I don't care what righteous rationalization they have for their meddling, it's meddling in what I can see and what I can't.
I wouldn't like a librarian to refuse to check out a book because they don't believe I'm adult enough to sort fact from well-crafted fiction. That's none of their fucking business.
Which means I'm getting my video anywhere else, wherever I can.
No, I'm not. I have 4 kids in their 20s. The number of internships and "entry"-level jobs today that nevertheless require either a completed degree or (mostly internships) require a degree or being in the final year of a degree program in a 4 year school was pretty disheartening.
There's a HUGE difference between "needs update" and "needs MEANINGFUL update".
I don't know of a metric that would measure that, unless perhaps you measured the size of the update vs installed size of the program?
I know this wouldn't be perfect, but I'd guess in general critical updates would be more sizable than trivial "this button doesn't look right when clicked" updates.
"Half of them didn't even guess, because they admitted that it would be a random guess." And that's how you could tell they were engineers, and not marketing/sales wonks.
The Left has asserted that EVERYTHING in the criminal justice system is dirty - cops are racist, the judges are racist, detectives are racist, prison guards are racist, etc ad infinitum.
So, every jurisdiction is trying to find some sort of objective agent for every possible step in the process. And then we have legions of data pimps insisting that AI is here, that their software can do this, etc and it looks like a godsend: we get to take all the human elements of racism out of the equation and now we have an "algorithm" that depersonifies the important decisions.....except that's bullshit. If you're one of those that insists the system is widely racist*, then you 'd have to recognize that the implementation of algorithms simply dissipates the racism across the agencies of database programmers and algorithm-writers....ie someone harder to sue/fire/punish than some poor schlub of a cop just trying to do his job the best he can.
*FWIW: I'm not one of them. Until the same campaigners immediately apply their logic and recognize that the justice system is (by their measure) FAR more sexist than racist, I'd say they're just racist apologists. Of course, FWIW again, this is of course a canard: the idea that you would look at the prison system as 90% male as an issue of sexism is frankly stupid. I'd say that if we're saying only 90% of criminals are male is, if anything, low. By that same token, looking at the outsized black demographic to the prison population as being - by itself - some sort of "evidence" of racism is simply stupid.
Mod me to oblivion for being troll/flamebait. Denying something exists doesn't make it untrue.
Thanks for your reply, but I'm afraid I'm still not understanding? I am *not* a statistician, but have a reasonable familiarity with higher math and statistics. As I understand, the 1-sample Z- and T-tests still require things like bounds and means. (http://www.statisticslectures.com/topics/onesamplez/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/stati... and fascinatingly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (thanks internet rabbit hole))
In this specific case, the 'source' is nearly infinite, and there is no mean information that's not naked speculation. I confess this is well beyond my math skills, but logically it seems that if I walk up to a single person on the street, ask them "have you won the lottery?" and they answer yes, I absolutely cannot infer anything about the likelihood of the next person I ask answering yes or no?
Thanks in advance, if you care to help me understand better.
"No serious economist that doesn't have an ideological bone to pick thinks California is anywhere close to economic failure." Skating very close to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, but you might want to stop sniffing the bottled O2: State Controller Betty Yee - unfunded liabilities unsustainable (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article202263079.html) NYT: An economic warning for California (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/business/economy/california-recession.html) and Downturn looms as test for CA (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/california-economic-recession-jerry-brown.html) IBD: CA Golden no more (https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/california-golden-no-more/) Not to mention my personal hope that high-state tax states (CA, like NY, MA, and my state of MN) *don't* get to wriggle out from under the state-tax-writeoff cap put into law last year. Because previously - being able to write off the high endemic state taxes - meant that RED STATES were essentially subsidizing your (our) social giveaways, which was/is bullshit....but I'm sure they're all just conservative publications funded by the Koch brothers, right?
I know we all recognize this as a humor post, but TBH people thought the exact same way about throwing away beer cans into a forest or dumping trash into the sea - it's so effectively-infinite, my (beer can, barge with 300 tons of waste) won't make any meaningful difference ever.
As long as there's a sun and non-uniform heating of the planet, we will have wind. I would just submit that there IS a point at which pulling energy from the wind may actually have consequences, as ridiculous as that may sound.
