The EU allows social engineering that would have made the Soviets blush? Color me surprised!
I suppose you're all for burning coal to heat you house also? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I have to breathe the air that your car expels. Air quality in big cities is awful but of course we can't do anything about that BECAUSE FREEDOM
Two things I think are going on - the price is often pretty opaque once you take into account the carrier deals that you get, you still pay the $1000 but it feels different spread over 2 years, and combined with the service charge. The other is that all those other things you mentioned you spend less time infront of than your phone - and a phone is a multipurpose device that comes with you and is useful everywhere. I personally would never spend $1000 on a TV because my £300 from a few years ago is better still than I can imagine, and I spend at most an hour infront of it per day. My phone comes with me everywhere and screenon time by the end of each day is 4-5 hours.
A phone is a one-time cost. $1000 over 2 years is $1.38 / day. Many people spend double that on coffee.
You really don't see how movies from 15 years ago are relevant to a discussion about this movie being the first?
I don't think it's relevant because I question the motivation behind the "well actually" brigade. There is an undercurrent of cynicism about representation of under-represented groups in films. And it *always* comes from smug white men in their 30s, who are very perfectly well represented. It's not very clever to find the exception that demonstrates the rule, and that's pretty much what it is. Yay Blade. How many films since then and now? If you have to go back that far, aren't you showing the exact point?
It's clearly the first *blockbuster* superhero film with a black lead, but it's way more than that - nearly every character is black. And when do we get to see an African culture in mainstream films? When do we get to see an optimistic future-Africa?
"What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it?
A film franchise that grossed half a billion dollars in cinemas alone (earning three times the budget) is niche now?
Shit, I'll settle for that sort of fucking niche.
I guess you prefer mainstream successes like Black Panther, earning a massive 15% more at the box office than its budget. Tell you what, let us all know when the fucking marketing is paid for too.
For the love of god... how good an investment a film was for the studio has precisely shit all to do with the cultural impact of a piece of art. Goddammit, this is the same argument we get about iPhone being the most umazing thang evar because Apple makes the most money. I don't care how much money a film makes. It has nothing to do with my enjoyment of viewing it, or the impact it has on the world.
And if you must argue return rates (fuck this is dull) , are you really stupid enough to compare Black Panther's opening weekend with the Blade's entire run?
Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.
Comments such as "what about Blade then?" or "so what, is the movie any good?" and entirely unhelpful to the narrative and thus often ignored completely by the MSM.
"What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it? Compared with the 20 or so Marvel films in the last decade?
And the film appears to actually be good. Sorry if that shits on your "I'm cleverer than the MSM" parade.
So, following the pattern of most of the android handset makers?
No, because old Android versions do not stop functioning. Say what you will about Android updates, but backwards compatibility has always been good. Gingerbread devices still work with push notifications.
So they're discontinuing a minor feature on old versions of Windows Phone. Why would that mean that "the end of Windows Phone" is coming? They're still actively supporting Windows Phone 10.
Eh? They're discontinuing a central feature (push messages) of some of their smartphones. On their old devices, but not that old. Windows Phone 8 was still being sold in 2013.
The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards.
When I'm driving I'm not looking at some mountains 10 miles away. I'm spending a lot of time looking at traffic around me, and at upcoming signals which I assure you are not at infinity...
Well, it kindof is though. The human eye has a hyperfocal distance of about 6 metres (ie when focussing at 'infinity', everything further than 6m will be sharp). Which unless you're going very slowly is nearer than vast majority of stuff you will be looking at outside the car.
Shouldn't you? After a while? If you get 50 rejections in a row you probably should be taking it personally. I know we're all supposed to be self-sufficient in confidence but at some point you need to calibrate to the outside, otherwise you may well be being an arrogant arse, or any number of character flaws that you can't see from the inside. At some point you need to listen to how people react to you.
Yes, all of this. I actually think this should be a thing that everyone experiences - very few things expose the difference in gender experience better than what it's like to be a man (ignored) and a woman (inundated) on a dating site.
