Your comment seems to imply that people with eating disorders should be ostracized. Eating disorders are mental health issues; in other words, they are serious medical issues. They require treatment by doctors, but they most certainly shouldn't be blamed or ostracized for having health issues. Your comment is flamebait and should be moderated as such.
Unless of course "those people" are the same as the "number of people" that are complaining about the feature. Yam's comment is insightful, and should be moderated as such.
ON a digital product like a phone, I'm at a loss to know why someone would need another keyboard?
What does the default keyboard not offer?
I use "Hacker's Keyboard", which offers full QWERTY layout, with optional additional numbers/symbols row, has a Ctrl, Alt, tab and arrow buttons. All at once. That lets me type on my phone like a normal keyboard. No pressing a button to toggle into "number mode" or "symbol mode". When typing mixtures of things, such as complex passwords, or when using proper punctuation, it's way faster than traditional mobile keyboards.
In short, I don't type things like "i b cn u ok lol", so a richer keyboard experience is appropriate for me. Others' mileage may vary (and likely does).
or a case of designers who haven't figured out yet how to make the new design styles functional.
No, it's inherent in flat - or as I prefer to call it "interfaceless" interface.
The other day someone showed me an Android app that was confusing them. It had a "like" button that appeared disabled. In Material Design the widget would be called a "Toggle button with an icon", and here's the thing about it that particular widget: it only has two states: on or off; there is no "disabled" state. The visual cue for "not focused" looks to any ordinary mortal like the visual cue that other widgets with a disabled state (like the humble checkbox) use for "disabled".
If only "greyed-out" were still a thing, this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm retired now, but having designed apps and user interfaces for decades, I can follow the designer's logic here: I only need two states: like/not liked. A flat icon button look sooo much cleaner than a frumpy old checkbox, and if I need to disable the thing I'll just make it invisible. But the thing is users haven't read the MD design guidelines; they have infer what's going on from the conflicting cues MD gives them.
First, I'm going to jump on the bolded phrase. Cleaner. Multitudinous "o"s in "so". Frumpy. Old. This is all subjective crap and it has no damned place as a primary concern with designing machine interface. After you've managed "can be easily operated", then you get to do stuff like "pick a colour that looks nice for pretty princess".
With a visible interface, users can click around on things and while they won't know what a control does, they'll know it's a control. My current pet peeve is the modern "search box" that has the appearance of the surrounding area with the word "search" on it. Yes, please. That's what I'd like to do. Search. If only... oh, wait... I have to click on the word "search", which then becomes a text-entry area. Oh. Obviously. Screw that. Put a visible text box beside the word "search", or at the very, very least make the damned thing obviously a text entry box.
Bonus points for assclown designers who make us manually erase the word "search" before we can enter our own text.
Now the MD guidelines do kinda sorta steer you toward using toggle buttons in situations where they're unlikely to cause confusion, but design still takes judgment. And reading the MD guidelines, it strikes me that most people who need to produce an Android UI are presented with many subtle judgments to make when choosing between alternatives, and where there are a lot of choices there are a lot of opportunities to make bad choices.
Designers shouldn't have to worry about subtlety. Their options should be "brutally obvious to a brain-dead chimpanzee" and "might possibly be misunderstood by a toddler on cocaine". Note: I do not advocate giving small children drugs. The results of bad design should be poor use of space, not unintuitive.
I think UI glitches happen for the same reason that security glitches do: not enough developer training and schedule pressure. MD makes it easy to create a UI that looks modern and clean, but your job isn't done when a UI looks good; it has to minimize the cognitive load on the user as well. To do that there's no substitute for closely observing an untrained user struggling with your app. Find every little bump that trips him up and file it flat, even if you have to use a dumpy old checkbox.
I'm sorry, but no. These aren't glitches. Flat design removes contextual cues, making an interface that is unnatural and doesn't reflect the world users physically live in. You know why light switches still look the way they do (mostly)? Trick question: it's because fashion designers haven't got their ballerina fingers on them yet. But really, it's because a touch-sensitive indifferentiated flat spot on t
This splintering of streaming services is really stupid.
