Wind farms are actually far deadlier to migratory bats than birds. Bats can't deal with the pressure change from entering areas near wind turbines, and it basically busts their lungs; they don't even need to collide with anything.
That said, the bat researchers that I know or have heard support wind turbines anyway, they just think more care needs to be taken in the placement of them. Wind turbines kill a lot of things, but burning and extracting coal kills a lot more. (None of this is to contradict you, I think your thesis is correct.)
It was a normal, automatic, scheduled stock sell off. I think most CEOs are making too much for what they bring to the table, but there wasnâ(TM)t anything particularly insidious about this.
Most or all Canadian Universities havenâ(TM)t ever bothered with test scores (except perhaps for foreign students). Entrance is based on high school grades. Unless this has changed in the 20 years since I applied, I really think this is a better way, or at least, just as meaningful. You spent your whole high school career taking standardized tests, and the government has been writing curricula and standards to attempt to equalize the educational experience across the county. An extra exam seems superfluous.
McGill, the University of Toronto, UBCâ"these are solid institutions, and they donâ(TM)t see the need for extra exams.
(I understand that thereâ(TM)s variability in the educational experience of students across the USA, but another test is just going to reflect that, not provide any clarity.)
It shouldnâ(TM)t be a surprise that Apple hasnâ(TM)t done it; that really goes against their design language. You also canâ(TM)t really guarantee good air movement in a room, but I think thatâ(TM)s a secondary concern.
It IS surprising that no PC manufacturers have gone that route, since most donâ(TM)t have such a strict or institutional design language (observation, not criticism) and they could easily choose that.
The question then is whether nobody has thought of it or if nobody can make it workâ"it seems like a straightforward solution, so I have to wonder if itâ(TM)s less feasible than it sounds.
The whole reason swatting works is because the police are notoriously over-anxious when going into these situations. If police were calm and collected and approached these situations even slightly more deliberatively, this would not be an issue.
What confounds me is what even IF this were a real hostage situation, why would you shoot at whoever comes to the door immediately? You might just as easily hit an escaping hostage as the perp. If all we care about is protecting police lives over that of the general populace, just donâ(TM)t send the cops at all. Simply refuse to show up, or immediately bomb the house from a plane. I admire the ideal of the police, but it is not a useful institution if they consider their safety more important than that of the people they have sworn to protect.
It did, though not as often. I saw it happen on my iPhone 4 at the end of its life.
But it's fairly likely that the components in the older phones (pre-iPhone 6, say) couldn't draw as much power as the newer SoCs relative to the output of the battery. So the iPhone 4 would ask for more power to do something, and even though the battery was old, the iPhone 4 really just didn't have a lot of guts in it, and it was well below the battery's tolerance.
What? No they didn't. This is a fairly new feature, so if you think it was a problem when iOS 7 came out and made the iPhone 4 slow, that has nothing to do with this.
They never said anything about this battery thing one way or another until the tests came out, and then they crafted some PR stuff and came clean. I don't think it was a great thing to do without telling anyone, but they haven't lied about anything yet.
Apple is full of competent people, but they're the wrong competent people sometimes. Like, the Touch Bar is super cool and is an excellent piece of hardware if you look at in in a vacuum. But it's not a terribly good replacement for the physical keys because you absolutely can't use them without looking down, and the dynamic functionality is really limited. Even worse, the feature only exists on a very narrow subset of their hardware, so you can't even go home and sit down at your iMac and get what is ostensibly a major feature.
I'm sure the feature makes sense for SOME people, I just don't think it makes sense for the people they targeted it at. It's actually something that makes more sense to roll out to the masses (in addition to the function keys, not in place of them), but not to anyone in the pro segment.
It's a competent piece of hardware with a competent design and some competent programming to back it up...but it's all for naught because it was a solution to a problem that nobody had.
Maybe; it depends. The thing is that a box takes up a lot more space and so can be considered to use a lot more fuel to ship. An envelope is probably 2-10x more fuel efficient than a box.
1) Apple's software and hardware has always had bugs. They had a whole OS X release that had 'no new features' just dedicated to fixing bugs. It ALSO had bugs. At best, this article is revisionist history. At worst, it's feeble scaremongering.
