Any coating thin enough to GTFO upon impact with a person quickly and effectively enough for an underlying adhesive to garb and hold them against the force of the impact isn't going to last long in normal conditions.
Hmm...so you know the chemical properties of every material that will ever be invented?
As long as all you need is that stuff you are OK but the moment you want to do some real work you run into the limitations of Chrome OS. I can see how adding all those Android apps would be a good move for people like my dad who hates tablets and prefers a keyboard but for anybody doing any real work a thin client laptop is completely inadequate even if it has millions of Android apps designed to be used on tablets and mobile devices with all the horrifying UI compromises and awful user experiences that brings with it.
If you can truly run any Android application on Chrome OS, then everything you describe isn't at all a limitation of the OS itself (nor is it a limitation of Android.) It's actually just a matter of application developers writing Android applications that take advantage of a larger screen. That's all there really is to it. There's nothing stopping you from having applications equivalent to the desktop counterparts of CAD, quickbooks, photoshop, and any other big name heavy duty productivity application you can name.
It's likewise idiotic to assume that only Linux and Windows can be productivity OSes, and every other consumer OS can't.
At the present time, Android only truly exists on small (11" or less) screen devices, so application developers haven't had any motivation to write a full blown productivity application for that platform. However once you start having bigger screens and more input devices, that will change. And having said that, I could easily see Chrome OS breaking the "every PC is a windows machine" paradigm. And no, windows won't break the iOS/Android paradigm on mobile because Microsoft truly did make windows phone kneecapped by design so that only scaled down mobile apps will run on it (their idea has been that if Apple writes a kneecapped toy OS for mobile and succeeds at it, then Microsoft can and should do the same thing, which contrast to Google's "let's always extend the boundaries that developers can cross" mentality.)
That's nothing; I hear it is going to be Uwe Boll's triumphant return to feature film directing. That's right, he's decided to retire from boxing, which it turns out he was much better at.
It's from the National Academy of sciences, so you are in denialist class denial if you don't give it some credence.
I've been over this with the anti-GMO crowd before. There are actually a lot of organizations, ranging from government to nonprofit organizations, that are very much in favor of GMO technology. However each time you list one of them, the anti-GMO crowd comes up with some excuse as for why they're not trustworthy. Here's a list I can name off of the top of my head:
World Health Organization Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations U.S. Academy of Sciences American Medical Association American Heart Association (Nifty little tidbit I might add: http://newsroom.heart.org/news... but don't let any anti-GMO people see this or else they'll think the AHA is in on the Monsanto conspiracy as well.) Girl Scouts of America
The last one in that list is particularly interesting. Why? Because they've been the target of change.org petitions and massive parental protest against what is perhaps their biggest source of income: cookies. And yet still they remain steadfast in their opinion that, indeed, GMO is safe.
And you know what? I happen to agree. I also don't have any financial interest in GMO or any other agriculture, nor do I work for one. In fact I actually work for a major non-profit health care provider. I also happen to believe that GMO will eventually completely solve issues like world hunger and foodborne illness, and possibly even chronic disease as well.
Actually I thought he was pulling his punches. Edge is the most remarkably awful browser I've ever tried. Might as well try to surf porn with Lynx.
If only it were Edge that was bad, the entire UWP framework it runs on is buggy. For example, sometimes when you hibernate your system, the apps freeze upon resuming the system; a problem I haven't ever observed in win32 apps. And when UWP apps freeze, they don't behave like other apps do where the OS notifies you and closes the app. Instead they just stop responding to input while the OS pretends that they are still running just fine.
There are also companies who profit from selling seeds and have a history of lawsuits against independent farmers for allegedly stealing seeds. It's amazing how these "debates" mostly revolve around the asinine extremes isn't it?
One lawsuit against one farmer who deliberately bred GM plants. He determined which were which by exposing them to glyphosate and breeding the ones that survived.
Anyways, it's moot because that particular patent expired last year.
Well I'm another "Slashdot Libertarian Type", and I think most people would define being in the top 20% of income earners in the US as successful.
That said, I think pushing minority groups towards a particular career path is kind of dumb really, and forcing companies to hire more of them is even more dumb.
Suppose we have 100 people:
50 are white 20 are black 20 are latino 10 are asian
Now, suppose there is an economic demand of 25 IT workers. Of this population of 100 people, 15 of the white guys are into IT, 8 of the asians are, 2 of the blacks are, and 1 latino is. Now, suppose all of these people have exactly the job that they want, and all of them are very good at it because they really like doing it.