Men should be strong enough to handle the emotional toll rejection. If you're not good enough to deal with it, maybe that's life trying to teach you a lesson. Don't try to fob this heartbreak off onto women, they have enough problems already.
I don't think anyone's blaming the women - they do have their own problems (constant streams of inappropriate messages being one of them). The system is flawed, that's what's at fault.
Also, why the hell should men be 'strong enough'. If you are strong enough to handle multiple rejections then you're probably not paying attention, you could well be being an awful person but you wouldn't notice because you're being 'strong' and 'handling it'. This is exactly toxic masculinity - that being affected emotionally is bad and that you shouldn't.
You are exactly correct. It's a horrendous experience for everyone. The men who have any self-awareness (ie most decent people) get very quickly disillusioned, the repeated effort to make contact and get nothing back eats away at the ego. Rather quickly these men give up and leave. The ones that stick it out are the ones where this treatment doesn't bruise their ego - the ones that don't care and will behave in any manner.
The women on the site get tens of messages per day, and a good number of those will be from the men who have no shame and will say fairly inappropriate things. Words do matter, and that constant stream of unpleasant things means they don't have a good reason to hang about either.
It's bizarre that the new technology actually takes us backwards in male-female heterosexual interaction. The social norm that men approach women, in real life is tempered by the fact that women have multiple ways in communicating their interest without doing the main approach - through looks, touch, etc., in a way that is ambiguous and deniable. You can negotiate interest without actually breaking the 'order'. On the internet everything is formalised so much that it is impossible to have any ambiguity. Someone presses the 'like' button first. Someone sends the message first. So that is left for men, who have to do it without any information about whether they will be welcomed. Women have to handle many inappropriate advances, men have to approach without any idea whether it's appropriate.
I think one of the problems is the nonstandardisation now. There is so much choice - I remember when I was a child and had my Spectrum, and there was also C64 and BBC Micro etc but they all ran BASIC, and it was all mostly the same. There were child-focussed programming magazines like http://www.acornelectron.co.uk... that had cartoons and code listings. That all doesn't exist now. There's a bunch more distraction (the entire internet) and a lot less single-point-of-entry. It's not harder exactly, but it is more diverse and that means guidance is spread more thinly.
...If it's obvious, what is it? What are they trying to do?...
Perhaps it would help if you had read my message.
No - all you've said is that they plan to nefariously collect system specs. And then unnamed more things. And then what? You've outlined the "collect underpants" section of the evil plan, without actually naming the rest of the 'obvious' scheme.
I thought IE was a problem because it was a bundled and default browser, and Windows isn't free. Chrome is obviously a completely free, and completely optional third party web browser.
I guess unless we are talking about Android. I was thinking about Windows and Mac PCs only before.
Even if you give something away free you can still get into trouble-- if you use your market power to give something away until all the competition goes bankrupt, then you are able to charge anything for it because there's no competition. It's not only about what you can do as a user, because the exact same thing that happened with IE when it got to 99% or whatever can happen again, websites stop developing for anything else and start to require you to run Chrome to use them. If you want to use your bank or whatever suddenly you have to use Chrome and your choice disappears, even if there still technically exists choice.
They way I see it, you don't have to use Chrome...
Is there really a law that prevents me from writing my own web browser that blocks all ads except my own?
That's... not what a monopoly is. There is rarely a law prohibiting competition, but the circumstances, barrier of entry, difficulty to get adoption, for challengers to that monopoly make it unrealistic to happen, and that's bad for everyone. Well, everyone except the monopolies, and free market extremists who don't understand that markets where someone has undue control are not functioning markets.
Should Chrome get into the same position IE did in the 90s, and its arguable that they are there now, then yes the same restrictions on anti-competitive behaviour apply. Monopoly players have to abide by more rules than non-monopoly players.
"Incredible GPU" (I'll just leave for a moment this is a chip just to be maybe 'unveiled', while the the latest iOS chip which you can buy for 6 months is already way ahead as usual...)
Unless they've fired their entire OpenGL/Vulkan driver engineering department and started over, I can't get excited. It'll just be *another* big bag of pain and busted features.