Agreed. It's funny; I'd be willing to pay Netflix more, but I'm not willing to pay separate services individually.
As in, I'd probably be okay with a Netflix bill being $15/mo instead of $10/mo to include Disney content. Add $5/mo for HBO, $5/mo for Starz, and so on, and I'd probably still be okay with it. But as long as I'm expected to deal with each one individually... no.
Netflix gets my monthly subscription. End of story. Fragmentation is not negotiable. Price is.
The never-ending single page is the worst trend in webdesign today, or perhaps ever. I was trying to reach the footer of some website the other day to get to info like "about", "contact us", or whatever, and it was absolutely impossible.
I'm guessing the "End" key on your keyboard was broken?
Every single concussion comes with an extent of brain damaged aligned to the severity of the concussion, every single one https://www.brainline.org/arti.... The more concussions you suffer and the worse they are, the greater your accumulated brain damage. The reason you are concussed is because, yes you brain suffered sufficient impact to cause it harm, that is why you feel concussed. It's like never damaged, bruised nerves, means in those millions of nerve bundles some where broken, severed, ceased to function, resulting in diminished capacity, as for the brain. As different parts of the brain do different things, the direction of the impact has a significant impact on the outcome, some being much more dangerous than others. What probably saves jock straps from more behaviourally visible reduce cerebral function is smaller brains in thicker skulls, with fewer neuron connections and the types of activity they indulge in, not much mental function is required for the activity, in fact reduced mental function is desirable for repetitive training behaviours.
Friend, I have a policy of not shooting for +5 Funny twice in the same discussion, but man... reading your post makes me feel like maybe I've been playing too much football and it's time to donate my brain to science.
Bad analogy. In AM's case, the ToS were available before payment. The ToS expilicity stated that AM could create accounts for "entertainment purposes".
Yeah, not going to accept the argument. There's a nice bit of literature involving a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of leopard" that applies. Being able to create accounts for entertainment isn't at all "almost none of the women on this site are real". Morality of the people visiting the site aside, the site purported to be for married people to meet and hook up. Having a disclaimer in the fine-print is pretty much a serving of Crunchy Frog, or possibly Spring Surprise. If you're not familiar with those references, you'd be well-served to look them up... a worthwhile distraction, I promise.
Fraud? I'm not so sure. I seriously doubt the ToS said anything about all accounts on the site being real.
Consider this: Lets say I open a restaurant and want to make it look popular so I hire a bunch of people to hang out and make it look lively. Is that fraud?
Try this: you open a restaurant named "Great Italian Food", and all the windows are plastered with Italian cuisine pictures and slogans. You then charge for admission to the restaurant. Once inside, people are given a menu, which has Italian-sounding names, but when the dishes are served, it turns out they're actually Mexican and Thai dishes. Almost nothing on your menu is actually Italian food.
Fraud, yes, probably. Because you advertised to establish an expectation of what was provided, and you don't provide that in any meaningful quantity.
they seem to be at least trying to do the right thing. Let's hope they get a good reputation for security and profit from it.
"...vulnerabilities that can jeopardize our products..."
I don't know. It could just be a language/translation thing, but to me the important issue is "vulnerabilities that can jeopardize our customers". I can't tell for sure if they get the issue from a philosophical standpoint or only a market-share and revenue one.
Or maybe they just don't give a fuck, same as how the average joe probably can't accurately connect a given superhero to whether he or she is from Marvel or DC.
Is the show good, yes or no? Does the show entertain me, yes or no? I don't f'ing care if it's ABC, Fox, CW or whatever if I like watching it.
You are right.
Put another way, branding doesn't matter as much as the marketing departments wish it did.
Pretty much yes, though "let's" is "let us", and I'm not an "us" from US. But still.
What I'm reading here is "Russia spammed some voters". So what? No really, so what? Even if the e-mails said "Candidate X eats babies", given the degree of spin and delusion that "legitimate" campaigning adverts are allowed to use, any voter needs to educate themselves. And if they don't, well, frankly it's not the Russians that are the problem. It's the voters.
When I hear that Russia bought votes, we can talk, but sending spam at voters? Meh.
