In the UK, I generally find Starbucks music pretty calming, as it tends to be soft jazz or the like. It's one of the reasons I like the environment and find it relaxing.
Are the Starbucks in the US playing something different?
It would be interesting to see what kind of Cobra effect this will create. E.g. content creators make 2 videos, one with comments disabled and one redirecting for comments where less advertising income is expected.
So the real question is, now that YouTube is messing things up, which (preferably more ethical) alternatives should be promoted? Scott Adams has made very good use of periscope (pscp.tv). Not to mention, RMS would like people to use archive.org more. Perhaps it's time to put the spotlight on alternative video platforms and find ways to allow content creators to monetize their content respectfully and move away from a monopoly who's largest interest is to data-mine its users?
Sounds like someone is thinking outside the box, leveraging some core competencies and hitting the ground running. An amazing display of synergy and proactivity if you ask me. I bet it runs on a blockchain on the cloud.
DDG will become as bad as Google if it's allowed to grow. Its founder already has no problems lying about your anonymity and monetizes your data
Please elaborate; otherwise it just sounds like a generic shill statement. It is no secret that DDG relies on 'data' from users in the broader sense (it *is* a search query engine). But that is a far cry from implying it does so in a way that is personally invasive like google.
You are missing the fact that google results are personalised. Meaning your results are more relevant because they've probably been personalised to your profile / locality. When I perform the same search, DDG results seem to be more relevant if anything (Google includes lots of spammy looking stuff). And adding 'flight' to the term immediately brings the right results unambiguously.
Effectively you're saying you prefer the so-called 'filter bubble' (which is fine, but I don't).
For what it's worth, I typically have the reverse experience with Google. While there have been a couple of times where google has yielded a 'better' result, typically for me it's the opposite. DDG results are far more relevant and, more importantly, diverse. Especially if you're trying to search for something that has a political undertone, or is likely to be copyrighted.
I'd never heard of this "Iconic streetwear brand" called "Supreme" before this. Iconic my butt. This is an ad and you should feel bad.
And now, in a Trumpesque turn of events, the media will now claim that the real Supreme paid the fake Supreme to partner with Samsung to make them famous, and that this was all part of their evil plan from the very beginning.
not only is it not a pure coincidence, but you might not be too surprised to find out that Tenor Gif has been long acquired by google, in order to serve ads to users browsing memes, by tagging said memes full of advertising keywords.
Interesting! So, people who are predisposed to eventually developing Parkinson's disease, are at an increased risk of having that manifest as an inflamed appendix requiring operation. Not only that, but this seems to be an early warning sign before the main disease (Parkinson's) manifests as well.
Brought to you by the "In medicine the exact reverse causal hypothesis always also sounds entirely reasonable too" department.
Incidentally, every time somebody discovers yet another brain-gut-axis link, I feel more and more sorry for Andrew Wakefield.
The claim that "the industry is dominated by men and therefore we couldn't train this in a gender-neutral way" is totally bogus from a machine-learning perspective. All that is needed to eliminate a bias arising from dataset imbalance is to balance the dataset.
More likely they realised that when using dispassionate criteria for optimal hiring, it would become very likely they'd not get the desired "Women > Men" politically correct outcome for all sorts of statistically valid reasons, and figured such optimal hiring was not worth its salt against all the money lost from lawsuits and bad PR in a time of a politically tense climate favouring women.
I completely agree with their choice, and would do the same. No need to feed oil to the fire
I've only seen 16-year olds use this word in a serious context. You might as well have used "destroyed" and go for the 12-year old version.
Google simply defended / counterargued against Trump's claim. It is less a matter of evidence and more one of clarifying their policies and taking a formal position.
Which, arguably, makes no difference to this case, because now the game is on; Trump is notorious for using claims that are factually imprecise but generally carry some weight of truth, and are very effective in setting the agenda for months to come; the factual details don't matter that much. Trump has just made a very effective move against an area where the 'opposition' seemingly has an advantage, and has twisted it to spur discussion as to whether the public is manipulated, with all the connotations and assumptions this might carry.
