I don't think there *is* a US solar panel industry anymore. I'd like to think that now there might be one. But there has been plenty of skepticism posted about whether this will actually help achieve that. I don't like the Donald at all but I have a tough time getting outraged about this one.
Short-term this is true. And for some demographics it will be true forever. But it will also scare others away. FB recognizes that the additional engagement they are getting from some users is not worth the cost of having others leave the platform. Hence they want to resolve this. I don't think anybody realizes that they've been fooled. The mainstream media has a (mostly) liberal bias. The fake news media has a (strongly) grey-haired white republican bias. FB needs to appeal across demographics so that have to manage this tightly.
I'm glad that we have 120% news here. Good to know we are leading in that statistic. But this isn't a case of news for sale. With the Facebook news feed it's more like somebody shouting in your face. If the local grocery store let lunatics stand outside and harass customers with conspiracy theories, the business would lose customers. When people see fake news, they don't feel like engaging with Facebook. I don't know how big of a problem this is. I don't see much fake news but then I follow some very specific publications and probably have hidden "stories" enough times over the years that I'll see the debunking not the fantasy. But certainly you wont' have people engaging if all you can present is fake news. At least not if you present it consistently. (Maybe you could increase engagement within certain demographics)
The reason that this is a problem is that it's easier to spread appealing lies than boring truth. As Facebook sells ads, they have a financial incentive to keep people engaged. But they recognize that if the platform becomes over-whelmed by falsehoods (aka "alternative facts") that people will stop engaging at all. Facebook works due to network effect so if an exodus were to start it may happen quickly. They want to clean up their platform and it has little to do with free speech.
I don't think it's fair that this modded flame bait. There are many people who are warm, friendly, and polite who hold loathsome world views enabled by shocking amounts of cognitive dissonance. It's not hard at all to like individuals and hate groups. I've seen plenty of people disparage entire ethic groups even while claiming to have "friends" in the group. Because they are "warm, friendly, and polite" they may never tell that person that they actually think quite poorly of the group. And they genuinely like the *individual*. They accomplish this by declaring the individual to be an *exception* to the general rule. i.e. "I like William. He's black, but he's not like most black people. But I would never tell William that I don't like black people." I have nothing against being polite or warm Just saying that they aren't the most important human traits.
We are hearing this from fans of "real maple syrup." Much like we hear from fans of craft beers or certain wines. Or audiophiles. I'm not able to opine on whether there is a difference or not. But, the vast majority of consumers don't seem able to tell. Or they prefer the HFCS version:(
The power management features being quietly turned on/off is really missing the mark here. Even when relatively new, iPhone 6/6s tend to shut down randomly, presumably due to voltage, even if the battery is sufficiently charged. This is especially true in cold weather. The battery simply isn't sufficiently paired for the hardware. These devices need batteries that can handle a higher maximum load. Replacing the battery with a newer one of the same specification only solves half the problem.
And the OP knew (or should have known) at the time of purchase that the battery wasn't replaceable and that it would cost $75 if needed. Apple collects a high margin on battery replacements. So what? I guess some people feel like they are violated if they buy something and the vendor actually gets to make a decent margin.
I'm with the sibling poster (who was either down-modded or just has low karma). This is like blaming Dell because some particular game doesn't run on Linux. For the overwhelming majority of people (Probably 99%+), keeping them on the latest and greatest is the right choice. I have no idea why anybody would *not* want to apply the latest security updates in almost all situations. And if Apple didn't push updates so hard, the same people would complain that Apple "left their users vulnerable."
And this is pretty much how it always is. Nobody had ever built something quite like Facebook before. Yeah there was "MySpace." But not really the same. And in the process of trying to build something, it's easy to incorrectly estimate downsides and risk. And, more importantly, anybody who is looking at those things won't grow as fast and actually has a competitive disadvantage. So it's no surprise that the company that grew to the top was the one that was hyper-focused on building their platform.
