I get Starbucks coffee a few times a week- any time I don't make my own, and sometimes in the afternoon even if I do.
I definitely like their coffee. It's not as good as you can make yourself, but that's a high standard. Certainly, they are the best coffee anywhere between my work and my home, and that distance is non trivial. There's a couple shops downtown that blow it away, but those are not on my commute, nor, for that matter, anywhere convenient unless you are next to them already (which is still plenty of people- but it doesn't help me on a normal day).
Why do you want the "Keurig ship to sink"? If you need better coffee than it makes, well, you already can do that. My aunt and uncle have a Keurig, and boy does it kick ass for them. A bunch of people over? No problem with the Keurig. Everyone self serves without you having to be a bad hostess. Put the thing on, tease the dog while it works.
Keurig isn't for YOU. You were not really the market, and maybe someone will come up with a version that actually makes excellent coffee, them or a competitor. But who cares if you don't like it enough to not use it, or if I don't like it enough to buy it? I bet there's a lot of consumer products you don't want or use, do their ships need to sink too?
Hipsters pour over, French press, or have a great coffee shop just a couple blocks north. Yuppies or whatever use the Keurig. Or at an office, those things are amazing there when you don't have the ability to go wash and deal with beans and crap.
I use a French press, but my experience with Keurig on travel and at relative's places has been good. I'm sure throwing away a few plastic cups won't hurt anything at all, and a point about thirty million people isn't going to convince me otherwise, because I'm not thirty fucking million people.
It's super convenient and fast and makes cute little robot wookie noises. But, I mean, it's more expensive than a French press, each cup is more expensive than a French press, not as great coffee as a French press, and I don't get to swirl the coffee with a butter knife while staring down the road from my window. Each thing has its ups and downs... but if you are trying to add "saving the environment", that's just delusional.
Expecting capitalism to select for high performers is like expecting natural selection to select for really long lived red blood cells. If your selection criteria are on the organizations, you select for organizations, and the individuals are just a function yielding that.
I expected some reasonably sensational comments, but this one really stands out. Why would you think this? Are modern CS classes somehow better at security? In my ACTUAL experience, the only people I've ever had thinking that declaring a member variable as private increases the security of the product or enforces an actual restriction in the compiled code are younger. Certainly I haven't seen attention to security as being present primarily in the young or old.
"I've long advocated for a 'smart terminal' approach, where the 'app' is just a GUI with a set of capabilities, and all the smarts are up on the server."
This is just for toys though. Uh-oh, I'm in a bridge. That app isn't real, fuck that app. Uh-oh, I don't have a good net connection. Oh, look, others are streaming at this hotel, so while I have bandwidth my latency is trash. Now this app is trash because it doesn't respond to clicks. Uh-oh, the devs decided to shit the app up with adds. Uh-oh, the small company got bought by some malware garbage company and now their app has rights on my box/phone/whatever and it "upgraded" me to some shit hole.
You advocate for that user hostile shit all you like. Fuck that noise, hope it bankrupts any VCs dumb enough to stick their dick in it.
But if you are comparing noise made by a few bad actors, as you are when pointing out Islamic violence, then yes, the numbers are really relevant. If, for instance, one out of every 10,000 Muslims were some violet nitwit, then you would have an army of 150,000 violent nitwits. Similarly, if one out of every 10,000 Jews is some violent nitwit, then you have a gang of 1,400 violent nitwits. These are very different things, and if you were trying to make some statement about religions, you would hear about the first, and the second you likely would not.
First, not in all countries. Second, yes. This over representation is even small part of why "Jewish conspiracies" got traction. If you looked at the tiny Jewish population and the large number of Jewish scientists, mathematicians, etc. it would be fair to draw a conclusion, but much more difficult to pinpoint exactly why (culture, religion, genes, environment).
I think it's a generality to say that "neither Christians nor Jews do this". Certainly, Christians do this sort of thing at much lower rates.
Jews? It's really ludicrous to even bring up the Jews. Jews don't exist. Numerically, that is.
