>"There is no presumption of privacy as you drive around on the public roads with a sign that has a tag on it that ties that car to an individual. It's as if you are driving around with your name on the side of the vehicle, and choosing to get upset that people on the side of the road know you are there."
I hear this kind of nonsense all the time. Yes, there IS a presumption based on just reason, if nothing else. Nobody 60 years ago would really have envisioned technology that could spy on people so easily and cheaply that such "public information" would be stored on everyone, stored forever, and aggregated and combined with so much other information and searchable in microseconds. Technology that can also unmask license numbers and identify instead based on a zillion other criteria as well.
Traveling in public is absolutely necessary- be it in a car, or bike, or even by foot. I don't think it is reasonable that the moment you step foot (or tire) out of your house, that automatically gives a green light to absolute tracking and surveillance everywhere you go. It violates the entire spirit of what America is supposed to stand for, things like- freedom from harassment, pursuit of happiness, knowing your accusers, freedom of association, burden of proof, being free of unreasonable searches, etc.
Information is power. Connected information is exponentially more power. The more information the government (and business) is collecting on and about you, the more power they will have over you. Power corrupts. And innocent "data" right now might not be so harmless in the future.
>"they are put in places folks are speeding or where they have been accidents. The data shows folks slow down when they know how fast they're driving, but it's easy to ignore your gauge and just go with the flow, which usually puts you 10-15 over."
Going with the flow is exactly what DOES NOT cause accidents. Accidents are caused primarily by:
1) Distracted driving 2) Impaired driving 3) Following too closely 4) Improper lane changes 5) Gross speed *differential*
And none of those have an "automated" "ticket in the mail" solution. Yet the obsession always seems to be over speed. Why? Because it is objective, easily obtained, and generates lots of revenue.
>"it's workers can't afford the goods they're making."
And a considerable amount of that comes from regulation. Every time the government forces another expensive safety feature become mandatory, or another pollution control to get another 0.1%, or another 0.5MPG fuel improvement, or countless other regulations/fees/taxes/legal battles, the base price of cars goes up a little more. Year after year, it adds up to a lot. This happens across the board with many products.
Sure, you end up with base products that are more reliable, more environmentally friendly, more convenient, and safer (cars are SO much better)- but also more and more expensive.
>"Fortunately, California hasn't figured out how to legislate the Nobel Prize yet."
No, but somehow the Nobel Prize committee awarded Obama a peace award for.... well.... nothing? So it does make one question the whole thing, sometimes.
>It's not strange wording at all. Sophistication is a statement of
I was more targeting the word "find" as odd, not "sophisticated." "Find" implies it was looking or trying. It is more like "happen" or "occur" or something like that.
>"The immune system normally seeks out and destroys mutated cells, but cancer cells find sophisticated ways to hide from immune attacks"
That is strange wording. Cancer cells are not autonomous, learning, clever, and planning. They are just mutations that "happen", randomly due to replication errors and external events (like radiation, viruses, and chemicals). Sometimes there just happen to be cells that mutate in a way that the immune system doesn't recognize. We all have cancer cells in our bodies, probably all the time, and normally they are caught and killed by our immune systems. The above statement makes it sound like they are planning something with a "will":)
>Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one"
It has nothing to do with "conspiracies." If you really did get a flu vaccine, then you SHOULD have been given a list of at least some of the reasons why it might be avoided. For some, severe allergic reaction (although a tiny percent). And for a much larger percent, getting flu-like symptoms if your immune system suddenly identifies the dead virus as an immediate threat and launches anywhere from a mild to extreme attack. Then there is pain of the injection- which for some is mild, and others can be much more than just mild and for several days. The latter happens to me frequently, to the point of some years barely being able to raise my arm for two days after. And there is a small chance of secondary infection at the injection site. And a small chance of flareup of various auto-immune disorders.
Make no mistake, I am very pro-vaccine. And I get a flu vaccine injection EVERY YEAR. I also encourage others to get it, and strongly support it being VOLUNTARY ONLY. But to pretend there are NO reasons to avoid it is irresponsible just like pretending there are no benefits.