The spotlight will now be on Google's role in ensuring balanced political coverage for months to come, and why this hasn't been the case until now (as per the argument), potentially exposing Google and creating (bad) awareness for the company. This can in turn make it very difficult for Google to not react in a way that presumably will favour Trump, even if the imbalance in coverage so far was an organic result of their search algorithms and reflecting the actual distribution of online opinions, rather than some overarching scheming and plotting on Google's part.
And if Google's main line of defense to this is "na-uh technically that wasn't the right video" then I have bad news for them.
There may have been a few exceptions before that time, but I honestly cannot remember
of a single game I'd wanted to try out on Linux via PlayOnLinux in the last 5-10 years and fail to do so.
That is not to say that they all worked straight-out-of-the-box; some required extra libraries and playing around (typically installing directx etc). But in general it was easy to figure out (or lookup online) and the game worked perfectly after that.
Wine (and PlayOnLinux alongside it) really have made huge progress in the last decade. It should be trivial for Steam to provide 'bottling' scripts at this stage.
Diluting and / or extending definitions for the purpose of enforcing established circumstances and twisting one's arm to accept false equivalences into policy, is something that happens all the time, and partly reminiscent of the Microsoft EEE paradigm of doing things.
It is important in such discussions to discuss not simply whether it is acceptable or not, but which groups benefit from such a redefinition, which groups are 'pushing' for it (whether visibly or passively by encouraging 'grassroots' uses of the terms) and on what political grounds should they be allowed to enforce this into legislation and change of policy. The fact this question is being asked in itself is evidence that whatever group benefits from such a redefinition, are well into the "Extend" phase by now, and already moving towards the "Exterminate" one.
As it stands, it is rather obvious that the current (largely vegan) trend to call everything under the sun 'milk' rather than "milk" or 'milk alternative', and risk misrepresentation in the process, and equivalently 'cheese / cheesecake' etc, partly aims to portray milk-alternative substances as "equivalent" to milk under 'one' definition, purportedly for the purposes of marketing and convenience, which then serves to conflate a then accepted aspect of that definition as encompassing the totality of that definition. This would in turn entail a shift from defining 'milk' as the product of lactation (as opposed to say coconut "milk", which is so-called because it is 'milky' in texture, but not milk), into defining 'milk' as anything that is 'milky' in texture, therefore shifting the position of dairy milk within this group of 'milks' as simply one element of that set of 'milky' substances, which happens to be from an animal source. A political agenda behind this would then be to form a basis for an argument that there is no need for 'animal-derived' milk when 'non-animal-derived' milk is "equivalent" (something that would have been much harder to discuss if non-animal 'milk' is consistently referred to as an 'alternative'), and use this for vegan lobbyists to put political pressure in a very real and legislative way.
The irony of course, is if a vegan person asked for "oat milk" at Starbucks, only to find they were served "oat-infused cow's milk" (which makes more sense; surely 'chocolate milk' isn't 'milk' extracted from cocoa plants), rather than "oat-based milk-alternative", you can be sure Starbucks would find itself very quickly at the other end of a lawsuit claim for wilful / negligent misrepresentation.
This is similar to how 'non-evidence-based medicine' continuously tries to rebrand itself as 'alternative' or 'complementary' medicine, and such wording alone has allowed to a large extent such practises being accepted into national budgets for medicine. Definitions matter, and they affect policies. To claim it is simply a matter of balance between lexical precision and convenience, and that agendas driving a shifting of this balance are irrelevant, is being naive.
It's been a while since I've experienced this myself so I don't remember how that exact session went, but from what I remember it was either very difficult or effectively impossible to decline this, and at most you could postpone to a later point in time where the implication was that there will come a time when this system will be in full force and the only way of signing in, making it impossible to decline. Therefore users aren't given the "option" to register by voice for convenience, the HMRC is effectively coercing the users to provide this biometric information, since the alternative is to refuse and be prosecuted for not submitting tax forms.