"How much in debt are the California governments? Thatâ(TM)s hard to know too. According to a January 2017 study, âoeCalifornia state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.â The study was based on âoea review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.â
In other words, that $1.3 trillion in debt is the amount to which California governments admit. Other studies believe it to be more. Indeed, one study says it is actually $2.3 trillion and a recent Hoover Institute stated that there is over $1 trillion in pension liability alone, or $76,884 per household. Incredibly, there are 4 million current pension beneficiaries, a number that continues to grow and which exceeds the total population of 22 states.
Whatâ(TM)s the right number? Apparently, it is so large it is hard to accurately estimate. In every case, the number is staggering."
Ephemeral concepts like justice, fairness, ethics, all are born of SOCIETIES. There's no 'fairness' in nature - just opportunism and self-interest (in the short or long term, behavioral or instinctual).
But what are societies but collections of people who agree on standards of behavior WITH CONSEQUENCES FOR BREAKING THOSE CODES. It's a concept that goes back as far as Hobbes and Rousseau, but that latter bit seems to have got lost in the (invented, modern) "right to anonymity". The point is that societies are ALSO full of people making their choices based on self-interest, but the addition of rules and consequences makes those people's self-interest move more in parallel to that of society.
The internet isn't a society; it's a talking chamber.
Lacking consequences for actions contrary to a community's agreed standards means there really is no community there, just a bunch of fish who happen to be swimming in the same direction. You can have anonymity and free speech, or you can have a society where (consensually, hopefully) standards are set and enforced. Beyond that, you're going to constantly have people doing whatever they want, at which you can "tut tut" and wag your finger at all you like, but they're not going to change because they don't need to for any value mattering to their own self-interest.
Of his 6 "odd facts" about the object, at least 4 aren't persuasive at all: 1) They did a paper projecting the estimated population of interstellar ejecta. They assert that 'stumbling' onto this implies a much higher population - how do they conclude that from a sample size of one? Even if the odds of running into such an object are astonishingly low, because they're non-zero the presence of ONE sample means nothing. His conclusions all flow from the assumption that the object was statistically common; I'm not sure that is much of a springboard for all of his other conclusions.
2) it's moving very slowly - essentially we raced past it. He observes that only one in the neighborhood of 500 stars is moving that slowly. (And then opines that this would be 'optimal to camouflage the origin of a probe' and 'it's like a buoy we raced past, could it be part of a communication net work'? Anthropomorphic tinfoil hat, anyone? Of course, again: single sample. It could be BILLIONS of years old, from well outside the local 500 star group, to say nothing of the literally-infinite number of possibilities of caroming around bouncing off crap or (my guess) slowing due to passing through any number of dust/debris clouds.
3) ejecta from planetary systems would likely have high energy vs local rest frame, this was barely moving. See points 1 and 2 above.
4) the inferred geometry from the 10:1 brightness curve variation observed only sustains if you assume its homogeneous or at least its reflectivity is. While not a bad GUESS to suggest it's a tumbling needle-shape, there are also a LOT of other explanations for such variation (to use only my example above, it could be an icy object (high albedo) that's passed through heavy carbon dust clouds (very low albedo to the surface that's facing such clouds). It wouldn't take an oddly proportioned object nor much spin to result in a highly-fluctuating brightness.
5) lock of heating even though it passed close to the sun (inside orbit of mercury) and 6) slight deviation from the predictable Keplerian gravity-calculated path, comparable to the shift from outgassing (but there's no evidence/suggestion that this happened, and in fact some evidence it DIDN'T happen)
5 & 6 are IMO meaningful. I fully agree with him that we should both a) work on very high speed probes that COULD in fact catch it before it leaves the solar system (by God yes!) and b) look for more high-inclination objects around our large gas giants to see if we can find anything 'caught' by their wells historically (he doesn't mention that chronology is against us here; if they were caught, they would be high-off the ecliptic, wouldn't be very stable, and would likely either impact one of the Jovian moons or ultimately end up in Jupiter itself relatively quickly).
I strongly doubt (though I certainly wish it were true) that this is an artificial object of extra-solar origin. There are too many other more-reasonable explanations. The breathlessness and hand-waving of the SA article are unworthy of an actual science publication.
Then again, the fact that this was published in SA doesn't shock me, it's 'standards' over the last 20 years have dropped to about that of Reddit.