>>Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it
>Sorry, but I'm not the one spreading lies. The vaccination rate among medical professionals in the US is high but well short of 100%
Where *I* live in the US, it absolutely is NOT required for healthcare workers. However, it is generally provided by the healthcare companies for its employees for free, and it is strongly encouraged. And a majority do get it. And that is probably the way it SHOULD be. In a [supposedly] free society, making something like that "required" is dubious. There are those who get quite ill from the vaccine (no, you can't get the flu from a flu vaccine, but for many their body will absolutely react to it as if it were a live invader) and there are other risks and allergies associated with any vaccine. Make no mistake- I am very "pro vaccine" (in most cases), but not to the point of taking away people's choices. Make it available. Educate. Promote. Encourage.
>The not-so-good issue is that you are still depending on Google
Agreed. Which means the ranking and such will be the same. It is good and yet bad at the same time. No diversity in the results, you are still getting Google's world-view of search.
>Also its results are a somehow-restricted version of what you find in google.com.
That is not my experience. You will NOT see the "sponsored" results from Google, but that is kinda the whole point. Also, since Google doesn't know who it is, it is possible there won't be any additional "customized" manipulation of the results. Compare StartPage results to a Google results that was taken from a private window on an IP you don't ever use; they should match.
>I find this lack of true alternatives kind of weird
So do I. There are still Bing (Microsoft- eeeew) and Yahoo Search, but that is now just Bing. And DuckDuckGo is just a meta search (has nothing original to add), but all it really searches is Google and Bing (anything else is foreign or just noise; and Wikipedia doesn't really count, it is already included in Google and Bing).
I am not sure, but I think it would be illegal for a device to call 911 automatically. It is certainly that way with home alarm systems. So I don't see how this would be any different.
Samsung seems to know the correct way to handle this- on their watches, the user sets up, in advance, people that it will automatically text and call if there is an emergency. Then those HUMANS can try to determine if the situation warrants EMS and be the points of initiation and contact. Maybe Apple can "invent" that now...
I have been using https://startpage.com/ for many years. Its parent (lxquick) actually predates DuckDuckGo.
I lost count of how many people's machines I have switched to making it their default search engine (and often removing "Google.com" completely AND installing Firefox and making THAT their default browser). Not only is it fast and private, it gives the same Google search results, and doesn't blast users with stupid "G O O G L E" special event animations and mini games and associated junk. Oh, and it never insists you install Chrome for a so-called "better browsing experience" (yeah right; I will stick with Firefox, thank you very much).
They have a mobile app too, but unfortunately, it seems slower AND there is no way [I have found] to make it the system default under Android (surprise, surprise).
>"I said fuck it, if I'm already in the database, I might as well"
That is how privacy and freedom are lost. Many of us are NOT in "the database" and don't want to be. Do what you will, but please keep in mind that just because it becomes more "norm" doesn't mean it is the right thing to do or that people who resist are somehow backwards, paranoid, or have "something to hide".
Oh, and many (if not most) CCP/CWP/CHPs don't require fingerprinting.
>"If I look at the website, it seems that they used the domain for a legitimate business before MS registered their company"
They could be a legitimate business, but that doesn't make it not a domain squatting situation. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.
Here are some things that would REALLY make it not a domain squat- having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business or product other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier. I kinda doubt any of those were in play, but I don't know (just speculating).
>"Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen."
Well, not so much so. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.
I would love info to the contrary- like it having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier...
>"Delta -- which plans to introduce fingerprint scanning to fold, too"
Not a fan of this at all, but would flatly refuse if the biometrics used tried to include fingerprints or DNA. Those are two HUGE no-no's- they are left all over the place and can be collected without your permission or knowledge. One is easy to fake and the other can reveal all kinds of information about you*. Iris is also not safe- it is observable from a distance and also fakeable.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If you must choose a biometric, make it either retina scan or deep vein palm scan. And even then, should only be used when absolutely essential.
There is no support for it doing ANY harm in using it on and around non-flowering plants (weeds) on which bees and insects don't visit. So for YARD weeding, Roundup is probably just fine (and should NOT be banned).
Spilling it on the ground will typically cause no harm either, since it goes inactive very quickly. And if it got into good/flowering plants, it would KILL them. Bees don't visit dead plants, either.
The major problem is the industrial-scale use on FLOWERING plants that were designed to be Round-up resistant. Those plants suck up the Roundup and present it to bees in their flowers and from those plants we also get our food.
>"So what other exo-perceptions might we now add to the archaic list? We've already got the skin, eyes, ears, mouth, and nose on the list. That's the majority of the human periphery. Within its pre-existing category, I really don't think the original five was totally off base."