She is trying to shift blame onto the internet and companies that make secure apps, because she has utterly failed herself.
You are right.
I have yet to hear "we suspected the attackers were up to no good but while we were working with various Internet companies to try to get lawful access to their communications, they moved ahead with their attack."
No. We never find that to be the case. At best, the people who do these things are on list of people who "knows a guy who is related to a guy who knows a guy who has the same name as someone who once said something that rhymes with a jihad slogan."
"Regulation" won't do anything productive unless "regulation" means "blanket permission and ability to data-mine, tap, access, and record all communications at all times, without cause for specific suspicion." Which is exactly why the major governments of the world are begging for "regulation".
Sure people are fooled. They're fooled into thinking it matters.
If one nation (for instance) hacks electronic voting machines and fraudulently alters a vote's outcome, that's one thing. In this case, it's (allegedly) about accessing and releasing "private" communications in order to influence public opinion.
I'm sorry, but if public opinion can be swayed by release of your private communications, you shouldn't be elected into office. I know this sounds an awful lot like the classic "if you've got nothing to hide..." argument, but if a candidate is shown to be shady, HOW that was shown isn't important. It's of no import what Russia did or didn't do in this election. It's of serious import that both major candidates had serious character flaws and neither of them should have been put forward by their parties as "this is the best we have, please elect us."
Only phone designers want a bezel-less phone. I have no idea why.
1} Because aesthetics. Form over functionality. That's how the iPhone obliterated Blackberry, for instance.
2} It's not just the designers. Hence the replies below you. "It makes it much more visually appealing to me." "...why would you want a large bezel?" While I agree with you, these people who buy on appearances outnumber us, and that's why there's no modern inch-thick smartphone with a week's worth of battery capacity.
Geez, god forbid someone asks a tech question on a tech forum. Your signature applies to you, especially now.
To be fair, this isn't a case of someone asking a tech question along the lines of "how do I do [sensible thing]?" It's someone saying "there is a mature product line for mobile computing but I don't want to avail myself of it because [no actual reason], so help me Obi Wan, you're my only hope."
While the post you're replying to is caustic, I don't see anything in the original submission that invalidates the answer "stop being weird and use the devices that were specifically engineered over the last several decades to do exactly what you want."
If they've got an actual use-case that justifies a massively non-standard product, it'd help to state it. "I like my keyboard" really isn't it.
The scope increases to perhaps twelve sites. Note how many other sites are mentioned. It would make nice research. A global clickbait phenomenon, it's not, although the global probable decline is onerous.
My math skills say: needs a lots more research until you can tie these factoids together. Even boolean algebra says correlation!=causation. Causation still must be causation.
I don't disagree with your sentiment or desire for rigor. Where I'm coming from is that it's not right to be dismissive of the data that's been presented to the extent of disregarding the number of sites involved. Sure, maybe their conclusions - and methodology - are bunk. Probably even, given what this would mean to the food chain, and the lack of 80% die-off up said chain (yet). But... well, I couldn't resist the lure of comparing "ONE" and "more than twelve" with a gentle tease. Thanks for playing ball.
You can make broad-brush statements all you want, but:
This was ONE SITE, not the entire country, the EU, or the world.
ONE SITE. You need to know about the ONE SITE because that's where the data lays.
The rest of the sites have had linear and mercurial declines. But the article isn't a broad, or even area-wide statistical analysis. ONE SITE. This is why science journalism gets a bad name.
From TFS, "found dramatic declines across more than a dozen other sites."
Now, maybe my math skills aren't what they once were, but I'm pretty sure that one and a minimum or thirteen are not the same. Perhaps if it's in upper-case it's closer than if it's in lower case.
There's a solution to this, 1-and-1 home and away contests, which people regularly did for intercontinental matches.
Shrug. I'm finding it difficult to have sympathy.
People who live in Saudi Arabia are disadvantaged at downhill skiing compared to those who live in Alaska.
People who live in Liechtenstein are disadvantaged at surfing compared to those who live in Hawaii.
Where you were born and where you live influences the hobbies you can partake in, as well as careers you can partake in. Welcome to physical reality.