2) How many people here have actually encountered the bugs mentioned or the deleterious effects of the bugs mentioned? Sure, if you installed High Sierra, it had a bad exploit in it, but was anyone here actually rooted before the patch went out? The patch having a bug isn't really a surprise, and frankly, it was an obviously better bug than the exploit. Would you rather they had sat on the exploit to make sure a relatively minor file sharing bug didn't roll out? That's stupid. That would be MUCH worse. The patch process in this case is working as intended. Fix the major bug, worry about the little ones later.
As for the iOS date bug, not only does iOS have a weird date-related bug every goddamn year, this one only affected you if you had a *repeating* local notification. It's a rare edge case. To be sure, it's a bug, but virtually the only people that noticed were the world's nerd population. It wasn't bad enough to make headline news.
3) Apple will always ship software with bugs, and making an appeal to the amount of money only makes sense if you don't stop to think about it. You can't throw more programmers at things and necessarily reduce the number of bugs—indeed, you're likely to make so much extra management overhead that things get fixed more slowly. The issue isn't COST, it's TIME. Apple's on an aggressive release schedule, just like everyone else. Android had its own share of bugs this year, as did Chrome and Windows. Bug free software doesn't exist, and I haven't seen any evidence that it's worse this year than previous years, mainly because I remember that I've had to deal with plenty of annoying bugs in the past. They could try to slow down their release schedule, but they'd catch hell from the Mac community because it would look like they're abandoning the platform, and they certainly can't miss the iOS treadmill without looking like they're faltering, no matter how good their intentions or end result. So they do their best in the time they've got, and they're doing about the same as they always have.
Apple's real challenges, in my opinion, are on the hardware side. Shipping the touchbar was a bad idea, because it was a weirdly tone-deaf answer to the pro community needing better hardware. They've also been shipping keyboards that are measurably worse in reliability than previous keyboards, and it's costing them money every time someone walks in with a piece of dust under the spacebar and it gets replaced under warranty. In general, I feel like they've stopped testing things in the real world and only let people test in blank, white rooms with no dust or pets or crumbs.
Apple's fine. The software is fine. The hardware is a bit of a rollercoaster, but it's mostly okay. Nothing to see here, move along.
That seems like a different thing to me, though. Presumably Amazon is running ads for stuff that you can buy from them. At that point, they've already got my purchase history and are probably offering me things they know I'd like. If I were to buy a Fire Tablet, I'd almost certain want the one with ads even if it weren't that much cheaper; I'd be buying it for the service of advertising to me so I can buy from Amazon.
And if you woke up too early, there was nothing on. Not that there were no interesting programmes, there was literally no show available to watch; just test patterns or static.
So when it comes to anti-trust (I know that's not what's being talked about here, but bear with me), the USA only considers it a problem when there's a negative PRICE impact on the consumer. The fundamental, underlying philosophy is that low prices are the greatest good, so monopoly is bad only insofar as it impacts prices. This is why Apple lost an anti-trust suit despite being a small player: they raised prices, and colluded with publishers because publishers felt like they were embarking on an unsustainable path. Amazon's only concern is to lower prices, and they don't care about publishers (which is fine; I'm not trying to make that sound pejorative) as long as the consumer gets the best price, even if that means in the long run publishers disappear.
In Europe, their concern is with COMPETITION. Their idea is that prices may fluctuate or go up, but monopoly power must be discouraged because competition is the higher good, and in the long run, that's more sustainable, even if consumers don't immediately see the benefit.
So both governments act on behalf of their citizens (in the best case; don't start with me about the current administration) but their end goals are different. To me, this decision is just a matter of furthering the goal of competition. Competition can only exist in a transparent marketplace where consumers are informed of the true features and costs of a product or service.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms certainly gives people a right to speech, religion and conscience, but it also takes the balancing stance that there is some speech that reduces the freedom of others to live a free and acceptable life. So (and this is in common with US law, AFAIK) death threats are not protected speech; to a certain extent, they limit the freedom of the victim.
In this context, *harassing* someone by persistently denying their identity is what's at issue. It's not so much compelled speech as realizing that doing something like misgendering someone can have an adverse affect on them. Peterson doesn't have to interact with transgender people if he doesn't want to, except perhaps as it pertains to his job, in which case, he should rightfully be compelled by his work contract to treat them with sufficient respect that they have no cause to make a complaint.
