Cherry picked data can prove the moon is made of green cheese: arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/experts-headline-grabbing-editorial-on-saturated-fats-bizarre-misleading
My response is about the dissonance between the plural implication of "they" vs the obvious singular nature of an individual named Carley. When I read that sentence my mind assumes there is a typo since there is a conflict in the one vs more than one reference.
To bring in views of gender has nothing to do with my topic. I am concerned that it becomes more difficult to read with clarity and meaning. The construction is clunky, ambiguous, and dissonant. Full stop.
In the linked article, the example given, “Carly cleared their voice and spoke”, feels awkward and ambiguous. I never thought I'd prefer usages like "his or her", but compared to the example, I do.
I have a really different idea. How about people learn to drive? And if they are going to drive a car with (just for example) 400 hp, get real training in the basics - like how and when NOT to mash the pedal to the floor. More power, more training... Want to use 65mph roads? Get appropriate training - including watching dash cam videos of how bad things can get. Pretty bad.
I know, it sounds vaguely socialist or authoritarian or something. But I put on up to 60,000 miles a year and I have to suspect there's some way to get people to learn to be more serious and more skilled about driving than they are. Frankly the average driver is unskilled.
"On the desktop it's for people that enjoy tinkering with computers rather than getting work done."
Not my experience. I'm a plain vanilla Linux user who wants nothing to do with tinkering. I just want the computer to work. Windows kept making problems and Linux fixed them.
Whether it's called backup or archive, their system was inadequate. Multiple full copies taken at various points in time - of all data - should be in more than one offsite location.
Except when the devs want to screw with UIs, and then I'm not so sure. And on the demands from users... I tend to be wary when users clamor for a thousand new conflicting features, but I'd listen carefully when they ask not to lose an existing feature.
Agreed. My experience with Windows and Linux is that Linux is considerably easier to use, and with fewer "pain points". Updates and installing software are almost effortless with Linux. I get to do updates when I want, and because I do them often, they are small and quick, and my machines stay up to date. With Linux I don't have to deal with forced updates that are huge and slow and bring my machines to a near halt. I have more control.
"All kinds of things that are easy in Windows are difficult in Linux."
I see it the other way around. All sorts of things are easy in Linux that are difficult in Windows at least for me - installs, adding software, updates. It's enough to keep me using Linux very happily, with zero desire to use Windows. That's not to say Windows is bad - just that Windows is not what I want to use.
A different way to think about it is that many investors would be poorly advised to invest in Musk's projects, because he plays the long game, and those investors are looking at the short term for quick, certain payback. If they are checking the DOW every five minutes, and sweat the slightest dip, they may want to look elsewhere.
Investors who can wait - really wait - and easily tolerate uncertainty should look at folks like Musk. Amazon, too, was misunderstood by Wall Street. Wall Street doesn't tend to get "long term".
It is a matter of fitting one's investment to one's perspective.
Funny. I feel like the media was his biggest supporter - not intentionally - but the media gave him endless coverage he had not earned. The first few grand lies, sure, cover them, but after that, all further coverage amounted to a gift to Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the media gave him far more coverage than they had to, well beyond that needed to just cover his campaign. The media whored it up for cheap headlines.
Add to that, the media handled his lies with kid gloves. Fact checks occurred, but didn't get front page. The huuugeness got front and center, and the lies got small print.
One more article that poses a false dichotomy. It's not a binary either or. No office or worker can exist in an absolute paperless existence. Even the "paperless office" has to let paper in the door, has to scan it or OCR it for digital retention. And when the power goes out, paper will pop up as a pretty workable temporary fallback *tool*.
And that gets me to the second point, that getting stuck in the "either / or" binary means one stops asking what is the best tool for the job. I try to print out as little as I can. Most things stay digital - until I start designing things or need to jot stuff down super quick. When I'm designing from scratch, trying to structure things, loads of cheeeep paper and good marking tools blow the doors off of digital tools. I can rough out the general structure of anything from a landscape design to a database schema, on paper, faster and better than I can click.
But not everything starts best analog. Most long form writing seems better for me to start and stay digital. I can think and edit text better and faster on screen. For me the real question is what tool is best for a given task, *for a particular person or organization*?
As long as there is no better alternative, landline telecoms see no downside to a lax stance on robocalls. But if I cancel my land line and just use my cell, because I can control how my cell phone responds better, then the landline industry has motivation for attacking the problem. I am going call my telecom and tell them they will lose my business if the industry doesn't get serious on this. I include political calls, surveys, the whole set of unsolicited calls.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology has gotten so good I don't need to spend anywhere near $1000.00 on a phone and a computer combined.
"Slashdot is only making backups of stories from other sites."
But, if Slashdot doesn't publish the story again within two weeks, the story goes away.
Cherry picked data can prove the moon is made of green cheese: arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/experts-headline-grabbing-editorial-on-saturated-fats-bizarre-misleading
What I think may be an improvement may look to someone else to be a bad thing.