Will they be courageous and get rid of the charging cable? Wireless charging only!
For a moment I thought you were describing something Apple might do. But then this "wireless charging" sentence happened. See... the Apple thing to do is get rid of the charging cable so when the battery dies, you just buy a new phone.
Convenience, capability, and capacity are not Apple's design goals or else they'd have user-removable batteries and slots for memory expansion. Nope. Style and flair and status are their design goals.
You're either being deliberately ignorant, or the point hasn't been made clear to you. I'll try to help.
With cloud-based password managers, your data is at risk. If they are hacked - and because they are online, they are vulnerable to attacks - your data is compromised unless it is always encrypted. In essence, you're trusting that they will never be hacked, and that if they are, they did best-practices to protect your data.
With Keepass, even if the cloud-storage you use is hacked, you know the data isn't accessible because it's strongly encrypted. Because you did it.
So yeah, the original comment makes perfect sense.
The problem that I have with Namecheap is that I tried to get a domain from them. Here's what happened:
I thought of a domain that I would really like to have. I first tried to go to it in my browser and got a 404 error.
I don't pretend to know everything, but I believe the moment you get a 404 error, that means a web server responded with HTTP response code 404, which requires a} a web server and b} the hostname you typed to have a DNS record resolving to that web server. All of which means: the domain you thought of was already registered before you tried to register it. That you got a 404 the first time and a parking page the second time only suggests the web server is crap.
Domain squatting sucks, but the sniping activity you're trying to accuse them of doesn't match the symptoms you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment seems to imply that people with eating disorders should be ostracized. Eating disorders are mental health issues; in other words, they are serious medical issues. They require treatment by doctors, but they most certainly shouldn't be blamed or ostracized for having health issues. Your comment is flamebait and should be moderated as such.
Unless of course "those people" are the same as the "number of people" that are complaining about the feature. Yam's comment is insightful, and should be moderated as such.
ON a digital product like a phone, I'm at a loss to know why someone would need another keyboard?
What does the default keyboard not offer?
I use "Hacker's Keyboard", which offers full QWERTY layout, with optional additional numbers/symbols row, has a Ctrl, Alt, tab and arrow buttons. All at once. That lets me type on my phone like a normal keyboard. No pressing a button to toggle into "number mode" or "symbol mode". When typing mixtures of things, such as complex passwords, or when using proper punctuation, it's way faster than traditional mobile keyboards.
In short, I don't type things like "i b cn u ok lol", so a richer keyboard experience is appropriate for me. Others' mileage may vary (and likely does).
or a case of designers who haven't figured out yet how to make the new design styles functional.
No, it's inherent in flat - or as I prefer to call it "interfaceless" interface.
The other day someone showed me an Android app that was confusing them. It had a "like" button that appeared disabled. In Material Design the widget would be called a "Toggle button with an icon", and here's the thing about it that particular widget: it only has two states: on or off; there is no "disabled" state. The visual cue for "not focused" looks to any ordinary mortal like the visual cue that other widgets with a disabled state (like the humble checkbox) use for "disabled".
If only "greyed-out" were still a thing, this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm retired now, but having designed apps and user interfaces for decades, I can follow the designer's logic here: I only need two states: like/not liked. A flat icon button look sooo much cleaner than a frumpy old checkbox, and if I need to disable the thing I'll just make it invisible. But the thing is users haven't read the MD design guidelines; they have infer what's going on from the conflicting cues MD gives them.
First, I'm going to jump on the bolded phrase. Cleaner. Multitudinous "o"s in "so". Frumpy. Old. This is all subjective crap and it has no damned place as a primary concern with designing machine interface. After you've managed "can be easily operated", then you get to do stuff like "pick a colour that looks nice for pretty princess".
With a visible interface, users can click around on things and while they won't know what a control does, they'll know it's a control. My current pet peeve is the modern "search box" that has the appearance of the surrounding area with the word "search" on it. Yes, please. That's what I'd like to do. Search. If only... oh, wait... I have to click on the word "search", which then becomes a text-entry area. Oh. Obviously. Screw that. Put a visible text box beside the word "search", or at the very, very least make the damned thing obviously a text entry box.