Refusing the order of a court at any time for any reason means possible jail time, and that's a matter completely separate from what gets him into the court. It's a two-step decision, see: the decision to break the law that lands him in the court, and the decision to break the law again to refuse to comply with whatever the court deems necessary. It's like saying that parking tickets can land you in jail. Perhaps that's true if you go out of your way not to pay them and then defy a court order, but there's no criminal penalty for parking badly.
So yes, the semantics are important here. By Peterson's logic, literally anything could land you in jail, even crimes that normally are unassociated with jail time. If you break the law with intent to defy a court for protest purposes, that's your own thing, and you can't pin that on the law as written.
I don't doubt that he means it, and he probably even understands it, I'm just unclear as to what he proposes to DO about it. The CRTC has it in hand, and they've been viciously quashing anything that even remotely resembles zero-rating, as they mention in the article.
Though I suppose knowing the PM has this position somewhat bolsters the CRTC's actions, so they don't have to worry about any sort of governmental backlash.
Now all they have to do is find some way to break the oligopoly that Canadian telcos have over the market. We may have Net Neutrality, but that doesn't mean providers aren't completely screwing us.:P
As a Canadian, I'd like to know exactly what law you're talking about.
Ontario has passed some laws linked to human rights complaints, basically saying that if you're persistently being a dick by misgendering someone (for instance) that might be grounds for a complaint and sitting through a tribunal (as I recall), but there's certainly no FEDERAL law that's been passed. Is that the one you're talking about? The one that Jordan Peterson incorrectly claims can land him in jail?
Siri is pretty advanced on certain axes—it's already capable of speaking many languages, which is not trivial. The Echo is sold in a remarkably limited number of locations and only speaks English, as far as I know. I can't buy an Echo in Canada, but I can ask Siri questions in French AND English.
Now, is that useful? What good is an assistant that you can address in multiple languages but fails to do what you ask in any of them, after all. So it's hard to deny that Amazon is ahead in the utility race, but there's good reason to believe that once Siri gets useful, it'll have a *much* larger useful reach than Alexa does.
Nobody that I know cares in the least. They've always used the headphones in the box, and they continue to use the headphones in the box. I think it should be clear at this point that it's a buying decision for remarkably few people; Samsung hasn't seen a strong uptick from Apple customers, Apple hasn't seen a big drop in sales. I think if your friends jumped ship from Apple, they probably would've found an excuse to do it anyway, with or without the headphone jack pushing them.
She wasn't in the country illegally for fun or something, you know that, right? Presumably the conditions in her country were bad enough to drive her to enter illegally, and the process for entry is sufficiently onerous or difficult that she had no other choice.
But don't try to shift the blame to HER. HIS immorality is on display no matter what her circumstances were. He was deliberately exploiting someone in an exploitable position, and he didn't need to. As the story tells it, nobody else rushed out to be an immoral asshole, and he could've paid what she was worth.
Portrait mode lighting effects are done in real time on the iPhone 8 and iPhone X, and Apple makes the claim that it it's sufficiently processor intensive that it requires the A11 chip. The fact that the iPhone 7 Plus can do it to a photo after the fact isn't terribly special; so could an iPhone SE, it would just take longer.
If the business model is only viable when you effectively have slaves working for you, it's not a good business model.
Jobs that are supposedly only for 'teenagers' to make extra money have been mostly worked by adults for years now. Pulling weeds is basically gardening. You can hire kids to do it for cheap for all sorts of reasons, like they don't have to actually feed themselves or pay rent. When kids are young, it's kind of a fun thing to do so they can make some money and learn about working. But if you hire an adult to do it, they're going to charge you an hourly rate appropriate for a landscaper, and you can pay it or not. Maybe my job as a programmer deserves more money than a burger flipper, but I want that burger flipper to make enough so that when they go home after their 8 hours of real, legitimate work, they can afford to buy the video games that I make.
If the job is worth doing, it's probably worth paying for. If you can't because it's too expensive or you're too frugal, then do it yourself or don't get it done.
My local grocery store delivers (I think they even offer it free to seniors), and I imagine that those people are getting paid whatever the normal wage is at the store. Shopping for stuff, driving it somewhere and delivering it is a REAL JOB. Even just delivering things is a job that we pay people to do at *better* than minimum wage!
Instacart is not on the right side of this. Making workers deliver 20 cases of water for $3-4 is immoral. If these jobs are the kind that 'job creators' come up with when they get tax cuts, they can stuff them and pay more taxes.