Well I can't help much with dresses. But men's clothing is also *sized* in an intelligent way. Jeans have two numbers, waist and inseam. These are measured in inches so there's no "vanity sizing." Of course there really is no such thing as a pair of "men's" jeans. Women are welcome to buy and wear them. I've never seen a store refuse a sale to women just because they came from the men's department.
The trend in women's jeans is that they are "slimming." That is to say that you wear them just bit to small and squish your body in a way that you can't move. You look temporarily slimmer. Of course then you can't actually do anything and burn less calories so you have to buy "slimming" jeans a size larger. Rinse and repeat.
I guess this has somewhat of a political slant, but I don't think a -1 moderation is really fair. The reality is that much of society transitioned from healthy skepticism to assuming that experts are always wrong. That's unfortunate because we need experts *especially* in situations where the experts are most likely to be wrong. Even when experts are "wrong" they usually provide advice that is reasonable enough that we can recover when new information emerges. But the fact is that being unqualified is suddenly a qualification.
I can tell you that we have open jobs that can be work from home and we don't care where in the world you live. Most in the $150k/year range. We don't have too many $50k jobs available, though.
Well that's fantastic but coudln't be more off topic. Nobody is suggesting "positive prejudice" here. (One could argue that it has happened in places like college admissions and that's a different issue) What we're talking about here is an employer who happens to have more resources than most government organizations who is trying to come up with innovative ways to fill the ranks other than just ask for more H1B. So they've come up with real programs including (but not limited to) offering their own online training programs (see the recently posted Coursera story). There's nothing here to really oppose unless you (a) think that the shortage of qualified candidates is good (if you have very short-term perspective, you may think its good for wages), or (b) object in principle to any program that tries to expand opportunities (usually do to similar short-term thinking or, much less likely, due to actual racism).
If you want an analogy, watch the movie "Million Dollar Arm." Spoiler: Agent couldn't find enough baseball pitchers so he tried to cross-train some cricket hurdlers. That's all we're talking about here but on a Google scale.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that they are now a mandatory safety feature in the US.
China subsidizes everything they make in the form of lax environmental regulation and enforcement.
I don't think there *is* a US solar panel industry anymore. I'd like to think that now there might be one. But there has been plenty of skepticism posted about whether this will actually help achieve that. I don't like the Donald at all but I have a tough time getting outraged about this one.
Short-term this is true. And for some demographics it will be true forever. But it will also scare others away. FB recognizes that the additional engagement they are getting from some users is not worth the cost of having others leave the platform. Hence they want to resolve this. I don't think anybody realizes that they've been fooled. The mainstream media has a (mostly) liberal bias. The fake news media has a (strongly) grey-haired white republican bias. FB needs to appeal across demographics so that have to manage this tightly.
Good idea. Gives them time to destroy evidence!
I'm glad that we have 120% news here. Good to know we are leading in that statistic. But this isn't a case of news for sale. With the Facebook news feed it's more like somebody shouting in your face. If the local grocery store let lunatics stand outside and harass customers with conspiracy theories, the business would lose customers. When people see fake news, they don't feel like engaging with Facebook. I don't know how big of a problem this is. I don't see much fake news but then I follow some very specific publications and probably have hidden "stories" enough times over the years that I'll see the debunking not the fantasy. But certainly you wont' have people engaging if all you can present is fake news. At least not if you present it consistently. (Maybe you could increase engagement within certain demographics)
The reason that this is a problem is that it's easier to spread appealing lies than boring truth. As Facebook sells ads, they have a financial incentive to keep people engaged. But they recognize that if the platform becomes over-whelmed by falsehoods (aka "alternative facts") that people will stop engaging at all. Facebook works due to network effect so if an exodus were to start it may happen quickly. They want to clean up their platform and it has little to do with free speech.
Because she's a woman? Or because of her email server?