As God as my witness, I wish somebody would make the investment to give Qualcomm some actual competition, cause they are a nightmare.
Signed : Mobile Games Graphics Engineer.
I mean it could come from Apple but they're too busy walling off their garden. Full marks though, after years of marketing bluster that didn't really stack up, Apple seem to have created a monster CPU. It's just a shame it's trapped only in their devices.
Because I use devices that compete with Apple with interfaces and features that I prefer to use over anything Apple offers, that MUST mean that I want the platform I use to mimic Apple!
God dammit!
Yeah... nobody wants this. But if the OS is going to support many different devices and manufacturers, it probably needs to have support for weird shaped displays because otherwise the manufacturers will make up their own. I'd rather they proactively do this than wait until there are 10 different implementations like we had with fingerprint security.
Yes. Here we go again. And we're going to keep going here again until we start fixing the problems. Whether it's setup, exposure metering, or chemistry, there is an issue here that isn't being seen or fixed because we're all desperately leaping to blame physics or some other neutral thing that we can't control and therefore don't need to worry about.
We all look at the world from our own experiences and perspectives, and that's why getting a variety of people in increasingly important and influential fields like computing is important. We need those perspectives because we literally don't see outside our own.
Darker colors provide less contrast. Less contrast means features are more difficult to make out.
Combine that with the typically horrendous lighting video cams face and you have a situation where recognition fails.
This is precisely why people say diversity in IT is a good idea. Developers primarily develop for themselves, so if you are missing a large selection of the population in your company then there is a blindness there to those people's needs.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU allows social engineering that would have made the Soviets blush? Color me surprised!
I suppose you're all for burning coal to heat you house also? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have to breathe the air that your car expels. Air quality in big cities is awful but of course we can't do anything about that BECAUSE FREEDOM
Two things I think are going on - the price is often pretty opaque once you take into account the carrier deals that you get, you still pay the $1000 but it feels different spread over 2 years, and combined with the service charge. The other is that all those other things you mentioned you spend less time infront of than your phone - and a phone is a multipurpose device that comes with you and is useful everywhere. I personally would never spend $1000 on a TV because my £300 from a few years ago is better still than I can imagine, and I spend at most an hour infront of it per day. My phone comes with me everywhere and screenon time by the end of each day is 4-5 hours.
A phone is a one-time cost. $1000 over 2 years is $1.38 / day. Many people spend double that on coffee.
One of the most important things I have ever been told was the HR is for protecting the *company* from the employees. It is not for helping employees.
They did communicate this. Repeatedly. To HR.
So I was also thinking the other day, since I just recently rewatched Blade, how Wesley Snipes was fucking cool.
I didn't worry what fucking skin colour everybody was because I'm not an insufferable cunt.
No. Because you're white, and you get to see positive representations of people who look like you all the time.
You really don't see how movies from 15 years ago are relevant to a discussion about this movie being the first?
I don't think it's relevant because I question the motivation behind the "well actually" brigade. There is an undercurrent of cynicism about representation of under-represented groups in films. And it *always* comes from smug white men in their 30s, who are very perfectly well represented. It's not very clever to find the exception that demonstrates the rule, and that's pretty much what it is. Yay Blade. How many films since then and now? If you have to go back that far, aren't you showing the exact point?
It's clearly the first *blockbuster* superhero film with a black lead, but it's way more than that - nearly every character is black. And when do we get to see an African culture in mainstream films? When do we get to see an optimistic future-Africa?
"Oh but Blade" misses the point entirely.
Do you touch your wife more often or your phone? it's a pretty intimate device. No sense in living with one you don't love.
More people shake my hand than shake my dick. I can assure you that shaking my hand is not the more intimate experience.
Please someone give that man a cookie!
"What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it?
A film franchise that grossed half a billion dollars in cinemas alone (earning three times the budget) is niche now?
Shit, I'll settle for that sort of fucking niche.
I guess you prefer mainstream successes like Black Panther, earning a massive 15% more at the box office than its budget. Tell you what, let us all know when the fucking marketing is paid for too.