The 'random' blogpost is by a PhD candidate, not some person off the street. And her post is thoroughly cited, considerably more than the opinions of four scientists that are quoted. I'm going to take a well researched and cited document over four arbitrary scientists any day of the week. How do I know that their opinion is representative of that community? Her article is probably 5 times as long as that article and contains significantly more detail. So no, how about we don't just take the opinions of four scientists at face value. Read the article and the citations and see if you can find anything in there worth arguing about.
The memo was badly written, poorly cited and badly researched. He misrepresents and misunderstands statistics, biology, gender determinism and psychology. https://medium.com/@tweetingmo...
None of that warranted his firing, but what DID was that he was making himself known as a bad actor in the environment at google. Because they do both peer and manager reviews, he basically painted a big red flag on himself because there was no way to tell if heâ(TM)d be sufficiently objective when reviewing female teammates. Women were already blacklisting him (apparently google employees keep internal blacklists, which Iâ(TM)m not sure is a great idea) and it really just demonstrated a lack of decent judgement. Nobody would be able to promote him, and he generated an outsized amount of strife for a single employee. From a business perspective, he was a humongous operational liability.
Being spectrum absolves him of none of this. We all know spectrum people, and I know plenty that are capable of learning rules to keep them out of trouble because theyâ(TM)re aware theyâ(TM)re not good at understanding social signals. Itâ(TM)s not a problem that heâ(TM)s spectrum, itâ(TM)s a problem that he generally has bad judgement.
Well functioning teams are critical to making good progress and he was clearly an impediment to that, no matter whether you agree with his memo or not.
So if you want to customize shortcuts, their own help articles recommend that you use an add-on called 'Menu Wizard'...that isn't compatible with this version of the browser.
Also, it renders the most OBNOXIOUSLY large scroll bars for Tweetdeck, no matter what the text scaling size is. It's just visually offensive, and no other browser seems to do it. Even MS Edge reduces the size of the scrollbars as you modify the scaling, despite it not rendering the correct, rounded scrollbars.
I've also had to restart it twice because it got confused about my proxy settings or something and stopped being able to load pages. The out-of-the-box experience just isn't any good.
Slashdot Mirror
Wind farms are actually far deadlier to migratory bats than birds. Bats can't deal with the pressure change from entering areas near wind turbines, and it basically busts their lungs; they don't even need to collide with anything.
That said, the bat researchers that I know or have heard support wind turbines anyway, they just think more care needs to be taken in the placement of them. Wind turbines kill a lot of things, but burning and extracting coal kills a lot more. (None of this is to contradict you, I think your thesis is correct.)
It was a normal, automatic, scheduled stock sell off. I think most CEOs are making too much for what they bring to the table, but there wasnâ(TM)t anything particularly insidious about this.
Most or all Canadian Universities havenâ(TM)t ever bothered with test scores (except perhaps for foreign students). Entrance is based on high school grades. Unless this has changed in the 20 years since I applied, I really think this is a better way, or at least, just as meaningful. You spent your whole high school career taking standardized tests, and the government has been writing curricula and standards to attempt to equalize the educational experience across the county. An extra exam seems superfluous.
McGill, the University of Toronto, UBCâ"these are solid institutions, and they donâ(TM)t see the need for extra exams.
(I understand that thereâ(TM)s variability in the educational experience of students across the USA, but another test is just going to reflect that, not provide any clarity.)
It shouldnâ(TM)t be a surprise that Apple hasnâ(TM)t done it; that really goes against their design language. You also canâ(TM)t really guarantee good air movement in a room, but I think thatâ(TM)s a secondary concern.
It IS surprising that no PC manufacturers have gone that route, since most donâ(TM)t have such a strict or institutional design language (observation, not criticism) and they could easily choose that.
The question then is whether nobody has thought of it or if nobody can make it workâ"it seems like a straightforward solution, so I have to wonder if itâ(TM)s less feasible than it sounds.
The whole reason swatting works is because the police are notoriously over-anxious when going into these situations. If police were calm and collected and approached these situations even slightly more deliberatively, this would not be an issue.
What confounds me is what even IF this were a real hostage situation, why would you shoot at whoever comes to the door immediately? You might just as easily hit an escaping hostage as the perp. If all we care about is protecting police lives over that of the general populace, just donâ(TM)t send the cops at all. Simply refuse to show up, or immediately bomb the house from a plane. I admire the ideal of the police, but it is not a useful institution if they consider their safety more important than that of the people they have sworn to protect.