Bonus points for assclown designers who make us manually erase the word "search" before we can enter our own text.
Now the MD guidelines do kinda sorta steer you toward using toggle buttons in situations where they're unlikely to cause confusion, but design still takes judgment. And reading the MD guidelines, it strikes me that most people who need to produce an Android UI are presented with many subtle judgments to make when choosing between alternatives, and where there are a lot of choices there are a lot of opportunities to make bad choices.
Designers shouldn't have to worry about subtlety. Their options should be "brutally obvious to a brain-dead chimpanzee" and "might possibly be misunderstood by a toddler on cocaine". Note: I do not advocate giving small children drugs. The results of bad design should be poor use of space, not unintuitive.
I think UI glitches happen for the same reason that security glitches do: not enough developer training and schedule pressure. MD makes it easy to create a UI that looks modern and clean, but your job isn't done when a UI looks good; it has to minimize the cognitive load on the user as well. To do that there's no substitute for closely observing an untrained user struggling with your app. Find every little bump that trips him up and file it flat, even if you have to use a dumpy old checkbox.
I'm sorry, but no. These aren't glitches. Flat design removes contextual cues, making an interface that is unnatural and doesn't reflect the world users physically live in. You know why light switches still look the way they do (mostly)? Trick question: it's because fashion designers haven't got their ballerina fingers on them yet. But really, it's because a touch-sensitive indifferentiated flat spot on t
This splintering of streaming services is really stupid.
Agreed. It's funny; I'd be willing to pay Netflix more, but I'm not willing to pay separate services individually.
As in, I'd probably be okay with a Netflix bill being $15/mo instead of $10/mo to include Disney content. Add $5/mo for HBO, $5/mo for Starz, and so on, and I'd probably still be okay with it. But as long as I'm expected to deal with each one individually... no.
Netflix gets my monthly subscription. End of story. Fragmentation is not negotiable. Price is.
The never-ending single page is the worst trend in webdesign today, or perhaps ever. I was trying to reach the footer of some website the other day to get to info like "about", "contact us", or whatever, and it was absolutely impossible.
I'm guessing the "End" key on your keyboard was broken?
Every single concussion comes with an extent of brain damaged aligned to the severity of the concussion, every single one https://www.brainline.org/arti.... The more concussions you suffer and the worse they are, the greater your accumulated brain damage. The reason you are concussed is because, yes you brain suffered sufficient impact to cause it harm, that is why you feel concussed. It's like never damaged, bruised nerves, means in those millions of nerve bundles some where broken, severed, ceased to function, resulting in diminished capacity, as for the brain. As different parts of the brain do different things, the direction of the impact has a significant impact on the outcome, some being much more dangerous than others. What probably saves jock straps from more behaviourally visible reduce cerebral function is smaller brains in thicker skulls, with fewer neuron connections and the types of activity they indulge in, not much mental function is required for the activity, in fact reduced mental function is desirable for repetitive training behaviours.
Friend, I have a policy of not shooting for +5 Funny twice in the same discussion, but man... reading your post makes me feel like maybe I've been playing too much football and it's time to donate my brain to science.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Is the implication that playing football causes brain damage, or that having brain damage causes playing football?
As a lifelong nerd, I've often suspected both are likely, but I suppose you're right that we need to study this more before declaring "I knew it!"
Bad analogy. In AM's case, the ToS were available before payment. The ToS expilicity stated that AM could create accounts for "entertainment purposes".
Yeah, not going to accept the argument. There's a nice bit of literature involving a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of leopard" that applies. Being able to create accounts for entertainment isn't at all "almost none of the women on this site are real". Morality of the people visiting the site aside, the site purported to be for married people to meet and hook up. Having a disclaimer in the fine-print is pretty much a serving of Crunchy Frog, or possibly Spring Surprise. If you're not familiar with those references, you'd be well-served to look them up... a worthwhile distraction, I promise.
Fraud? I'm not so sure. I seriously doubt the ToS said anything about all accounts on the site being real.
Consider this: Lets say I open a restaurant and want to make it look popular so I hire a bunch of people to hang out and make it look lively. Is that fraud?