For the love of god... how good an investment a film was for the studio has precisely shit all to do with the cultural impact of a piece of art. Goddammit, this is the same argument we get about iPhone being the most umazing thang evar because Apple makes the most money. I don't care how much money a film makes. It has nothing to do with my enjoyment of viewing it, or the impact it has on the world.
And if you must argue return rates (fuck this is dull) , are you really stupid enough to compare Black Panther's opening weekend with the Blade's entire run?
Well, you know, its the first superhero movie to feature a black hero and as such must be celebrated for pushing its diversity.
Comments such as "what about Blade then?" or "so what, is the movie any good?" and entirely unhelpful to the narrative and thus often ignored completely by the MSM.
"What about a couple of niche films from 15 years ago" is a bit bullshit isn't it? Compared with the 20 or so Marvel films in the last decade?
And the film appears to actually be good. Sorry if that shits on your "I'm cleverer than the MSM" parade.
So, following the pattern of most of the android handset makers?
No, because old Android versions do not stop functioning. Say what you will about Android updates, but backwards compatibility has always been good. Gingerbread devices still work with push notifications.
So they're discontinuing a minor feature on old versions of Windows Phone. Why would that mean that "the end of Windows Phone" is coming? They're still actively supporting Windows Phone 10.
Eh? They're discontinuing a central feature (push messages) of some of their smartphones. On their old devices, but not that old. Windows Phone 8 was still being sold in 2013.
The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards.
When I'm driving I'm not looking at some mountains 10 miles away. I'm spending a lot of time looking at traffic around me, and at upcoming signals which I assure you are not at infinity...
Well, it kindof is though. The human eye has a hyperfocal distance of about 6 metres (ie when focussing at 'infinity', everything further than 6m will be sharp). Which unless you're going very slowly is nearer than vast majority of stuff you will be looking at outside the car.
Wow... You've got some issues there, buddy...
Shouldn't you? After a while? If you get 50 rejections in a row you probably should be taking it personally. I know we're all supposed to be self-sufficient in confidence but at some point you need to calibrate to the outside, otherwise you may well be being an arrogant arse, or any number of character flaws that you can't see from the inside. At some point you need to listen to how people react to you.
The question is, when, and how much.
Yes, all of this. I actually think this should be a thing that everyone experiences - very few things expose the difference in gender experience better than what it's like to be a man (ignored) and a woman (inundated) on a dating site.
Men should be strong enough to handle the emotional toll rejection. If you're not good enough to deal with it, maybe that's life trying to teach you a lesson. Don't try to fob this heartbreak off onto women, they have enough problems already.
I don't think anyone's blaming the women - they do have their own problems (constant streams of inappropriate messages being one of them). The system is flawed, that's what's at fault.
Also, why the hell should men be 'strong enough'. If you are strong enough to handle multiple rejections then you're probably not paying attention, you could well be being an awful person but you wouldn't notice because you're being 'strong' and 'handling it'. This is exactly toxic masculinity - that being affected emotionally is bad and that you shouldn't.
You are exactly correct. It's a horrendous experience for everyone. The men who have any self-awareness (ie most decent people) get very quickly disillusioned, the repeated effort to make contact and get nothing back eats away at the ego. Rather quickly these men give up and leave. The ones that stick it out are the ones where this treatment doesn't bruise their ego - the ones that don't care and will behave in any manner.
The women on the site get tens of messages per day, and a good number of those will be from the men who have no shame and will say fairly inappropriate things. Words do matter, and that constant stream of unpleasant things means they don't have a good reason to hang about either.
It's bizarre that the new technology actually takes us backwards in male-female heterosexual interaction. The social norm that men approach women, in real life is tempered by the fact that women have multiple ways in communicating their interest without doing the main approach - through looks, touch, etc., in a way that is ambiguous and deniable. You can negotiate interest without actually breaking the 'order'. On the internet everything is formalised so much that it is impossible to have any ambiguity. Someone presses the 'like' button first. Someone sends the message first. So that is left for men, who have to do it without any information about whether they will be welcomed. Women have to handle many inappropriate advances, men have to approach without any idea whether it's appropriate.