It did, though not as often. I saw it happen on my iPhone 4 at the end of its life.
But it's fairly likely that the components in the older phones (pre-iPhone 6, say) couldn't draw as much power as the newer SoCs relative to the output of the battery. So the iPhone 4 would ask for more power to do something, and even though the battery was old, the iPhone 4 really just didn't have a lot of guts in it, and it was well below the battery's tolerance.
That's just a guess, though.
What? No they didn't. This is a fairly new feature, so if you think it was a problem when iOS 7 came out and made the iPhone 4 slow, that has nothing to do with this.
They never said anything about this battery thing one way or another until the tests came out, and then they crafted some PR stuff and came clean. I don't think it was a great thing to do without telling anyone, but they haven't lied about anything yet.
Apple is full of competent people, but they're the wrong competent people sometimes. Like, the Touch Bar is super cool and is an excellent piece of hardware if you look at in in a vacuum. But it's not a terribly good replacement for the physical keys because you absolutely can't use them without looking down, and the dynamic functionality is really limited. Even worse, the feature only exists on a very narrow subset of their hardware, so you can't even go home and sit down at your iMac and get what is ostensibly a major feature.
I'm sure the feature makes sense for SOME people, I just don't think it makes sense for the people they targeted it at. It's actually something that makes more sense to roll out to the masses (in addition to the function keys, not in place of them), but not to anyone in the pro segment.
It's a competent piece of hardware with a competent design and some competent programming to back it up...but it's all for naught because it was a solution to a problem that nobody had.
Maybe; it depends. The thing is that a box takes up a lot more space and so can be considered to use a lot more fuel to ship. An envelope is probably 2-10x more fuel efficient than a box.
1) Apple's software and hardware has always had bugs. They had a whole OS X release that had 'no new features' just dedicated to fixing bugs. It ALSO had bugs. At best, this article is revisionist history. At worst, it's feeble scaremongering.
2) How many people here have actually encountered the bugs mentioned or the deleterious effects of the bugs mentioned? Sure, if you installed High Sierra, it had a bad exploit in it, but was anyone here actually rooted before the patch went out? The patch having a bug isn't really a surprise, and frankly, it was an obviously better bug than the exploit. Would you rather they had sat on the exploit to make sure a relatively minor file sharing bug didn't roll out? That's stupid. That would be MUCH worse. The patch process in this case is working as intended. Fix the major bug, worry about the little ones later.
As for the iOS date bug, not only does iOS have a weird date-related bug every goddamn year, this one only affected you if you had a *repeating* local notification. It's a rare edge case. To be sure, it's a bug, but virtually the only people that noticed were the world's nerd population. It wasn't bad enough to make headline news.
3) Apple will always ship software with bugs, and making an appeal to the amount of money only makes sense if you don't stop to think about it. You can't throw more programmers at things and necessarily reduce the number of bugs—indeed, you're likely to make so much extra management overhead that things get fixed more slowly. The issue isn't COST, it's TIME. Apple's on an aggressive release schedule, just like everyone else. Android had its own share of bugs this year, as did Chrome and Windows. Bug free software doesn't exist, and I haven't seen any evidence that it's worse this year than previous years, mainly because I remember that I've had to deal with plenty of annoying bugs in the past. They could try to slow down their release schedule, but they'd catch hell from the Mac community because it would look like they're abandoning the platform, and they certainly can't miss the iOS treadmill without looking like they're faltering, no matter how good their intentions or end result. So they do their best in the time they've got, and they're doing about the same as they always have.
Apple's real challenges, in my opinion, are on the hardware side. Shipping the touchbar was a bad idea, because it was a weirdly tone-deaf answer to the pro community needing better hardware. They've also been shipping keyboards that are measurably worse in reliability than previous keyboards, and it's costing them money every time someone walks in with a piece of dust under the spacebar and it gets replaced under warranty. In general, I feel like they've stopped testing things in the real world and only let people test in blank, white rooms with no dust or pets or crumbs.
Apple's fine. The software is fine. The hardware is a bit of a rollercoaster, but it's mostly okay. Nothing to see here, move along.