My response is about the dissonance between the plural implication of "they" vs the obvious singular nature of an individual named Carley. When I read that sentence my mind assumes there is a typo since there is a conflict in the one vs more than one reference.
To bring in views of gender has nothing to do with my topic. I am concerned that it becomes more difficult to read with clarity and meaning. The construction is clunky, ambiguous, and dissonant. Full stop.
In the linked article, the example given, “Carly cleared their voice and spoke”, feels awkward and ambiguous. I never thought I'd prefer usages like "his or her", but compared to the example, I do.
Kill off all my elderly brain cells:
a) Pretty much nothing left in my head.
b) Nobody will notice any change.
Images of fine art in museums get deleted, but....
"and is viewed by many as complicated and obscure"
(OP describes Windows by accident.)
I have a really different idea. How about people learn to drive? And if they are going to drive a car with (just for example) 400 hp, get real training in the basics - like how and when NOT to mash the pedal to the floor. More power, more training... Want to use 65mph roads? Get appropriate training - including watching dash cam videos of how bad things can get. Pretty bad.
I know, it sounds vaguely socialist or authoritarian or something. But I put on up to 60,000 miles a year and I have to suspect there's some way to get people to learn to be more serious and more skilled about driving than they are. Frankly the average driver is unskilled.
"there will be no "Linux singularity", just a slow Microsoft slide to irrelevance"
Right but wrong, simply because it has already begun.
"but windows and mac can work for everybody very easily"
Until they don't. And then Linux saved my sanity.
"On the desktop it's for people that enjoy tinkering with computers rather than getting work done."
Not my experience. I'm a plain vanilla Linux user who wants nothing to do with tinkering. I just want the computer to work. Windows kept making problems and Linux fixed them.
I need more sleep.
Whether it's called backup or archive, their system was inadequate. Multiple full copies taken at various points in time - of all data - should be in more than one offsite location.
Except when the devs want to screw with UIs, and then I'm not so sure. And on the demands from users... I tend to be wary when users clamor for a thousand new conflicting features, but I'd listen carefully when they ask not to lose an existing feature.
Agreed. My experience with Windows and Linux is that Linux is considerably easier to use, and with fewer "pain points". Updates and installing software are almost effortless with Linux. I get to do updates when I want, and because I do them often, they are small and quick, and my machines stay up to date. With Linux I don't have to deal with forced updates that are huge and slow and bring my machines to a near halt. I have more control.
"All kinds of things that are easy in Windows are difficult in Linux."
I see it the other way around. All sorts of things are easy in Linux that are difficult in Windows at least for me - installs, adding software, updates. It's enough to keep me using Linux very happily, with zero desire to use Windows. That's not to say Windows is bad - just that Windows is not what I want to use.
Ditto - works perfectly.
Like I said - "I usually hate on Facebook but this is good."
A different way to think about it is that many investors would be poorly advised to invest in Musk's projects, because he plays the long game, and those investors are looking at the short term for quick, certain payback. If they are checking the DOW every five minutes, and sweat the slightest dip, they may want to look elsewhere.
Investors who can wait - really wait - and easily tolerate uncertainty should look at folks like Musk. Amazon, too, was misunderstood by Wall Street. Wall Street doesn't tend to get "long term".
It is a matter of fitting one's investment to one's perspective.
"went on an all out attack"
Funny. I feel like the media was his biggest supporter - not intentionally - but the media gave him endless coverage he had not earned. The first few grand lies, sure, cover them, but after that, all further coverage amounted to a gift to Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the media gave him far more coverage than they had to, well beyond that needed to just cover his campaign. The media whored it up for cheap headlines.
Add to that, the media handled his lies with kid gloves. Fact checks occurred, but didn't get front page. The huuugeness got front and center, and the lies got small print.
One more article that poses a false dichotomy. It's not a binary either or. No office or worker can exist in an absolute paperless existence. Even the "paperless office" has to let paper in the door, has to scan it or OCR it for digital retention. And when the power goes out, paper will pop up as a pretty workable temporary fallback *tool*.
And that gets me to the second point, that getting stuck in the "either / or" binary means one stops asking what is the best tool for the job. I try to print out as little as I can. Most things stay digital - until I start designing things or need to jot stuff down super quick. When I'm designing from scratch, trying to structure things, loads of cheeeep paper and good marking tools blow the doors off of digital tools. I can rough out the general structure of anything from a landscape design to a database schema, on paper, faster and better than I can click.
But not everything starts best analog. Most long form writing seems better for me to start and stay digital. I can think and edit text better and faster on screen. For me the real question is what tool is best for a given task, *for a particular person or organization*?
Is why I visit Slashdot less and less. A complete non event getting headline status.
As long as there is no better alternative, landline telecoms see no downside to a lax stance on robocalls. But if I cancel my land line and just use my cell, because I can control how my cell phone responds better, then the landline industry has motivation for attacking the problem. I am going call my telecom and tell them they will lose my business if the industry doesn't get serious on this. I include political calls, surveys, the whole set of unsolicited calls.