Well, to social justice types, this is a HUGE problem in need of correction. Why? Because whites are 50% of the population and represent 60% of the IT work force, while asias are 10% of the population and represent 32% of the IT work force, meanwhile blacks and latinos are 20% of the population with 8% of the workforce and 4%, respectively. This obviously must be because of discrimination. People should be working in a given industry to represent their population numbers, and they aren't. So the solution is to tell the whites and asians to either not get hired or get different jobs so that they represent less numbers, and we have to convince more blacks and latinos that they need to work in IT, even if they really don't care for technology, and thus do a worse job than those who do care about it. And if that doesn't work, we just need to make more minorities in IT and have programs that exclude some groups while being exclusive to others (for example, lots of programs out there for IT education are exclusive to girls; meaning, no boys allowed.)
However here's what reality looks like: I don't know about today's k-12, but when I was in high school and younger, peer pressure was AGAINST going into a technology career. Other kids would often poke fun at you if you were into computers at all, hell, I remember being bullied quite a few times for that fact alone. I'm part of what is called the millennial generation, by the way, so I'm not sure how much has changed since the 16 years I've been out of the k-12 system. But, the present grown ups that are in IT, which is supposedly racially biased, were mostly in that generation. It sure as shit didn't require somebody encouraging me to go into IT to make me go into IT; it's just inherent in who I am.
That said, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing me that the solution is to push more minorities and girls into IT and expect to have more of them employed in IT. It's well known that people tend to associate more with other people that look like themselves, which is part of our biology. That said, different races and indeed different genders are going to have their own co-cultures that will differ remarkably from people who don't look like themselves (For example, think about how many black country singers you've heard of, and how many white rap singers you've heard of. Notice anything?) Given that they'll have different cultural values, it's inevitable that they'll be interested in different things as well, which includes career choices. Which means that if you want to change their career choices because you've taken it upon yourself to tell them that the things they value are inherently wrong, you're going to have to forcibly change their cultural values.
And if you want to do that, then I'll have no choice but to ask: What are you doing calling other people a bigot?
When in Rome, follow Roman law. You want to play with fire, try starting a Communist party in the USA (illegal), or offering end to end encryption email with no back doors in England.
No, the US isn't Europe. We don't ban any political parties from existing or saying whatever backwards shit they want to say, which is inclusive of anything from Communist to Fascist parties. The thing is, it's borderline impossible for them to have it their way, because the amount of support they need to be able to do anything is astronomical compared to what is needed in Europe (and is hence one of the downsides of a parliamentary system.)
Unless you're a DJ. After shifting that track an octave and a half down and slowing that other track down about 50 bpm or so to match, you're really going to wish you had those extra samples. This is an exercise you can do on your own with free software like Audacity. Get a piece of music. Two exercises. 1.) Lower its pitch without affecting its tempo by at least an octave. 2.) Lower its tempo without affecting its pitch by at least 30 bpm. Both of these exercises should give you a hint what will happen if lower by more. It will sound like shit. You will quickly see that those extra samples you think are only for "audiophiles" really do come in handy.
No, this really won't work the way you think it will. It might make sounds that otherwise have a higher frequency come to within your audible spectrum, however anything that was already in your audible spectrum is inevitably going to sound different. This only has scientific applications, and is otherwise worthless for a DJ.
This all comes down to how fourier transforms work, by the way, which are the basis behind the Nyquist theorem. It's also analogous to making ultra-violet light visible to human eyes.
Now, what's truly confusing to me about your posts is that you seem to believe that you need more than 16 bits to adjust volume. If boosting the volume on something with 16 bits makes it sound a worn cassette that's a recording of a recording of a recording, what you're running into is compression.
That isn't even close to what I was pointing out.
Well, who knows. You've probably never met a modern live DJ at a bar or rave.
On the contrary, I've helped a few develop their tracks.
I don't think anything I said conflicts with any of that. Go to your comment 'volume control is a DSP math operation' for example: Consider if your source started at a low bit rate but you needed to i.e. increase the volume. What do you get? Basically a lot of noise that sounds like static, kind of like 80's era cassette tapes when played at higher volume. Hence using a higher bit rate makes sense for that application.