That depends on your meaning of "exo-perceptions". If you just mean sensing things outside of the body (things that other people can also sense that you sense), the colloquial "5 senses" is still very wrong. Temperature is external to the body, that is sensed almost immediately (skin is not the sense, the sense is classically "touch" and "touch" describes pressure on the skin, not temperature). Balance is external to the body (it is gravity and acceleration), both are sensed... and by a unique, separate organ (the vestibular system). So there are at least 7 "exo" senses (if you include taste- something that isn't quite "exo":) ).
>"He says it "brings legitimacy to [the] idea of the 'gut feeling' as a sixth sense."
More like the 12th or 16th "sense". I wish the whole "5 senses" thing from thousands of years ago would die already. I mean, anyone who doesn't immediately recognize a sense of balance or temperature or body position (or many others) as a "sense" doesn't understand the concept of sensing the world around them.
>"Most often, when listening, I just press shuffle over the entire collection."
Actually, that is the only way I listen to music. Car, phone, work, Sena, bathroom player, whatever. I have them all on "random" across the 5K songs. Sure, it will play something I am not in the mood for at times, and I just "tilt" it with the cue button.
The players don't talk to each other, of course, but each keeps its own randomized list so it will not play the same song again until it either wraps around (which would take forever.... almost 300 hours or something).
Occasionally I want to listen to something specific, in those cases I will just hit the computer, find the song on the drive, and play it manually. But that is too much work any other time.
>"Can you name a contemporary song that you actually wanted to hear twice, let alone more often?"
Not really. At least not that I have heard. Every now and then, a rare exception comes along. I will note that I just can't stand radio, so haven't listened to it in many years. And it is not just the annoying and never-ending commercials, poor depth, and poor sound quality, but just about all the music sounds like mindless noise to me.
At first, I thought it was just because I am now "older". But now I am not so sure. What is most fascinating is observing younger adults (I don't count teens, who seem to just listen to whatever; I mean 20's and 30's) discovering older music, like 70's/80's/90's and loving it and gravitating to it. That hasn't really happened much in the past generations with things like 50's/60's music.
Anyway, almost all my time listening to the 5,000 1970's-2000's songs ripped from my CD's. It is getting tiring, though. And I have spent many hours screening "contemporary" music in different genres, trying to expand the collection, with very poor results.
>"Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?"
Apparently everyone wants everything. If we want good 5G coverage, and quickly, limiting the taxes and paperwork and requiring quick approvals will cut the red tape.
BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...
Nothing quite says "you don't really own your device" more than forced advertising. And their answer is pretty weak/non-specific. And I wonder if they advertise/disclose this to potential purchasers.
>"With all but the most essential traffic banished, there are no revving engines or honking horns, no metallic snarl of motorbikes or the roar of people trying make themselves heard above the din -"
And banning motor vehicles is way overkill. A modern, in-spec, unaltered car or motorcycle makes very little noise. I would say 90% of typical vehicle noise comes from illegally modified exhaust systems, ancient and/or very poorly maintained vehicles, modified stereo sound systems with huge speakers/amps, and large/commercial vehicles (dump trucks, buses, package trucks, semis, etc).
I came to post the same thing. Typical "9-5"? I know NOBODY who has such hours, nor have I ever worked those hours. At a minimum, it is usually 8-4:30 or 9-5:30 or 8:30-5 due to an unpaid half hour lunch. More typically it is 7-4, 8-5 or something like that. And often it is much longer because things need doing, and might depend on other people or the situation.
>[article]"We can be as productive and creative in 6 focused hours as in 8 unfocused hours."
And that is certainly presumptuous. Yes, many people *COULD* give 6 focused hours, but others perhaps only 4 or 2; and some can give almost all 8 as focused hours. Or the job might not require much focus at all and just need manning for the 8 hours. Or the job depends a lot on what other people are doing that is outside that empoyee's control. Not so easy to measure what an employee actually gives, and often just being there *is* important, even if not 100% or 80% or whatever "focused."
Slashdot Mirror
>"There is no presumption of privacy as you drive around on the public roads with a sign that has a tag on it that ties that car to an individual. It's as if you are driving around with your name on the side of the vehicle, and choosing to get upset that people on the side of the road know you are there."
