Nope. And even if you were correct, that's still at best a temporary situation.
Besides, most of the big work involves things like pipeline construction or marine construction. Marine construction is already becoming automated, and pipeline construction is a prime candidate for automation, too, because it involves mostly welding the same joint on a large number of pipe segments over and over again. Even if the one-off jobs never become automated, it will still get harder and harder to make a living because fewer and fewer people will be needed.
Moreover, if we start from the assumption that we'll never get to the point where repair welding is automated, then this will still mean that many fewer welders will be needed in the future, so fewer and fewer people will go into that field. And because they'll all be doing less work, they'll have less practice, and the quality will suffer. At some point, the number of people who are still good enough to do hard repairs will drop below the amount of work to be done, resulting in skyrocketing costs, until at some point it will become so profitable to automate the work that the initial assumption becomes implausible.
I'm not saying it should be trivial to sideload software. But it should be possible without having to download Xcode, get a developer account, and use cryptic commands in Terminal to manually re-sign a package (in such a way that then fundamentally prevents it from sharing data with the original app if you have an old version installed already and lost the ability to upgrade it).
No, it's not Apple's fault that VPNs are illegal in Russia. It's Apple's fault that people aren't able to choose to violate a law that intrinsically violates basic human rights.
That's completely irrelevant. It should be the user's choice whether to take that risk, and Apple is denying them that right.
Actually, you're completely wrong on that point. I'm an iOS user and developer who previously worked at Apple for almost thirteen years, and I pushed back internally over how hard it was for users to install software from outside the App Store even back when I worked there. You don't have to be an anti-Apple zealot to call Apple on the carpet for their bad decisions.
And this, right here, is a prime example of why Apple's walled garden is fundamentally antithetical to freedom. China and Russia would never be able to ban VPNs on Android phones, because you can trivially download them from somewhere else and sideload them. Apple's "App Store apps only" design plays right into the hands of authoritarian governments and makes possible a degree of control that could only have been dreamed about in the pre-lockdown era of computing.
Apple's management should be ashamed of themselves.
And yet, a dozen robots can do the welds more quickly, more accurately, and without collecting a salary. I think that was the point. Those are dead-end careers in the short-to-medium term. Nobody in his/her right mind should be trying to achieve great skills in that area, because by the time you reach that level, the skill won't be needed anymore.
The problem with laws like this is that they're useless and backwards. Pedestrians looking at their phones while crossing the street aren't a problem. They cross the street, and they're done. The problem is people unintentionally crossing a street while looking at their phones. It's the sidewalk that's dangerous, because people who are looking down at their phones don't necessarily realize when the sidewalk ends and the road begins.
It at least has been true for CDMA-based U.S. carriers in the past, because they require you to actually register the device with them to activate it on their network, and they typically won't take a device that was originally sold for another network.
Obviously you can switch between AT&T and T-Mobile by swapping SIM cards, but if you ask the carrier, they'll often tell you that you can't, because they don't want to deal with the headache of managing devices that are band-limited to a subset of their supported bands.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn't the U.S. have laws that make it illegal to comply with demands like that? If not, why not?
In the United States, carriers won't take phones from other providers, generally, so that kind of works. :-D
Fortunately, on the whole, laws aren't based around protecting people's right to choose to harm others or themselves, but rather around protecting people's right to not be harmed by others. It might mildly inconvenience you to not be able to enjoy that jazz club "aroma", but it does not cause you any measurable harm. By contrast, that aroma gave the waiters and waitresses cancer, emphysema, and heart disease at rates that were as much as 4x the rate found in the general population.
I live in Sunnyvale, so yes, I do. As for the most expensive place, here's my citation.
Ideas are cheap, good ideas less so. What you really need is not to drive people away, but rather to route them to an appropriate forum for suggestions and encourage (require?) them to search for existing threads that might already include that suggestion before posting. That way, you collect the ideas and can have people comment on them, vote on them, etc.
Then why don't they? The thing is, I've seen lots of software that was written by developers without adult supervision, and when developers all focus on their pet features without taking into account user needs, the result is almost invariably worse for it. Those pesky ideas people are your average users. They're the people you're trying to reach with your software (typically). And the tendency to push them away rather than to organize their ideas and prioritize them is the reason that so much open source software is, frankly, crap.
And I say that with all due respect, as I've contributed to open source software frequently in the past, and have even open sourced various things that I have written. When I read things like what you posted, my first reaction is to assume that the project is never going to go anywhere, and in a few years, will be replaced by some other project that is designed from the ground up around the features that users have been complaining about not having in the existing tools for years.
Bad analogy. You have a choice about whether to go to a club that plays loud music or not, and whether to wear hearing protection. And clubs are required by law to provide their employees with hearing protection if it exceeds OSHA's safety thresholds. But in the days before the public smoking bans, when nearly every restaurant, bar, and club in many states allowed smoking, you didn't have a choice about whether to be subjected to it. If you wanted to eat without cooking food yourself, you were subjected to it. And neither workers nor patrons had any practical way to avoid breathing it.
SF county isn't the most expensive place in the U.S.; in fact, SF proper is barely even in the top 10 (#9). Washington D.C. is the most expensive, largely because of higher child care costs.
If you're willing to live in the South Bay, it isn't that hard to live on less than $150k per year. Buy a mobile home at ~$300k, pay for it over ten years, and once you're clear of that, you're spending $1k a month on rent for 1800 square feet, and your overall cost of living isn't that much worse than anywhere else in the country.
D'oh! I knew I forgot something in that list. Two camera bodies.
More likely, they deliberately added technology based on one of the patents that they have a permanent joint license for from IBM/Motorola as part of their AIM Alliance deal in the late 90s, and the technology just happens to be very similar to what these folks independently invented and patented a few years later.
Apple, IBM, and Motorola did some pretty significant branch prediction work on PowerPC, too, e.g. US5659752. I'm not saying that any of their patents are necessarily prior art, but some of them probably are. IBM, in particular, filed a *lot* of patents.
I'm in TSA Pre, but if I weren't, I would tie up an entire security line for half an hour under these rules. I typically travel with:
I'm sure I'm forgetting something. My entire bag is basically a solid block of electronics, all carefully packed, all of which fits in there in exactly one way, and would fill about five bins.
Why do I get the distinct feeling that they haven't thought this through. At all.