That seems like a different thing to me, though. Presumably Amazon is running ads for stuff that you can buy from them. At that point, they've already got my purchase history and are probably offering me things they know I'd like. If I were to buy a Fire Tablet, I'd almost certain want the one with ads even if it weren't that much cheaper; I'd be buying it for the service of advertising to me so I can buy from Amazon.
And if you woke up too early, there was nothing on. Not that there were no interesting programmes, there was literally no show available to watch; just test patterns or static.
So when it comes to anti-trust (I know that's not what's being talked about here, but bear with me), the USA only considers it a problem when there's a negative PRICE impact on the consumer. The fundamental, underlying philosophy is that low prices are the greatest good, so monopoly is bad only insofar as it impacts prices. This is why Apple lost an anti-trust suit despite being a small player: they raised prices, and colluded with publishers because publishers felt like they were embarking on an unsustainable path. Amazon's only concern is to lower prices, and they don't care about publishers (which is fine; I'm not trying to make that sound pejorative) as long as the consumer gets the best price, even if that means in the long run publishers disappear.
In Europe, their concern is with COMPETITION. Their idea is that prices may fluctuate or go up, but monopoly power must be discouraged because competition is the higher good, and in the long run, that's more sustainable, even if consumers don't immediately see the benefit.
So both governments act on behalf of their citizens (in the best case; don't start with me about the current administration) but their end goals are different. To me, this decision is just a matter of furthering the goal of competition. Competition can only exist in a transparent marketplace where consumers are informed of the true features and costs of a product or service.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms certainly gives people a right to speech, religion and conscience, but it also takes the balancing stance that there is some speech that reduces the freedom of others to live a free and acceptable life. So (and this is in common with US law, AFAIK) death threats are not protected speech; to a certain extent, they limit the freedom of the victim.
In this context, *harassing* someone by persistently denying their identity is what's at issue. It's not so much compelled speech as realizing that doing something like misgendering someone can have an adverse affect on them. Peterson doesn't have to interact with transgender people if he doesn't want to, except perhaps as it pertains to his job, in which case, he should rightfully be compelled by his work contract to treat them with sufficient respect that they have no cause to make a complaint.
Refusing the order of a court at any time for any reason means possible jail time, and that's a matter completely separate from what gets him into the court. It's a two-step decision, see: the decision to break the law that lands him in the court, and the decision to break the law again to refuse to comply with whatever the court deems necessary. It's like saying that parking tickets can land you in jail. Perhaps that's true if you go out of your way not to pay them and then defy a court order, but there's no criminal penalty for parking badly.
So yes, the semantics are important here. By Peterson's logic, literally anything could land you in jail, even crimes that normally are unassociated with jail time. If you break the law with intent to defy a court for protest purposes, that's your own thing, and you can't pin that on the law as written.
I don't doubt that he means it, and he probably even understands it, I'm just unclear as to what he proposes to DO about it. The CRTC has it in hand, and they've been viciously quashing anything that even remotely resembles zero-rating, as they mention in the article.
Though I suppose knowing the PM has this position somewhat bolsters the CRTC's actions, so they don't have to worry about any sort of governmental backlash.
Now all they have to do is find some way to break the oligopoly that Canadian telcos have over the market. We may have Net Neutrality, but that doesn't mean providers aren't completely screwing us. :P
As a Canadian, I'd like to know exactly what law you're talking about.
Ontario has passed some laws linked to human rights complaints, basically saying that if you're persistently being a dick by misgendering someone (for instance) that might be grounds for a complaint and sitting through a tribunal (as I recall), but there's certainly no FEDERAL law that's been passed. Is that the one you're talking about? The one that Jordan Peterson incorrectly claims can land him in jail?
Siri is pretty advanced on certain axes—it's already capable of speaking many languages, which is not trivial. The Echo is sold in a remarkably limited number of locations and only speaks English, as far as I know. I can't buy an Echo in Canada, but I can ask Siri questions in French AND English.
Now, is that useful? What good is an assistant that you can address in multiple languages but fails to do what you ask in any of them, after all. So it's hard to deny that Amazon is ahead in the utility race, but there's good reason to believe that once Siri gets useful, it'll have a *much* larger useful reach than Alexa does.
Nobody that I know cares in the least. They've always used the headphones in the box, and they continue to use the headphones in the box. I think it should be clear at this point that it's a buying decision for remarkably few people; Samsung hasn't seen a strong uptick from Apple customers, Apple hasn't seen a big drop in sales. I think if your friends jumped ship from Apple, they probably would've found an excuse to do it anyway, with or without the headphone jack pushing them.