I hear this kind of nonsense all the time. Yes, there IS a presumption based on just reason, if nothing else. Nobody 60 years ago would really have envisioned technology that could spy on people so easily and cheaply that such "public information" would be stored on everyone, stored forever, and aggregated and combined with so much other information and searchable in microseconds. Technology that can also unmask license numbers and identify instead based on a zillion other criteria as well.
Traveling in public is absolutely necessary- be it in a car, or bike, or even by foot. I don't think it is reasonable that the moment you step foot (or tire) out of your house, that automatically gives a green light to absolute tracking and surveillance everywhere you go. It violates the entire spirit of what America is supposed to stand for, things like- freedom from harassment, pursuit of happiness, knowing your accusers, freedom of association, burden of proof, being free of unreasonable searches, etc.
Information is power. Connected information is exponentially more power. The more information the government (and business) is collecting on and about you, the more power they will have over you. Power corrupts. And innocent "data" right now might not be so harmless in the future.
>"they are put in places folks are speeding or where they have been accidents. The data shows folks slow down when they know how fast they're driving, but it's easy to ignore your gauge and just go with the flow, which usually puts you 10-15 over."
Going with the flow is exactly what DOES NOT cause accidents. Accidents are caused primarily by:
1) Distracted driving
2) Impaired driving
3) Following too closely
4) Improper lane changes
5) Gross speed *differential*
And none of those have an "automated" "ticket in the mail" solution. Yet the obsession always seems to be over speed. Why? Because it is objective, easily obtained, and generates lots of revenue.
>"it's workers can't afford the goods they're making."
And a considerable amount of that comes from regulation. Every time the government forces another expensive safety feature become mandatory, or another pollution control to get another 0.1%, or another 0.5MPG fuel improvement, or countless other regulations/fees/taxes/legal battles, the base price of cars goes up a little more. Year after year, it adds up to a lot. This happens across the board with many products.
Sure, you end up with base products that are more reliable, more environmentally friendly, more convenient, and safer (cars are SO much better)- but also more and more expensive.
>"Fortunately, California hasn't figured out how to legislate the Nobel Prize yet."
No, but somehow the Nobel Prize committee awarded Obama a peace award for.... well.... nothing? So it does make one question the whole thing, sometimes.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Dav1d is not a codec. It's an encoder. It encodes video into the AV1 codec."
Not according to the summary nor the description on the code site:
"dav1d is an AV1 decoder :)"
Nor inside the code readme:
"**dav1d** is a new **AV1** cross-platform **D**ecoder, open-source, and focused on speed and correctness."
>It's not strange wording at all. Sophistication is a statement of
I was more targeting the word "find" as odd, not "sophisticated." "Find" implies it was looking or trying. It is more like "happen" or "occur" or something like that.
>"The immune system normally seeks out and destroys mutated cells, but cancer cells find sophisticated ways to hide from immune attacks"
That is strange wording. Cancer cells are not autonomous, learning, clever, and planning. They are just mutations that "happen", randomly due to replication errors and external events (like radiation, viruses, and chemicals). Sometimes there just happen to be cells that mutate in a way that the immune system doesn't recognize. We all have cancer cells in our bodies, probably all the time, and normally they are caught and killed by our immune systems. The above statement makes it sound like they are planning something with a "will" :)
>Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one"
It has nothing to do with "conspiracies." If you really did get a flu vaccine, then you SHOULD have been given a list of at least some of the reasons why it might be avoided. For some, severe allergic reaction (although a tiny percent). And for a much larger percent, getting flu-like symptoms if your immune system suddenly identifies the dead virus as an immediate threat and launches anywhere from a mild to extreme attack. Then there is pain of the injection- which for some is mild, and others can be much more than just mild and for several days. The latter happens to me frequently, to the point of some years barely being able to raise my arm for two days after. And there is a small chance of secondary infection at the injection site. And a small chance of flareup of various auto-immune disorders.
Make no mistake, I am very pro-vaccine. And I get a flu vaccine injection EVERY YEAR. I also encourage others to get it, and strongly support it being VOLUNTARY ONLY. But to pretend there are NO reasons to avoid it is irresponsible just like pretending there are no benefits.