But again as I stated, higher sample rate (NOT bit rate, these are two different things) is pointless for any application. Why? Quite simply, the Nyquist limit.
Ok, even when doing that, there's still no use for going above 44khz. 24-bit? Maybe, but only if you're doing some serious editing/mixing and want to eliminate sound artifacts (i.e. pops) from the final copy.
That's why you'll want 24-bit for a studio master, because it gives you more room to adjust the individual samples and splice audio streams without hearing any kind of pop or static when it's re-sampled back to 16-bit. However going above 44khz still remains pointless, even for that purpose.
Here's Nyquist sampling theorem 101:
Strictly speaking, the theorem only applies to a class of mathematical functions having a Fourier transform that is zero outside of a finite region of frequencies. Intuitively we expect that when one reduces a continuous function to a discrete sequence and interpolates back to a continuous function, the fidelity of the result depends on the density (or sample rate) of the original samples. The sampling theorem introduces the concept of a sample rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are bandlimited to a given bandwidth, such that no actual information is lost in the sampling process. It expresses the sufficient sample rate in terms of the bandwidth for the class of functions. The theorem also leads to a formula for perfectly reconstructing the original continuous-time function from the samples.
Even considering the editing example, if you were to splice two audio streams together, or even mix or transform them, the only reason you'd need more than 44khz is if for some reason you MUST go above 22khz because the intended listener can hear above that range, like say for example you wanted to create a lullaby for your dog, who can hear higher than that. In which case, you'd want to keep it at above 44khz even with the final (mass distributed) copy. However if humans are your intended listening target, there's never a reason to go above that, even for the purposes of mastering.
Or to put it another way, going above 44khz is every bit as silly as using wooden knobs and gold plated Ethernet cables in order to improve audio quality.
There's really no point in 96khz ever. You can fully reproduce an analog signal with a digital one by simply making the sample rate double the spectrum that you need to capture. Since human hearing tops out at 20khz, there's no point in sampling more than the 44khz found in CD's, which means that extra information is effectively just wasted space. 24 bits per sample is also a waste unless you work in a studio type environment and are working with a master copy that you intend on mixing, however a human listener can't distinguish 16-bit from 24-bit.
No, that's unsubstantiated opinion, worthy of rattling around in your head and nothing else. Gossip. Exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not news in any form or fashion. Entertainment? Sure. If you're a lowlife. Otherwise, no, just purest garbage.
That's your opinion and only your opinion. You don't seem to have a problem not only expressing it here, while hypocritically trying to denigrate anybody else who expresses one. Fortunately, most of the world isn't like you.
Sometimes, speculation and opinion are all you can really go off of, and sometimes, it has a ring of truth. Example: I think OJ did it.
That's called soft news, by the way. Hard news is "just the facts". From what I can tell, all of the major news outlets do a pretty good job of distinguishing the two, but a lot of people that watch kind of fail at recognizing the distinction.
Without picking sides, you can't just dismiss this outright. There may be something to this, but it'll need to go through peer review if it hasn't already, in addition to being reproducible.
Given the fact that the simplicity of the Vulkan driver pushes complexity to the application (more control, but more unavoidable work for application developers too) then this simpler-driver approach is actually less useful for most of the developers actually writing the applications.
Since most developers use a pre-written game engine, presumably they already have the optimizations baked in before they start?
I don't think it's so much about whether or not they're minorities so much as it's about those particular areas having very low demand for services that cost more, thus they can't take advantage of economies of scale.
Case in point, I have a friend who lives all the way across the country in Boca Raton who often asks me to order shit for him via amazon prime and he pays me back with venmo. Boca Raton is neither poor nor primarily minority, and in fact he lives in a somewhat upscale area in particular. Yet, Amazon won't do same day service where he lives where they do offer same day delivery in every single zip code I've lived in in the Phoenix area.
As somewhat of an off tangent matter, he's Persian, which means that if he ever fills out a typical questionnaire asking about race/ethnicity in the US, the closest option he can pick to his ethnicity is either caucasian or white, even though neither precisely fit. You may as well call a Native American an Asian at that rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Any coating thin enough to GTFO upon impact with a person quickly and effectively enough for an underlying adhesive to garb and hold them against the force of the impact isn't going to last long in normal conditions.
Hmm...so you know the chemical properties of every material that will ever be invented?