Slashdot Mirror
(which CommentNow has superceded since plugin messed up its plugin system, but, yes, not a new idea at all)
In the UK, I generally find Starbucks music pretty calming, as it tends to be soft jazz or the like. It's one of the reasons I like the environment and find it relaxing.
Are the Starbucks in the US playing something different?
It would be interesting to see what kind of Cobra effect this will create. E.g. content creators make 2 videos, one with comments disabled and one redirecting for comments where less advertising income is expected.
The more typical scenario of course being that they get majorly sued for damages, while being publicly defamed for being an 'illegal haxxor'.
So the real question is, now that YouTube is messing things up, which (preferably more ethical) alternatives should be promoted? Scott Adams has made very good use of periscope (pscp.tv). Not to mention, RMS would like people to use archive.org more. Perhaps it's time to put the spotlight on alternative video platforms and find ways to allow content creators to monetize their content respectfully and move away from a monopoly who's largest interest is to data-mine its users?
So ... Photoshop?
Sounds like someone is thinking outside the box, leveraging some core competencies and hitting the ground running. An amazing display of synergy and proactivity if you ask me. I bet it runs on a blockchain on the cloud.
Please elaborate; otherwise it just sounds like a generic shill statement. It is no secret that DDG relies on 'data' from users in the broader sense (it *is* a search query engine). But that is a far cry from implying it does so in a way that is personally invasive like google.
I bet you're old.
You are missing the fact that google results are personalised. Meaning your results are more relevant because they've probably been personalised to your profile / locality. When I perform the same search, DDG results seem to be more relevant if anything (Google includes lots of spammy looking stuff). And adding 'flight' to the term immediately brings the right results unambiguously.
Effectively you're saying you prefer the so-called 'filter bubble' (which is fine, but I don't).
For what it's worth, I typically have the reverse experience with Google. While there have been a couple of times where google has yielded a 'better' result, typically for me it's the opposite. DDG results are far more relevant and, more importantly, diverse. Especially if you're trying to search for something that has a political undertone, or is likely to be copyrighted.
I'd never heard of this "Iconic streetwear brand" called "Supreme" before this. Iconic my butt. This is an ad and you should feel bad.
And now, in a Trumpesque turn of events, the media will now claim that the real Supreme paid the fake Supreme to partner with Samsung to make them famous, and that this was all part of their evil plan from the very beginning.
not only is it not a pure coincidence, but you might not be too surprised to find out that Tenor Gif has been long acquired by google, in order to serve ads to users browsing memes, by tagging said memes full of advertising keywords.
Interesting! So, people who are predisposed to eventually developing Parkinson's disease, are at an increased risk of having that manifest as an inflamed appendix requiring operation. Not only that, but this seems to be an early warning sign before the main disease (Parkinson's) manifests as well.
Brought to you by the "In medicine the exact reverse causal hypothesis always also sounds entirely reasonable too" department.
Incidentally, every time somebody discovers yet another brain-gut-axis link, I feel more and more sorry for Andrew Wakefield.
The claim that "the industry is dominated by men and therefore we couldn't train this in a gender-neutral way" is totally bogus from a machine-learning perspective. All that is needed to eliminate a bias arising from dataset imbalance is to balance the dataset.
More likely they realised that when using dispassionate criteria for optimal hiring, it would become very likely they'd not get the desired "Women > Men" politically correct outcome for all sorts of statistically valid reasons, and figured such optimal hiring was not worth its salt against all the money lost from lawsuits and bad PR in a time of a politically tense climate favouring women.
I completely agree with their choice, and would do the same. No need to feed oil to the fire
China.
Apparently. Just heard it from a greek colleague. I wanna see that live, hahah.
Thanks! (much better, actually!)
I've only seen 16-year olds use this word in a serious context. You might as well have used "destroyed" and go for the 12-year old version.
Google simply defended / counterargued against Trump's claim. It is less a matter of evidence and more one of clarifying their policies and taking a formal position.