....not only is it years old, but the "is my password hacked" check is astonishingly stupid?
So...if I'm worried that my pw might have gotten into the wild, I should "check it" by entering it into a nonsecure form on some dodgy unattributed site? Really?
Should I also send them my bank access info so they can make sure that wasn't hacked as well?
...or less maliciously,, what about simply being outdated?
I mean this would be great in a utopia where there are such things as un hackable chips, but even then, how would you feel today having, say, a 2011 era chip buried in your skull?
It's pretty cool (intended), but honestly I'm more impressed at a spray-on coating that cannot be removed with sandpaper NOR FILE? What?
As far as the icephobic nature, I guess there are a few questions: - cost (always) - vulnerability to heat/long-term UV exposure/thermal expansion. Things that get covered in ice also (often) are exposed to the sun for long periods as well. - effectiveness at various ranges of temperature and ice types - I can see this working well at a certain range of temps but there are so very many types of what we collectively call "ice" - opacity? transparency could make it much more useful (icing windows are a HUGE issue in certain climates)
Are they also teaching "how to ride unicorns" or maybe "how to speak draconic languages"?...since AI (as in actual, independent, artificial intelligence) DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
According to TFA, they're talking about the "AI" that offers options based on your Facebook perceives, or that interpret photographs online...Google calling it AI doesn't make it so. Those are reinforced-dynamic learning heuristics fronting a massive database search engine.
Don't get me wrong, those are fascinating and interesting things that I myself would love to understand better (not sure what actual value there is to pushing for broad understanding of the techniques, though), but were falling gullibly for marketing-speak by allowing then to be called "artificial intelligence". Actual AI - the idea of a synthetic analogue to a creative, independent human brain (or even, let's say, a true simulation of a simplistic animal or insect brain) - is DECADES away at the most optimistic estimates.
I'm not really sure I understand what's going on: the conventional wisdom seems to have abandoned reality in favor of this sort of invented utopia where we simply insist things exist and then start acting as if they do? Slashdot in particular is rife with articles about how AI will take your job (it won't, anytime soon), how we'll all be using self driving cars (there are MASSIVE technical hurdles remaining, to say nothing of legal norms yet undetermined), and how we can basically run the world on solar/wind power (we're decades from that, at least, if it's even possible). Some people are troubled by fake news...I'm now troubled by the apparent willingness of great swathes of the population living almost entirely in a fictional now.
Obviously it has. OP is suggesting that apps be defaulted as able to run in background, why wouldn't we use the same affirm-to-whitelist procedure for this as for access to other facts of the phone?
"If your other goods or services (e.g. broadband) went up by 13-18%, I'm sure you'd complain too."
Not actually. This is the sort of smoke and mirrors of statistics, isn't it? I mean, when someone waves around a 15-18% increase, that sounds like a lot...but I don't spend RELATIVE (%) dollars, I spend actual dollars. So what impacts me isn't the relative increase, it's the absolute increase and no, $2/month really isn't much. I mean, people blow 3x on an impulse purchase of a Grande Orange Mocha Latte Frappucino without batting an eye.
And I get it, if everyone is handing you $2 monthly increases, soon that's real money. And frankly, as one of the early-adopters of Netflix (I think I was a month 3 subscriber), I'm *finally* contemplating canceling just because they really don't have a ton of good content anymore and this might be the last straw.
But let's not all shriek and get our panties in a wad because 18% OMFG!!!!. It's $2. It's not that much to most people, really. It still might be enough to drive them off but don't pretend it's more than it is.
Oh I disagree. Essentially you're asserting apps should be able to run in background, unless you opt-out. That's a security nightmare.
Far better to say on install "hey this has to run in the background to function, ok?". I can't tell you the number of apps I've uninstalled for background-running shenanigans - why does Soundcloud need to know my LOCATION, for example? Or this gps application need access to my contact list?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care what righteous rationalization they have for their meddling, it's meddling in what I can see and what I can't.
I wouldn't like a librarian to refuse to check out a book because they don't believe I'm adult enough to sort fact from well-crafted fiction. That's none of their fucking business.
Which means I'm getting my video anywhere else, wherever I can.
No, I'm not. I have 4 kids in their 20s. The number of internships and "entry"-level jobs today that nevertheless require either a completed degree or (mostly internships) require a degree or being in the final year of a degree program in a 4 year school was pretty disheartening.