As long as all you need is that stuff you are OK but the moment you want to do some real work you run into the limitations of Chrome OS. I can see how adding all those Android apps would be a good move for people like my dad who hates tablets and prefers a keyboard but for anybody doing any real work a thin client laptop is completely inadequate even if it has millions of Android apps designed to be used on tablets and mobile devices with all the horrifying UI compromises and awful user experiences that brings with it.
If you can truly run any Android application on Chrome OS, then everything you describe isn't at all a limitation of the OS itself (nor is it a limitation of Android.) It's actually just a matter of application developers writing Android applications that take advantage of a larger screen. That's all there really is to it. There's nothing stopping you from having applications equivalent to the desktop counterparts of CAD, quickbooks, photoshop, and any other big name heavy duty productivity application you can name.
It's likewise idiotic to assume that only Linux and Windows can be productivity OSes, and every other consumer OS can't.
At the present time, Android only truly exists on small (11" or less) screen devices, so application developers haven't had any motivation to write a full blown productivity application for that platform. However once you start having bigger screens and more input devices, that will change. And having said that, I could easily see Chrome OS breaking the "every PC is a windows machine" paradigm. And no, windows won't break the iOS/Android paradigm on mobile because Microsoft truly did make windows phone kneecapped by design so that only scaled down mobile apps will run on it (their idea has been that if Apple writes a kneecapped toy OS for mobile and succeeds at it, then Microsoft can and should do the same thing, which contrast to Google's "let's always extend the boundaries that developers can cross" mentality.)
I think it's one of those scissor things women use to trim those hairs that cause itching down there.
Really? Personally, I hate watching sports, and the few times that I have is usually because a woman talked me into watching it.
I think the most scary STD is hepatitis C. Cirrhosis is a very long, drawn out death.
That's nothing; I hear it is going to be Uwe Boll's triumphant return to feature film directing. That's right, he's decided to retire from boxing, which it turns out he was much better at.
It's from the National Academy of sciences, so you are in denialist class denial if you don't give it some credence.
I've been over this with the anti-GMO crowd before. There are actually a lot of organizations, ranging from government to nonprofit organizations, that are very much in favor of GMO technology. However each time you list one of them, the anti-GMO crowd comes up with some excuse as for why they're not trustworthy. Here's a list I can name off of the top of my head:
World Health Organization
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
U.S. Academy of Sciences
American Medical Association
American Heart Association (Nifty little tidbit I might add: http://newsroom.heart.org/news... but don't let any anti-GMO people see this or else they'll think the AHA is in on the Monsanto conspiracy as well.)
Girl Scouts of America
The last one in that list is particularly interesting. Why? Because they've been the target of change.org petitions and massive parental protest against what is perhaps their biggest source of income: cookies. And yet still they remain steadfast in their opinion that, indeed, GMO is safe.
And you know what? I happen to agree. I also don't have any financial interest in GMO or any other agriculture, nor do I work for one. In fact I actually work for a major non-profit health care provider. I also happen to believe that GMO will eventually completely solve issues like world hunger and foodborne illness, and possibly even chronic disease as well.
Actually I thought he was pulling his punches. Edge is the most remarkably awful browser I've ever tried. Might as well try to surf porn with Lynx.
If only it were Edge that was bad, the entire UWP framework it runs on is buggy. For example, sometimes when you hibernate your system, the apps freeze upon resuming the system; a problem I haven't ever observed in win32 apps. And when UWP apps freeze, they don't behave like other apps do where the OS notifies you and closes the app. Instead they just stop responding to input while the OS pretends that they are still running just fine.
There are also companies who profit from selling seeds and have a history of lawsuits against independent farmers for allegedly stealing seeds. It's amazing how these "debates" mostly revolve around the asinine extremes isn't it?
One lawsuit against one farmer who deliberately bred GM plants. He determined which were which by exposing them to glyphosate and breeding the ones that survived.
Anyways, it's moot because that particular patent expired last year.
Well I'm another "Slashdot Libertarian Type", and I think most people would define being in the top 20% of income earners in the US as successful.
That said, I think pushing minority groups towards a particular career path is kind of dumb really, and forcing companies to hire more of them is even more dumb.
Suppose we have 100 people:
50 are white
20 are black
20 are latino
10 are asian
Now, suppose there is an economic demand of 25 IT workers. Of this population of 100 people, 15 of the white guys are into IT, 8 of the asians are, 2 of the blacks are, and 1 latino is. Now, suppose all of these people have exactly the job that they want, and all of them are very good at it because they really like doing it.