>>Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it
>Sorry, but I'm not the one spreading lies. The vaccination rate among medical professionals in the US is high but well short of 100%
Where *I* live in the US, it absolutely is NOT required for healthcare workers. However, it is generally provided by the healthcare companies for its employees for free, and it is strongly encouraged. And a majority do get it. And that is probably the way it SHOULD be. In a [supposedly] free society, making something like that "required" is dubious. There are those who get quite ill from the vaccine (no, you can't get the flu from a flu vaccine, but for many their body will absolutely react to it as if it were a live invader) and there are other risks and allergies associated with any vaccine. Make no mistake- I am very "pro vaccine" (in most cases), but not to the point of taking away people's choices. Make it available. Educate. Promote. Encourage.
>The not-so-good issue is that you are still depending on Google
Agreed. Which means the ranking and such will be the same. It is good and yet bad at the same time. No diversity in the results, you are still getting Google's world-view of search.
>Also its results are a somehow-restricted version of what you find in google.com.
That is not my experience. You will NOT see the "sponsored" results from Google, but that is kinda the whole point. Also, since Google doesn't know who it is, it is possible there won't be any additional "customized" manipulation of the results. Compare StartPage results to a Google results that was taken from a private window on an IP you don't ever use; they should match.
>I find this lack of true alternatives kind of weird
So do I. There are still Bing (Microsoft- eeeew) and Yahoo Search, but that is now just Bing. And DuckDuckGo is just a meta search (has nothing original to add), but all it really searches is Google and Bing (anything else is foreign or just noise; and Wikipedia doesn't really count, it is already included in Google and Bing).
I am not sure, but I think it would be illegal for a device to call 911 automatically. It is certainly that way with home alarm systems. So I don't see how this would be any different.
Samsung seems to know the correct way to handle this- on their watches, the user sets up, in advance, people that it will automatically text and call if there is an emergency. Then those HUMANS can try to determine if the situation warrants EMS and be the points of initiation and contact. Maybe Apple can "invent" that now...
I have been using https://startpage.com/ for many years. Its parent (lxquick) actually predates DuckDuckGo.
I lost count of how many people's machines I have switched to making it their default search engine (and often removing "Google.com" completely AND installing Firefox and making THAT their default browser). Not only is it fast and private, it gives the same Google search results, and doesn't blast users with stupid "G O O G L E" special event animations and mini games and associated junk. Oh, and it never insists you install Chrome for a so-called "better browsing experience" (yeah right; I will stick with Firefox, thank you very much).
They have a mobile app too, but unfortunately, it seems slower AND there is no way [I have found] to make it the system default under Android (surprise, surprise).
>"I said fuck it, if I'm already in the database, I might as well"
That is how privacy and freedom are lost. Many of us are NOT in "the database" and don't want to be. Do what you will, but please keep in mind that just because it becomes more "norm" doesn't mean it is the right thing to do or that people who resist are somehow backwards, paranoid, or have "something to hide".
Oh, and many (if not most) CCP/CWP/CHPs don't require fingerprinting.
>"If I look at the website, it seems that they used the domain for a legitimate business before MS registered their company"
They could be a legitimate business, but that doesn't make it not a domain squatting situation. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.
Here are some things that would REALLY make it not a domain squat- having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business or product other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier. I kinda doubt any of those were in play, but I don't know (just speculating).
>"Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen."
Well, not so much so. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.
I would love info to the contrary- like it having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier...
>"Delta -- which plans to introduce fingerprint scanning to fold, too"
Not a fan of this at all, but would flatly refuse if the biometrics used tried to include fingerprints or DNA. Those are two HUGE no-no's- they are left all over the place and can be collected without your permission or knowledge. One is easy to fake and the other can reveal all kinds of information about you*. Iris is also not safe- it is observable from a distance and also fakeable.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you must choose a biometric, make it either retina scan or deep vein palm scan. And even then, should only be used when absolutely essential.
>"Is there a responsible way to use Roundup?"
YES
There is no support for it doing ANY harm in using it on and around non-flowering plants (weeds) on which bees and insects don't visit. So for YARD weeding, Roundup is probably just fine (and should NOT be banned).
Spilling it on the ground will typically cause no harm either, since it goes inactive very quickly. And if it got into good/flowering plants, it would KILL them. Bees don't visit dead plants, either.
The major problem is the industrial-scale use on FLOWERING plants that were designed to be Round-up resistant. Those plants suck up the Roundup and present it to bees in their flowers and from those plants we also get our food.
>"So what other exo-perceptions might we now add to the archaic list? We've already got the skin, eyes, ears, mouth, and nose on the list. That's the majority of the human periphery. Within its pre-existing category, I really don't think the original five was totally off base."