Which, arguably, makes no difference to this case, because now the game is on; Trump is notorious for using claims that are factually imprecise but generally carry some weight of truth, and are very effective in setting the agenda for months to come; the factual details don't matter that much. Trump has just made a very effective move against an area where the 'opposition' seemingly has an advantage, and has twisted it to spur discussion as to whether the public is manipulated, with all the connotations and assumptions this might carry.
The spotlight will now be on Google's role in ensuring balanced political coverage for months to come, and why this hasn't been the case until now (as per the argument), potentially exposing Google and creating (bad) awareness for the company. This can in turn make it very difficult for Google to not react in a way that presumably will favour Trump, even if the imbalance in coverage so far was an organic result of their search algorithms and reflecting the actual distribution of online opinions, rather than some overarching scheming and plotting on Google's part.
And if Google's main line of defense to this is "na-uh technically that wasn't the right video" then I have bad news for them.
Similar quote: “If you believe in nothing you’ll believe in anything.” ~ GK Chesterton
Wine (and PlayOnLinux alongside it) really have made huge progress in the last decade. It should be trivial for Steam to provide 'bottling' scripts at this stage.
since when does anything related to accuracy and precision of definitions not have anything to do with nerds?
Diluting and / or extending definitions for the purpose of enforcing established circumstances and twisting one's arm to accept false equivalences into policy, is something that happens all the time, and partly reminiscent of the Microsoft EEE paradigm of doing things.
It is important in such discussions to discuss not simply whether it is acceptable or not, but which groups benefit from such a redefinition, which groups are 'pushing' for it (whether visibly or passively by encouraging 'grassroots' uses of the terms) and on what political grounds should they be allowed to enforce this into legislation and change of policy. The fact this question is being asked in itself is evidence that whatever group benefits from such a redefinition, are well into the "Extend" phase by now, and already moving towards the "Exterminate" one.
As it stands, it is rather obvious that the current (largely vegan) trend to call everything under the sun 'milk' rather than "milk" or 'milk alternative', and risk misrepresentation in the process, and equivalently 'cheese / cheesecake' etc, partly aims to portray milk-alternative substances as "equivalent" to milk under 'one' definition, purportedly for the purposes of marketing and convenience, which then serves to conflate a then accepted aspect of that definition as encompassing the totality of that definition. This would in turn entail a shift from defining 'milk' as the product of lactation (as opposed to say coconut "milk", which is so-called because it is 'milky' in texture, but not milk), into defining 'milk' as anything that is 'milky' in texture, therefore shifting the position of dairy milk within this group of 'milks' as simply one element of that set of 'milky' substances, which happens to be from an animal source. A political agenda behind this would then be to form a basis for an argument that there is no need for 'animal-derived' milk when 'non-animal-derived' milk is "equivalent" (something that would have been much harder to discuss if non-animal 'milk' is consistently referred to as an 'alternative'), and use this for vegan lobbyists to put political pressure in a very real and legislative way.
The irony of course, is if a vegan person asked for "oat milk" at Starbucks, only to find they were served "oat-infused cow's milk" (which makes more sense; surely 'chocolate milk' isn't 'milk' extracted from cocoa plants), rather than "oat-based milk-alternative", you can be sure Starbucks would find itself very quickly at the other end of a lawsuit claim for wilful / negligent misrepresentation.
This is similar to how 'non-evidence-based medicine' continuously tries to rebrand itself as 'alternative' or 'complementary' medicine, and such wording alone has allowed to a large extent such practises being accepted into national budgets for medicine. Definitions matter, and they affect policies. To claim it is simply a matter of balance between lexical precision and convenience, and that agendas driving a shifting of this balance are irrelevant, is being naive.
Boy are you gonna be surprised by this then
This must be the year of the Windows Desktop!
It's been a while since I've experienced this myself so I don't remember how that exact session went, but from what I remember it was either very difficult or effectively impossible to decline this, and at most you could postpone to a later point in time where the implication was that there will come a time when this system will be in full force and the only way of signing in, making it impossible to decline. Therefore users aren't given the "option" to register by voice for convenience, the HMRC is effectively coercing the users to provide this biometric information, since the alternative is to refuse and be prosecuted for not submitting tax forms.