A third of the world is Christian, roughly. (50% Catholic, 40% Protestant, 10% other, including the Orthodox churches)
A quarter of the world is Muslim, roughly (90% Sunni, 10% Shia)
15% of the world is Hindu, roughly.
Two tenths of a percent of the world is Jewish.
That means for every Jew, there's over a hundred Christians, over a hundred Muslims, around seventy Hindus, thirty five Buddhists,
There's more Sikhs than Jews. The Jews are roughly equal to the number of practitioners of Yoruba, and the Jewish number tends to include more non-religious folks than many of the other groups.
So if all religions were equally likely to incite violence, you'd expect for most violence to be Christian, then you'd expect Muslim, then Hindu, the traditional Chinese practitioners, then Buddhists.... you'd have a long list to get to Jews.
In practice, we hear more about Muslims than anyone, and we do hear about Christians some times. The fact that you don't hear about Jews doesn't mean anything- numerically, they don't exist. If you heard about Jewish violence at the same rate as you hear about Muslim violence, then the Jewish religion would be over a hundred times as violent or something. The fact that there's still some very violent strands of Islam that are extremely active right now is what makes the news, but seriously, Muslims as a group are so massive that it seems hard to make a comparison to billions based on the actions of thousands.
Mobile versions are just excuses to stick static bullshit all over your phone, disable the basic UI features that makes the phones usable, and generally shit all over your mouth. Between Atomic and Chrome I mostly work around the fact that Safari will gleefully prevent me from using the few universal UI commands the phone offers, such as pinch-zoom, "yes scroll past the bottom so I can read the thing the ad is covering" and "zoom the fuck out, Jesus".
On my desktop, I certainly don't give a shit about a site offering me a mobile hell, and neither does anyone else. On my phone, I don't view "has a shitfucked mobile version" as a feature, though others may disagree. Is there a way to turn this new "feature" off? Everyone will want it disabled for desktop, and for mobile, well, I'd love to opt out of all of that crap entirely.
That and all the javascript that launches appstore are easily my pet peeves with browsing on my iphone. That can mostly be worked around by using Chrome, Atomic, or Mercury, but still, sheesh.
The difference between a revenge plot and a solution that just happens to fuck over the people who have been giant dicks is a slim one. I prefer to think it is revenge, because, well, it seems so pleasing if it is.
He didn't do it for the wrong reasons. For YEARS he tried to put a studio there, but they wouldn't budge, and insisted on the residential tag on his land. Finally, he said, ok, fine.
So he could have capitulated- which would frankly be ludicrous- or find a way to actually be smart with it, which is what he did.
This, by the way, is like the third coolest thing he's done, with Star Wars at 2 and 2+ billion to charity at 1.
"Because Steam accounts can be made in an automated fashion, this will greatly ramp up the effort needed by spammers- they'll have to steal cards or spend money."
This is factual. If each account must spend $5, they must either spend their OWN money, or spend someone ELSE's money.
An AC responded with:
"Also to spend money you have to hand over your personal information such as your full home address."
This is NOT CORRECT. Thus, I responded with:
"This is not correct. You can pay cash."
If you purchase a steam card at best buy, gamestop, etc, you can get money to your account without giving them your actual information. You obviously don't want to actually provide false info if it would change your sales tax, but I doubt that's what AC was talking about. There's also some mainly-euro option to pay as well.
To which, YOU replied:
"Try again."
Quoting only my above, correct, statement.
Deciding that you were probably confused, and apparently have a very tiny upload bandwidth, or maybe a keyboard lined with poison daggers, I asked:
"I seriously don't even understand what you are asking here. Or confused about?"
To which you replied, still not answering what the hell you are confused about, with your little gem about "calling attention to my failure".
So, everything I said has been factual and clear. Everything you have said has been terse and confrontational. I think you've typed three sentences, and all have been incorrect.
The Nitrogen (or any asphyxiation that doesn't involve the buildup of Carbon Dioxide) method involves turning off the brain's ability to feel pain as prelude to death.