That depends on your meaning of "exo-perceptions". If you just mean sensing things outside of the body (things that other people can also sense that you sense), the colloquial "5 senses" is still very wrong. Temperature is external to the body, that is sensed almost immediately (skin is not the sense, the sense is classically "touch" and "touch" describes pressure on the skin, not temperature). Balance is external to the body (it is gravity and acceleration), both are sensed... and by a unique, separate organ (the vestibular system). So there are at least 7 "exo" senses (if you include taste- something that isn't quite "exo" :) ).
>"He says it "brings legitimacy to [the] idea of the 'gut feeling' as a sixth sense."
More like the 12th or 16th "sense". I wish the whole "5 senses" thing from thousands of years ago would die already. I mean, anyone who doesn't immediately recognize a sense of balance or temperature or body position (or many others) as a "sense" doesn't understand the concept of sensing the world around them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Most often, when listening, I just press shuffle over the entire collection."
Actually, that is the only way I listen to music. Car, phone, work, Sena, bathroom player, whatever. I have them all on "random" across the 5K songs. Sure, it will play something I am not in the mood for at times, and I just "tilt" it with the cue button.
The players don't talk to each other, of course, but each keeps its own randomized list so it will not play the same song again until it either wraps around (which would take forever.... almost 300 hours or something).
Occasionally I want to listen to something specific, in those cases I will just hit the computer, find the song on the drive, and play it manually. But that is too much work any other time.
>"Can you name a contemporary song that you actually wanted to hear twice, let alone more often?"
Not really. At least not that I have heard. Every now and then, a rare exception comes along. I will note that I just can't stand radio, so haven't listened to it in many years. And it is not just the annoying and never-ending commercials, poor depth, and poor sound quality, but just about all the music sounds like mindless noise to me.
At first, I thought it was just because I am now "older". But now I am not so sure. What is most fascinating is observing younger adults (I don't count teens, who seem to just listen to whatever; I mean 20's and 30's) discovering older music, like 70's/80's/90's and loving it and gravitating to it. That hasn't really happened much in the past generations with things like 50's/60's music.
Anyway, almost all my time listening to the 5,000 1970's-2000's songs ripped from my CD's. It is getting tiring, though. And I have spent many hours screening "contemporary" music in different genres, trying to expand the collection, with very poor results.
>"Not overcharging is now called a "giveaway". Did you want good 5G service, or did you want local governments to cash in?"
Apparently everyone wants everything. If we want good 5G coverage, and quickly, limiting the taxes and paperwork and requiring quick approvals will cut the red tape.
BUT, I have to agree that along with those carrots needs to be a few sticks- like to make sure there is good coverage and they don't go skipping neighborhoods they don't want...
Nothing quite says "you don't really own your device" more than forced advertising. And their answer is pretty weak/non-specific. And I wonder if they advertise/disclose this to potential purchasers.
>"With all but the most essential traffic banished, there are no revving engines or honking horns, no metallic snarl of motorbikes or the roar of people trying make themselves heard above the din -"
And banning motor vehicles is way overkill. A modern, in-spec, unaltered car or motorcycle makes very little noise. I would say 90% of typical vehicle noise comes from illegally modified exhaust systems, ancient and/or very poorly maintained vehicles, modified stereo sound systems with huge speakers/amps, and large/commercial vehicles (dump trucks, buses, package trucks, semis, etc).
>"More like 8-6 in much of the US, if not worse."
I came to post the same thing. Typical "9-5"? I know NOBODY who has such hours, nor have I ever worked those hours. At a minimum, it is usually 8-4:30 or 9-5:30 or 8:30-5 due to an unpaid half hour lunch. More typically it is 7-4, 8-5 or something like that. And often it is much longer because things need doing, and might depend on other people or the situation.
>[article]"We can be as productive and creative in 6 focused hours as in 8 unfocused hours."
And that is certainly presumptuous. Yes, many people *COULD* give 6 focused hours, but others perhaps only 4 or 2; and some can give almost all 8 as focused hours. Or the job might not require much focus at all and just need manning for the 8 hours. Or the job depends a lot on what other people are doing that is outside that empoyee's control. Not so easy to measure what an employee actually gives, and often just being there *is* important, even if not 100% or 80% or whatever "focused."