Well, to social justice types, this is a HUGE problem in need of correction. Why? Because whites are 50% of the population and represent 60% of the IT work force, while asias are 10% of the population and represent 32% of the IT work force, meanwhile blacks and latinos are 20% of the population with 8% of the workforce and 4%, respectively. This obviously must be because of discrimination. People should be working in a given industry to represent their population numbers, and they aren't. So the solution is to tell the whites and asians to either not get hired or get different jobs so that they represent less numbers, and we have to convince more blacks and latinos that they need to work in IT, even if they really don't care for technology, and thus do a worse job than those who do care about it. And if that doesn't work, we just need to make more minorities in IT and have programs that exclude some groups while being exclusive to others (for example, lots of programs out there for IT education are exclusive to girls; meaning, no boys allowed.)
However here's what reality looks like: I don't know about today's k-12, but when I was in high school and younger, peer pressure was AGAINST going into a technology career. Other kids would often poke fun at you if you were into computers at all, hell, I remember being bullied quite a few times for that fact alone. I'm part of what is called the millennial generation, by the way, so I'm not sure how much has changed since the 16 years I've been out of the k-12 system. But, the present grown ups that are in IT, which is supposedly racially biased, were mostly in that generation. It sure as shit didn't require somebody encouraging me to go into IT to make me go into IT; it's just inherent in who I am.
That said, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing me that the solution is to push more minorities and girls into IT and expect to have more of them employed in IT. It's well known that people tend to associate more with other people that look like themselves, which is part of our biology. That said, different races and indeed different genders are going to have their own co-cultures that will differ remarkably from people who don't look like themselves (For example, think about how many black country singers you've heard of, and how many white rap singers you've heard of. Notice anything?) Given that they'll have different cultural values, it's inevitable that they'll be interested in different things as well, which includes career choices. Which means that if you want to change their career choices because you've taken it upon yourself to tell them that the things they value are inherently wrong, you're going to have to forcibly change their cultural values.
And if you want to do that, then I'll have no choice but to ask: What are you doing calling other people a bigot?
When in Rome, follow Roman law. You want to play with fire, try starting a Communist party in the USA (illegal), or offering end to end encryption email with no back doors in England.
No, the US isn't Europe. We don't ban any political parties from existing or saying whatever backwards shit they want to say, which is inclusive of anything from Communist to Fascist parties. The thing is, it's borderline impossible for them to have it their way, because the amount of support they need to be able to do anything is astronomical compared to what is needed in Europe (and is hence one of the downsides of a parliamentary system.)
Unless you're a DJ. After shifting that track an octave and a half down and slowing that other track down about 50 bpm or so to match, you're really going to wish you had those extra samples. This is an exercise you can do on your own with free software like Audacity. Get a piece of music. Two exercises. 1.) Lower its pitch without affecting its tempo by at least an octave. 2.) Lower its tempo without affecting its pitch by at least 30 bpm. Both of these exercises should give you a hint what will happen if lower by more. It will sound like shit. You will quickly see that those extra samples you think are only for "audiophiles" really do come in handy.
No, this really won't work the way you think it will. It might make sounds that otherwise have a higher frequency come to within your audible spectrum, however anything that was already in your audible spectrum is inevitably going to sound different. This only has scientific applications, and is otherwise worthless for a DJ.
This all comes down to how fourier transforms work, by the way, which are the basis behind the Nyquist theorem. It's also analogous to making ultra-violet light visible to human eyes.
Now, what's truly confusing to me about your posts is that you seem to believe that you need more than 16 bits to adjust volume. If boosting the volume on something with 16 bits makes it sound a worn cassette that's a recording of a recording of a recording, what you're running into is compression.
That isn't even close to what I was pointing out.
Well, who knows. You've probably never met a modern live DJ at a bar or rave.
On the contrary, I've helped a few develop their tracks.
I don't think anything I said conflicts with any of that. Go to your comment 'volume control is a DSP math operation' for example: Consider if your source started at a low bit rate but you needed to i.e. increase the volume. What do you get? Basically a lot of noise that sounds like static, kind of like 80's era cassette tapes when played at higher volume. Hence using a higher bit rate makes sense for that application.
But again as I stated, higher sample rate (NOT bit rate, these are two different things) is pointless for any application. Why? Quite simply, the Nyquist limit.