There's a HUGE difference between "needs update" and "needs MEANINGFUL update".
I don't know of a metric that would measure that, unless perhaps you measured the size of the update vs installed size of the program?
I know this wouldn't be perfect, but I'd guess in general critical updates would be more sizable than trivial "this button doesn't look right when clicked" updates.
I know it's hard to imagine, but it appears at first blush they're actually walking the talk: I checked a couple of entry level posted jobs at IBM:
Entry Level HW Computer Technician/System Services Rep- Palatine, IL
https://careers.ibm.com/ShowJo...
and ..and BOTH required only High School Diploma/GED.
(Cyber) Security Services Specialist - Intern
https://careers.ibm.com/ShowJo...
That's great and refreshing.
"Half of them didn't even guess, because they admitted that it would be a random guess."
And that's how you could tell they were engineers, and not marketing/sales wonks.
The Left has asserted that EVERYTHING in the criminal justice system is dirty - cops are racist, the judges are racist, detectives are racist, prison guards are racist, etc ad infinitum.
So, every jurisdiction is trying to find some sort of objective agent for every possible step in the process. And then we have legions of data pimps insisting that AI is here, that their software can do this, etc and it looks like a godsend: we get to take all the human elements of racism out of the equation and now we have an "algorithm" that depersonifies the important decisions. ....except that's bullshit. If you're one of those that insists the system is widely racist*, then you 'd have to recognize that the implementation of algorithms simply dissipates the racism across the agencies of database programmers and algorithm-writers....ie someone harder to sue/fire/punish than some poor schlub of a cop just trying to do his job the best he can.
*FWIW: I'm not one of them. Until the same campaigners immediately apply their logic and recognize that the justice system is (by their measure) FAR more sexist than racist, I'd say they're just racist apologists. Of course, FWIW again, this is of course a canard: the idea that you would look at the prison system as 90% male as an issue of sexism is frankly stupid. I'd say that if we're saying only 90% of criminals are male is, if anything, low. By that same token, looking at the outsized black demographic to the prison population as being - by itself - some sort of "evidence" of racism is simply stupid.
Mod me to oblivion for being troll/flamebait. Denying something exists doesn't make it untrue.
Thanks for your reply, but I'm afraid I'm still not understanding?
I am *not* a statistician, but have a reasonable familiarity with higher math and statistics.
As I understand, the 1-sample Z- and T-tests still require things like bounds and means.
(http://www.statisticslectures.com/topics/onesamplez/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/stati... and fascinatingly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (thanks internet rabbit hole))
In this specific case, the 'source' is nearly infinite, and there is no mean information that's not naked speculation. I confess this is well beyond my math skills, but logically it seems that if I walk up to a single person on the street, ask them "have you won the lottery?" and they answer yes, I absolutely cannot infer anything about the likelihood of the next person I ask answering yes or no?
Thanks in advance, if you care to help me understand better.
"No serious economist that doesn't have an ideological bone to pick thinks California is anywhere close to economic failure." ...but I'm sure they're all just conservative publications funded by the Koch brothers, right?
Skating very close to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, but you might want to stop sniffing the bottled O2:
State Controller Betty Yee - unfunded liabilities unsustainable (https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article202263079.html)
NYT: An economic warning for California (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/business/economy/california-recession.html)
and Downturn looms as test for CA (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/california-economic-recession-jerry-brown.html)
IBD: CA Golden no more (https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/california-golden-no-more/)
Not to mention my personal hope that high-state tax states (CA, like NY, MA, and my state of MN) *don't* get to wriggle out from under the state-tax-writeoff cap put into law last year. Because previously - being able to write off the high endemic state taxes - meant that RED STATES were essentially subsidizing your (our) social giveaways, which was/is bullshit.
I know we all recognize this as a humor post, but TBH people thought the exact same way about throwing away beer cans into a forest or dumping trash into the sea - it's so effectively-infinite, my (beer can, barge with 300 tons of waste) won't make any meaningful difference ever.
As long as there's a sun and non-uniform heating of the planet, we will have wind.
I would just submit that there IS a point at which pulling energy from the wind may actually have consequences, as ridiculous as that may sound.
"...the United States' most prosperous state..."