She wasn't in the country illegally for fun or something, you know that, right? Presumably the conditions in her country were bad enough to drive her to enter illegally, and the process for entry is sufficiently onerous or difficult that she had no other choice.
But don't try to shift the blame to HER. HIS immorality is on display no matter what her circumstances were. He was deliberately exploiting someone in an exploitable position, and he didn't need to. As the story tells it, nobody else rushed out to be an immoral asshole, and he could've paid what she was worth.
Portrait mode lighting effects are done in real time on the iPhone 8 and iPhone X, and Apple makes the claim that it it's sufficiently processor intensive that it requires the A11 chip. The fact that the iPhone 7 Plus can do it to a photo after the fact isn't terribly special; so could an iPhone SE, it would just take longer.
If the business model is only viable when you effectively have slaves working for you, it's not a good business model.
Jobs that are supposedly only for 'teenagers' to make extra money have been mostly worked by adults for years now. Pulling weeds is basically gardening. You can hire kids to do it for cheap for all sorts of reasons, like they don't have to actually feed themselves or pay rent. When kids are young, it's kind of a fun thing to do so they can make some money and learn about working. But if you hire an adult to do it, they're going to charge you an hourly rate appropriate for a landscaper, and you can pay it or not. Maybe my job as a programmer deserves more money than a burger flipper, but I want that burger flipper to make enough so that when they go home after their 8 hours of real, legitimate work, they can afford to buy the video games that I make.
If the job is worth doing, it's probably worth paying for. If you can't because it's too expensive or you're too frugal, then do it yourself or don't get it done.
My local grocery store delivers (I think they even offer it free to seniors), and I imagine that those people are getting paid whatever the normal wage is at the store. Shopping for stuff, driving it somewhere and delivering it is a REAL JOB. Even just delivering things is a job that we pay people to do at *better* than minimum wage!
Instacart is not on the right side of this. Making workers deliver 20 cases of water for $3-4 is immoral. If these jobs are the kind that 'job creators' come up with when they get tax cuts, they can stuff them and pay more taxes.
The 'random' blogpost is by a PhD candidate, not some person off the street. And her post is thoroughly cited, considerably more than the opinions of four scientists that are quoted. I'm going to take a well researched and cited document over four arbitrary scientists any day of the week. How do I know that their opinion is representative of that community? Her article is probably 5 times as long as that article and contains significantly more detail. So no, how about we don't just take the opinions of four scientists at face value. Read the article and the citations and see if you can find anything in there worth arguing about.
The memo was badly written, poorly cited and badly researched. He misrepresents and misunderstands statistics, biology, gender determinism and psychology. https://medium.com/@tweetingmo...
None of that warranted his firing, but what DID was that he was making himself known as a bad actor in the environment at google. Because they do both peer and manager reviews, he basically painted a big red flag on himself because there was no way to tell if heâ(TM)d be sufficiently objective when reviewing female teammates. Women were already blacklisting him (apparently google employees keep internal blacklists, which Iâ(TM)m not sure is a great idea) and it really just demonstrated a lack of decent judgement. Nobody would be able to promote him, and he generated an outsized amount of strife for a single employee. From a business perspective, he was a humongous operational liability.
Being spectrum absolves him of none of this. We all know spectrum people, and I know plenty that are capable of learning rules to keep them out of trouble because theyâ(TM)re aware theyâ(TM)re not good at understanding social signals. Itâ(TM)s not a problem that heâ(TM)s spectrum, itâ(TM)s a problem that he generally has bad judgement.
Well functioning teams are critical to making good progress and he was clearly an impediment to that, no matter whether you agree with his memo or not.
So if you want to customize shortcuts, their own help articles recommend that you use an add-on called 'Menu Wizard'...that isn't compatible with this version of the browser.
Also, it renders the most OBNOXIOUSLY large scroll bars for Tweetdeck, no matter what the text scaling size is. It's just visually offensive, and no other browser seems to do it. Even MS Edge reduces the size of the scrollbars as you modify the scaling, despite it not rendering the correct, rounded scrollbars.
I've also had to restart it twice because it got confused about my proxy settings or something and stopped being able to load pages. The out-of-the-box experience just isn't any good.