Ok, even when doing that, there's still no use for going above 44khz. 24-bit? Maybe, but only if you're doing some serious editing/mixing and want to eliminate sound artifacts (i.e. pops) from the final copy.
That's why you'll want 24-bit for a studio master, because it gives you more room to adjust the individual samples and splice audio streams without hearing any kind of pop or static when it's re-sampled back to 16-bit. However going above 44khz still remains pointless, even for that purpose.
Here's Nyquist sampling theorem 101:
Strictly speaking, the theorem only applies to a class of mathematical functions having a Fourier transform that is zero outside of a finite region of frequencies. Intuitively we expect that when one reduces a continuous function to a discrete sequence and interpolates back to a continuous function, the fidelity of the result depends on the density (or sample rate) of the original samples. The sampling theorem introduces the concept of a sample rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are bandlimited to a given bandwidth, such that no actual information is lost in the sampling process. It expresses the sufficient sample rate in terms of the bandwidth for the class of functions. The theorem also leads to a formula for perfectly reconstructing the original continuous-time function from the samples.
Even considering the editing example, if you were to splice two audio streams together, or even mix or transform them, the only reason you'd need more than 44khz is if for some reason you MUST go above 22khz because the intended listener can hear above that range, like say for example you wanted to create a lullaby for your dog, who can hear higher than that. In which case, you'd want to keep it at above 44khz even with the final (mass distributed) copy. However if humans are your intended listening target, there's never a reason to go above that, even for the purposes of mastering.
Or to put it another way, going above 44khz is every bit as silly as using wooden knobs and gold plated Ethernet cables in order to improve audio quality.
There's really no point in 96khz ever. You can fully reproduce an analog signal with a digital one by simply making the sample rate double the spectrum that you need to capture. Since human hearing tops out at 20khz, there's no point in sampling more than the 44khz found in CD's, which means that extra information is effectively just wasted space. 24 bits per sample is also a waste unless you work in a studio type environment and are working with a master copy that you intend on mixing, however a human listener can't distinguish 16-bit from 24-bit.
Or "IRS directed to target outspoken Liberal/Progressive organizations"?
That actually happened. The IRS even confirmed it.
Ah yes, the old "peer review" is what makes things real, argument. Appeal to authority much?
I personally couldn't care less about your opinion.
No, that's unsubstantiated opinion, worthy of rattling around in your head and nothing else. Gossip. Exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not news in any form or fashion. Entertainment? Sure. If you're a lowlife. Otherwise, no, just purest garbage.
That's your opinion and only your opinion. You don't seem to have a problem not only expressing it here, while hypocritically trying to denigrate anybody else who expresses one. Fortunately, most of the world isn't like you.
Sometimes, speculation and opinion are all you can really go off of, and sometimes, it has a ring of truth. Example: I think OJ did it.
That's called soft news, by the way. Hard news is "just the facts". From what I can tell, all of the major news outlets do a pretty good job of distinguishing the two, but a lot of people that watch kind of fail at recognizing the distinction.
Without picking sides, you can't just dismiss this outright. There may be something to this, but it'll need to go through peer review if it hasn't already, in addition to being reproducible.
Given the fact that the simplicity of the Vulkan driver pushes complexity to the application (more control, but more unavoidable work for application developers too) then this simpler-driver approach is actually less useful for most of the developers actually writing the applications.
Since most developers use a pre-written game engine, presumably they already have the optimizations baked in before they start?
Just remember to wipe the poo off of the mouthpiece.
The point of that was how ultimately useless those race/ethnicity surveys are.
I don't think it's so much about whether or not they're minorities so much as it's about those particular areas having very low demand for services that cost more, thus they can't take advantage of economies of scale.
Case in point, I have a friend who lives all the way across the country in Boca Raton who often asks me to order shit for him via amazon prime and he pays me back with venmo. Boca Raton is neither poor nor primarily minority, and in fact he lives in a somewhat upscale area in particular. Yet, Amazon won't do same day service where he lives where they do offer same day delivery in every single zip code I've lived in in the Phoenix area.
As somewhat of an off tangent matter, he's Persian, which means that if he ever fills out a typical questionnaire asking about race/ethnicity in the US, the closest option he can pick to his ethnicity is either caucasian or white, even though neither precisely fit. You may as well call a Native American an Asian at that rate.