If so, that's pretty fucking sad?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/sta...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t... says:
I'd flip this around.
Ephemeral concepts like justice, fairness, ethics, all are born of SOCIETIES.
There's no 'fairness' in nature - just opportunism and self-interest (in the short or long term, behavioral or instinctual).
But what are societies but collections of people who agree on standards of behavior WITH CONSEQUENCES FOR BREAKING THOSE CODES. It's a concept that goes back as far as Hobbes and Rousseau, but that latter bit seems to have got lost in the (invented, modern) "right to anonymity". The point is that societies are ALSO full of people making their choices based on self-interest, but the addition of rules and consequences makes those people's self-interest move more in parallel to that of society.
The internet isn't a society; it's a talking chamber.
Lacking consequences for actions contrary to a community's agreed standards means there really is no community there, just a bunch of fish who happen to be swimming in the same direction. You can have anonymity and free speech, or you can have a society where (consensually, hopefully) standards are set and enforced. Beyond that, you're going to constantly have people doing whatever they want, at which you can "tut tut" and wag your finger at all you like, but they're not going to change because they don't need to for any value mattering to their own self-interest.
Erm, I'd point out that GL pretty roundly screwed up the franchise *himself* in the first place.
I'm not saying that Disney didn't make it worse, but let's be honest that Episodes 1-2-3 were repellent and terrible.
From TFA https://blogs.scientificameric...
Of his 6 "odd facts" about the object, at least 4 aren't persuasive at all:
1) They did a paper projecting the estimated population of interstellar ejecta. They assert that 'stumbling' onto this implies a much higher population - how do they conclude that from a sample size of one? Even if the odds of running into such an object are astonishingly low, because they're non-zero the presence of ONE sample means nothing. His conclusions all flow from the assumption that the object was statistically common; I'm not sure that is much of a springboard for all of his other conclusions.
2) it's moving very slowly - essentially we raced past it. He observes that only one in the neighborhood of 500 stars is moving that slowly. (And then opines that this would be 'optimal to camouflage the origin of a probe' and 'it's like a buoy we raced past, could it be part of a communication net work'? Anthropomorphic tinfoil hat, anyone? Of course, again: single sample. It could be BILLIONS of years old, from well outside the local 500 star group, to say nothing of the literally-infinite number of possibilities of caroming around bouncing off crap or (my guess) slowing due to passing through any number of dust/debris clouds.
3) ejecta from planetary systems would likely have high energy vs local rest frame, this was barely moving. See points 1 and 2 above.
4) the inferred geometry from the 10:1 brightness curve variation observed only sustains if you assume its homogeneous or at least its reflectivity is. While not a bad GUESS to suggest it's a tumbling needle-shape, there are also a LOT of other explanations for such variation (to use only my example above, it could be an icy object (high albedo) that's passed through heavy carbon dust clouds (very low albedo to the surface that's facing such clouds). It wouldn't take an oddly proportioned object nor much spin to result in a highly-fluctuating brightness.
5) lock of heating even though it passed close to the sun (inside orbit of mercury)
and
6) slight deviation from the predictable Keplerian gravity-calculated path, comparable to the shift from outgassing (but there's no evidence/suggestion that this happened, and in fact some evidence it DIDN'T happen)
5 & 6 are IMO meaningful. I fully agree with him that we should both a) work on very high speed probes that COULD in fact catch it before it leaves the solar system (by God yes!) and b) look for more high-inclination objects around our large gas giants to see if we can find anything 'caught' by their wells historically (he doesn't mention that chronology is against us here; if they were caught, they would be high-off the ecliptic, wouldn't be very stable, and would likely either impact one of the Jovian moons or ultimately end up in Jupiter itself relatively quickly).
I strongly doubt (though I certainly wish it were true) that this is an artificial object of extra-solar origin. There are too many other more-reasonable explanations. The breathlessness and hand-waving of the SA article are unworthy of an actual science publication.
Then again, the fact that this was published in SA doesn't shock me, it's 'standards' over the last 20 years have dropped to about that of Reddit.
....not only is it years old, but the "is my password hacked" check is astonishingly stupid?
So...if I'm worried that my pw might have gotten into the wild, I should "check it" by entering it into a nonsecure form on some dodgy unattributed site? Really?