I don't think it's fair that this modded flame bait. There are many people who are warm, friendly, and polite who hold loathsome world views enabled by shocking amounts of cognitive dissonance. It's not hard at all to like individuals and hate groups. I've seen plenty of people disparage entire ethic groups even while claiming to have "friends" in the group. Because they are "warm, friendly, and polite" they may never tell that person that they actually think quite poorly of the group. And they genuinely like the *individual*. They accomplish this by declaring the individual to be an *exception* to the general rule. i.e. "I like William. He's black, but he's not like most black people. But I would never tell William that I don't like black people." I have nothing against being polite or warm Just saying that they aren't the most important human traits.
Funniest thing I've seen on /. in a while. The one day I don't have mod points.
Cue a hundred posts about LibreOffice. Outlook 2016 is still the gold standard for shared calendaring :(
We are hearing this from fans of "real maple syrup." Much like we hear from fans of craft beers or certain wines. Or audiophiles. I'm not able to opine on whether there is a difference or not. But, the vast majority of consumers don't seem able to tell. Or they prefer the HFCS version :(
I don't think anybody would argue with that. But with the state of software security today, it's pretty much always absolutely necessary.
The power management features being quietly turned on/off is really missing the mark here. Even when relatively new, iPhone 6/6s tend to shut down randomly, presumably due to voltage, even if the battery is sufficiently charged. This is especially true in cold weather. The battery simply isn't sufficiently paired for the hardware. These devices need batteries that can handle a higher maximum load. Replacing the battery with a newer one of the same specification only solves half the problem.
And the OP knew (or should have known) at the time of purchase that the battery wasn't replaceable and that it would cost $75 if needed. Apple collects a high margin on battery replacements. So what? I guess some people feel like they are violated if they buy something and the vendor actually gets to make a decent margin.
I'm with the sibling poster (who was either down-modded or just has low karma). This is like blaming Dell because some particular game doesn't run on Linux. For the overwhelming majority of people (Probably 99%+), keeping them on the latest and greatest is the right choice. I have no idea why anybody would *not* want to apply the latest security updates in almost all situations. And if Apple didn't push updates so hard, the same people would complain that Apple "left their users vulnerable."
And this is pretty much how it always is. Nobody had ever built something quite like Facebook before. Yeah there was "MySpace." But not really the same. And in the process of trying to build something, it's easy to incorrectly estimate downsides and risk. And, more importantly, anybody who is looking at those things won't grow as fast and actually has a competitive disadvantage. So it's no surprise that the company that grew to the top was the one that was hyper-focused on building their platform.
Well it depends on how much influence that 1% has!
Well I can't help much with dresses. But men's clothing is also *sized* in an intelligent way. Jeans have two numbers, waist and inseam. These are measured in inches so there's no "vanity sizing." Of course there really is no such thing as a pair of "men's" jeans. Women are welcome to buy and wear them. I've never seen a store refuse a sale to women just because they came from the men's department.
The trend in women's jeans is that they are "slimming." That is to say that you wear them just bit to small and squish your body in a way that you can't move. You look temporarily slimmer. Of course then you can't actually do anything and burn less calories so you have to buy "slimming" jeans a size larger. Rinse and repeat.
Here's 866 of them as of today. Jobs Search
That's pretty good. Heck it can take 30 minutes to board a 737!
I guess this has somewhat of a political slant, but I don't think a -1 moderation is really fair. The reality is that much of society transitioned from healthy skepticism to assuming that experts are always wrong. That's unfortunate because we need experts *especially* in situations where the experts are most likely to be wrong. Even when experts are "wrong" they usually provide advice that is reasonable enough that we can recover when new information emerges. But the fact is that being unqualified is suddenly a qualification.
I can tell you that we have open jobs that can be work from home and we don't care where in the world you live. Most in the $150k/year range. We don't have too many $50k jobs available, though.
If you want an analogy, watch the movie "Million Dollar Arm." Spoiler: Agent couldn't find enough baseball pitchers so he tried to cross-train some cricket hurdlers. That's all we're talking about here but on a Google scale.