I think one of the problems is the nonstandardisation now. There is so much choice - I remember when I was a child and had my Spectrum, and there was also C64 and BBC Micro etc but they all ran BASIC, and it was all mostly the same. There were child-focussed programming magazines like http://www.acornelectron.co.uk... that had cartoons and code listings. That all doesn't exist now. There's a bunch more distraction (the entire internet) and a lot less single-point-of-entry. It's not harder exactly, but it is more diverse and that means guidance is spread more thinly.
...If it's obvious, what is it? What are they trying to do? ...
Perhaps it would help if you had read my message.
No - all you've said is that they plan to nefariously collect system specs. And then unnamed more things. And then what? You've outlined the "collect underpants" section of the evil plan, without actually naming the rest of the 'obvious' scheme.
I thought IE was a problem because it was a bundled and default browser, and Windows isn't free.
Chrome is obviously a completely free, and completely optional third party web browser.
I guess unless we are talking about Android. I was thinking about Windows and Mac PCs only before.
Even if you give something away free you can still get into trouble-- if you use your market power to give something away until all the competition goes bankrupt, then you are able to charge anything for it because there's no competition. It's not only about what you can do as a user, because the exact same thing that happened with IE when it got to 99% or whatever can happen again, websites stop developing for anything else and start to require you to run Chrome to use them. If you want to use your bank or whatever suddenly you have to use Chrome and your choice disappears, even if there still technically exists choice.
They way I see it, you don't have to use Chrome...
Is there really a law that prevents me from writing my own web browser that blocks all ads except my own?
That's... not what a monopoly is. There is rarely a law prohibiting competition, but the circumstances, barrier of entry, difficulty to get adoption, for challengers to that monopoly make it unrealistic to happen, and that's bad for everyone. Well, everyone except the monopolies, and free market extremists who don't understand that markets where someone has undue control are not functioning markets.
Should Chrome get into the same position IE did in the 90s, and its arguable that they are there now, then yes the same restrictions on anti-competitive behaviour apply. Monopoly players have to abide by more rules than non-monopoly players.
"Incredible GPU" (I'll just leave for a moment this is a chip just to be maybe 'unveiled', while the the latest iOS chip which you can buy for 6 months is already way ahead as usual...)
Unless they've fired their entire OpenGL/Vulkan driver engineering department and started over, I can't get excited. It'll just be *another* big bag of pain and busted features.
As God as my witness, I wish somebody would make the investment to give Qualcomm some actual competition, cause they are a nightmare.
Signed : Mobile Games Graphics Engineer.
I mean it could come from Apple but they're too busy walling off their garden. Full marks though, after years of marketing bluster that didn't really stack up, Apple seem to have created a monster CPU. It's just a shame it's trapped only in their devices.
Because I use devices that compete with Apple with interfaces and features that I prefer to use over anything Apple offers, that MUST mean that I want the platform I use to mimic Apple!
God dammit!
Yeah... nobody wants this. But if the OS is going to support many different devices and manufacturers, it probably needs to have support for weird shaped displays because otherwise the manufacturers will make up their own. I'd rather they proactively do this than wait until there are 10 different implementations like we had with fingerprint security.
Yes. Here we go again. And we're going to keep going here again until we start fixing the problems. Whether it's setup, exposure metering, or chemistry, there is an issue here that isn't being seen or fixed because we're all desperately leaping to blame physics or some other neutral thing that we can't control and therefore don't need to worry about.
We all look at the world from our own experiences and perspectives, and that's why getting a variety of people in increasingly important and influential fields like computing is important. We need those perspectives because we literally don't see outside our own.
Darker colors provide less contrast. Less contrast means features are more difficult to make out.
Combine that with the typically horrendous lighting video cams face and you have a situation where recognition fails.
This is precisely why people say diversity in IT is a good idea. Developers primarily develop for themselves, so if you are missing a large selection of the population in your company then there is a blindness there to those people's needs.