Should I also send them my bank access info so they can make sure that wasn't hacked as well?
" intermediaries who trade in the personal information of largely unsuspecting consumers "
Would Apple be quite so in favor of this we we, say, included hardware firms in the 'intermediaries' category?
...or less maliciously,, what about simply being outdated?
I mean this would be great in a utopia where there are such things as un hackable chips, but even then, how would you feel today having, say, a 2011 era chip buried in your skull?
The question here is why anyone would continue to fund/invest in such an obviously conflicted arrangement?
People like this are only successful as long as others tolerate this behavior.
"Impossible" is a pretty big word.
How about we start with "nearly impossible" and see how that goes?
It's pretty cool (intended), but honestly I'm more impressed at a spray-on coating that cannot be removed with sandpaper NOR FILE? What?
As far as the icephobic nature, I guess there are a few questions:
- cost (always)
- vulnerability to heat/long-term UV exposure/thermal expansion. Things that get covered in ice also (often) are exposed to the sun for long periods as well.
- effectiveness at various ranges of temperature and ice types - I can see this working well at a certain range of temps but there are so very many types of what we collectively call "ice"
- opacity? transparency could make it much more useful (icing windows are a HUGE issue in certain climates)
Are they also teaching "how to ride unicorns" or maybe "how to speak draconic languages"?...since AI (as in actual, independent, artificial intelligence) DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
According to TFA, they're talking about the "AI" that offers options based on your Facebook perceives, or that interpret photographs online...Google calling it AI doesn't make it so. Those are reinforced-dynamic learning heuristics fronting a massive database search engine.
Don't get me wrong, those are fascinating and interesting things that I myself would love to understand better (not sure what actual value there is to pushing for broad understanding of the techniques, though), but were falling gullibly for marketing-speak by allowing then to be called "artificial intelligence". Actual AI - the idea of a synthetic analogue to a creative, independent human brain (or even, let's say, a true simulation of a simplistic animal or insect brain) - is DECADES away at the most optimistic estimates.
I'm not really sure I understand what's going on: the conventional wisdom seems to have abandoned reality in favor of this sort of invented utopia where we simply insist things exist and then start acting as if they do? Slashdot in particular is rife with articles about how AI will take your job (it won't, anytime soon), how we'll all be using self driving cars (there are MASSIVE technical hurdles remaining, to say nothing of legal norms yet undetermined), and how we can basically run the world on solar/wind power (we're decades from that, at least, if it's even possible). Some people are troubled by fake news...I'm now troubled by the apparent willingness of great swathes of the population living almost entirely in a fictional now.
Look how much productive science has come out of Fermilab over the last 10-15 years, when many said it would be obsolete with the LHC online.
You use what you have.
If you can get something newer and shinier, you of course insist you must have it - scientists are normal people.
...what about lockboxes, then?
Obviously it has. OP is suggesting that apps be defaulted as able to run in background, why wouldn't we use the same affirm-to-whitelist procedure for this as for access to other facts of the phone?
"If your other goods or services (e.g. broadband) went up by 13-18%, I'm sure you'd complain too."
Not actually.
This is the sort of smoke and mirrors of statistics, isn't it?
I mean, when someone waves around a 15-18% increase, that sounds like a lot...but I don't spend RELATIVE (%) dollars, I spend actual dollars. So what impacts me isn't the relative increase, it's the absolute increase and no, $2/month really isn't much. I mean, people blow 3x on an impulse purchase of a Grande Orange Mocha Latte Frappucino without batting an eye.
And I get it, if everyone is handing you $2 monthly increases, soon that's real money. And frankly, as one of the early-adopters of Netflix (I think I was a month 3 subscriber), I'm *finally* contemplating canceling just because they really don't have a ton of good content anymore and this might be the last straw.
But let's not all shriek and get our panties in a wad because 18% OMFG!!!!. It's $2. It's not that much to most people, really. It still might be enough to drive them off but don't pretend it's more than it is.
Oh I disagree.
Essentially you're asserting apps should be able to run in background, unless you opt-out. That's a security nightmare.
Far better to say on install "hey this has to run in the background to function, ok?". I can't tell you the number of apps I've uninstalled for background-running shenanigans - why does Soundcloud need to know my LOCATION, for example? Or this gps application need access to my contact list?