Try this: you open a restaurant named "Great Italian Food", and all the windows are plastered with Italian cuisine pictures and slogans. You then charge for admission to the restaurant. Once inside, people are given a menu, which has Italian-sounding names, but when the dishes are served, it turns out they're actually Mexican and Thai dishes. Almost nothing on your menu is actually Italian food.
Fraud, yes, probably. Because you advertised to establish an expectation of what was provided, and you don't provide that in any meaningful quantity.
I know this is totally off topic. But it is so fucking depressing that you feel that you need to carry a gun or a knife to be safe.
You missed it; they feel the need to carry a gun or knife to still feel/be unsafe.
So he's traveling from Sweden, which has nothing to do with the travel ban. So why does the article keep mentioning the travel ban?
Right or wrong, this is a reminder that security means collateral damage. More security means more false-positives. So there is a relationship.
they seem to be at least trying to do the right thing. Let's hope they get a good reputation for security and profit from it.
"...vulnerabilities that can jeopardize our products..."
I don't know. It could just be a language/translation thing, but to me the important issue is "vulnerabilities that can jeopardize our customers". I can't tell for sure if they get the issue from a philosophical standpoint or only a market-share and revenue one.
Or maybe they just don't give a fuck, same as how the average joe probably can't accurately connect a given superhero to whether he or she is from Marvel or DC.
Is the show good, yes or no? Does the show entertain me, yes or no? I don't f'ing care if it's ABC, Fox, CW or whatever if I like watching it.
You are right.
Put another way, branding doesn't matter as much as the marketing departments wish it did.
So, let's do nothing?
Pretty much yes, though "let's" is "let us", and I'm not an "us" from US. But still.
What I'm reading here is "Russia spammed some voters". So what? No really, so what? Even if the e-mails said "Candidate X eats babies", given the degree of spin and delusion that "legitimate" campaigning adverts are allowed to use, any voter needs to educate themselves. And if they don't, well, frankly it's not the Russians that are the problem. It's the voters.
When I hear that Russia bought votes, we can talk, but sending spam at voters? Meh.
She is trying to shift blame onto the internet and companies that make secure apps, because she has utterly failed herself.
You are right.
I have yet to hear "we suspected the attackers were up to no good but while we were working with various Internet companies to try to get lawful access to their communications, they moved ahead with their attack."
No. We never find that to be the case. At best, the people who do these things are on list of people who "knows a guy who is related to a guy who knows a guy who has the same name as someone who once said something that rhymes with a jihad slogan."
"Regulation" won't do anything productive unless "regulation" means "blanket permission and ability to data-mine, tap, access, and record all communications at all times, without cause for specific suspicion." Which is exactly why the major governments of the world are begging for "regulation".
Oh, come on. Nobody is fooled by this, are you?
Sure people are fooled. They're fooled into thinking it matters.
If one nation (for instance) hacks electronic voting machines and fraudulently alters a vote's outcome, that's one thing. In this case, it's (allegedly) about accessing and releasing "private" communications in order to influence public opinion.
I'm sorry, but if public opinion can be swayed by release of your private communications, you shouldn't be elected into office. I know this sounds an awful lot like the classic "if you've got nothing to hide..." argument, but if a candidate is shown to be shady, HOW that was shown isn't important. It's of no import what Russia did or didn't do in this election. It's of serious import that both major candidates had serious character flaws and neither of them should have been put forward by their parties as "this is the best we have, please elect us."
Disclosure: not an American.
Only phone designers want a bezel-less phone. I have no idea why.
1} Because aesthetics. Form over functionality. That's how the iPhone obliterated Blackberry, for instance.
2} It's not just the designers. Hence the replies below you. "It makes it much more visually appealing to me." "...why would you want a large bezel?" While I agree with you, these people who buy on appearances outnumber us, and that's why there's no modern inch-thick smartphone with a week's worth of battery capacity.
Geez, god forbid someone asks a tech question on a tech forum. Your signature applies to you, especially now.
To be fair, this isn't a case of someone asking a tech question along the lines of "how do I do [sensible thing]?" It's someone saying "there is a mature product line for mobile computing but I don't want to avail myself of it because [no actual reason], so help me Obi Wan, you're my only hope."
While the post you're replying to is caustic, I don't see anything in the original submission that invalidates the answer "stop being weird and use the devices that were specifically engineered over the last several decades to do exactly what you want."
If they've got an actual use-case that justifies a massively non-standard product, it'd help to state it. "I like my keyboard" really isn't it.
The scope increases to perhaps twelve sites. Note how many other sites are mentioned. It would make nice research. A global clickbait phenomenon, it's not, although the global probable decline is onerous.
My math skills say: needs a lots more research until you can tie these factoids together. Even boolean algebra says correlation!=causation. Causation still must be causation.
I don't disagree with your sentiment or desire for rigor. Where I'm coming from is that it's not right to be dismissive of the data that's been presented to the extent of disregarding the number of sites involved. Sure, maybe their conclusions - and methodology - are bunk. Probably even, given what this would mean to the food chain, and the lack of 80% die-off up said chain (yet). But... well, I couldn't resist the lure of comparing "ONE" and "more than twelve" with a gentle tease. Thanks for playing ball.
You can make broad-brush statements all you want, but:
This was ONE SITE, not the entire country, the EU, or the world.
ONE SITE. You need to know about the ONE SITE because that's where the data lays.
The rest of the sites have had linear and mercurial declines. But the article isn't a broad, or even area-wide statistical analysis. ONE SITE. This is why science journalism gets a bad name.
From TFS, "found dramatic declines across more than a dozen other sites."
Now, maybe my math skills aren't what they once were, but I'm pretty sure that one and a minimum or thirteen are not the same. Perhaps if it's in upper-case it's closer than if it's in lower case.
There's a solution to this, 1-and-1 home and away contests, which people regularly did for intercontinental matches.
Shrug. I'm finding it difficult to have sympathy.
People who live in Saudi Arabia are disadvantaged at downhill skiing compared to those who live in Alaska.
People who live in Liechtenstein are disadvantaged at surfing compared to those who live in Hawaii.
Where you were born and where you live influences the hobbies you can partake in, as well as careers you can partake in. Welcome to physical reality.
Will they be courageous and get rid of the charging cable? Wireless charging only!
For a moment I thought you were describing something Apple might do. But then this "wireless charging" sentence happened. See... the Apple thing to do is get rid of the charging cable so when the battery dies, you just buy a new phone.
Convenience, capability, and capacity are not Apple's design goals or else they'd have user-removable batteries and slots for memory expansion. Nope. Style and flair and status are their design goals.
It matches supply with demand. If rents are too high the root problem is there isn't enough housing being built.
The problem is too many fucking people, literally. We can start by placing limits on how many we import when we already have housing issues.
I know you're a troll, but I'm going to one-up you.
How about "we" place limits on breeding and instead import existing perfectly good people from shittier places. "We" win. "They" win. Perfect.
"i dont trust the cloud, but use the cloud"
k
You're either being deliberately ignorant, or the point hasn't been made clear to you. I'll try to help.
With cloud-based password managers, your data is at risk. If they are hacked - and because they are online, they are vulnerable to attacks - your data is compromised unless it is always encrypted. In essence, you're trusting that they will never be hacked, and that if they are, they did best-practices to protect your data.
With Keepass, even if the cloud-storage you use is hacked, you know the data isn't accessible because it's strongly encrypted. Because you did it.
So yeah, the original comment makes perfect sense.
The problem that I have with Namecheap is that I tried to get a domain from them. Here's what happened:
I thought of a domain that I would really like to have. I first tried to go to it in my browser and got a 404 error.
I don't pretend to know everything, but I believe the moment you get a 404 error, that means a web server responded with HTTP response code 404, which requires a} a web server and b} the hostname you typed to have a DNS record resolving to that web server. All of which means: the domain you thought of was already registered before you tried to register it. That you got a 404 the first time and a parking page the second time only suggests the web server is crap.
Domain squatting sucks, but the sniping activity you're trying to accuse them of doesn't match the symptoms you describe.