Given the terrible fuckups that we see in executions recently, it's reasonable to assume that almost anything that can be screwed up, will be screwed up, and this one seems a lot simpler than some three needle solution using drugs you can't get made by anonymous compounding pharmacists you can't find with quality you can't test for administered by doctors that aren't trained. No, none of those things HAVE to happen, but they seem to keep happening.
This sort of execution method sidesteps those problems. But, why do we suspect it is painless? Mostly because people who recover from accidental exposure to Nitrogen generally report being utterly surprised.
In practice, it may be more humane to administer a sedative or even anesthesia beforehand. But acquiring those seems to be the problem in the first place: still, more options would likely be available than in the classic "three drug combination" of lethal injection, where an anesthetic (hopefully) dulls the pain, while a paralytic agent stops breathing (which causes pain) and a heart stopping agent stops the heart (which causes pain).
If they don't go this route, you'll likely see a condemned man struggling to hold his breath as long as he can, trying to avoid death, and eventually losing consciousness, inhaling, regaining consciousness for a moment to flail, and then dying. One thing that's missing from all the real life accounts is that almost everyone who gets into trouble with nitrogen or another oxygen displacing agent doesn't realize that they are in danger until it is too late or almost so, and as such the reports of painlessness are definitely flavored by that fact.
"Who small spender" implies that Steam is beginning to ramp actions up against players who don't spend money. This is an anti-spam measure, and it's actually pretty sensational to ever phrase it as being about "small spenders".
I mean, I've definitely spent less than 100. I'm not even sure I've spent 50. I'm certainly no heavy user, but GoD Factory: Wingman isn't anywhere else.
Their goal isn't to shit on light users like me, it's to prevent fucking SPAMMERS. At 5 bucks per account, spamming is nowhere near profitable. At 50 bucks per account, they just shit on casuals.
As a Star Wars fan this shit always leaves me so conflicted. Such a lucrative license with so much good stuff.
EA's umbrella companies vary in quality, but many are very good. The corporate burden of being under EA is just fucking immense though, and they put shit into games that should not have shit.
I'll definitely buy Battlefront. My general dislike of the corporation is simply far less than my desire to play some fucking Star Wars. It definitely feels like a captive audience trick, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I get Starbucks coffee a few times a week- any time I don't make my own, and sometimes in the afternoon even if I do.
I definitely like their coffee. It's not as good as you can make yourself, but that's a high standard. Certainly, they are the best coffee anywhere between my work and my home, and that distance is non trivial. There's a couple shops downtown that blow it away, but those are not on my commute, nor, for that matter, anywhere convenient unless you are next to them already (which is still plenty of people- but it doesn't help me on a normal day).
Why do you want the "Keurig ship to sink"? If you need better coffee than it makes, well, you already can do that. My aunt and uncle have a Keurig, and boy does it kick ass for them. A bunch of people over? No problem with the Keurig. Everyone self serves without you having to be a bad hostess. Put the thing on, tease the dog while it works.
Keurig isn't for YOU. You were not really the market, and maybe someone will come up with a version that actually makes excellent coffee, them or a competitor. But who cares if you don't like it enough to not use it, or if I don't like it enough to buy it? I bet there's a lot of consumer products you don't want or use, do their ships need to sink too?
Hipsters pour over, French press, or have a great coffee shop just a couple blocks north. Yuppies or whatever use the Keurig. Or at an office, those things are amazing there when you don't have the ability to go wash and deal with beans and crap.
I use a French press, but my experience with Keurig on travel and at relative's places has been good. I'm sure throwing away a few plastic cups won't hurt anything at all, and a point about thirty million people isn't going to convince me otherwise, because I'm not thirty fucking million people.
It's super convenient and fast and makes cute little robot wookie noises. But, I mean, it's more expensive than a French press, each cup is more expensive than a French press, not as great coffee as a French press, and I don't get to swirl the coffee with a butter knife while staring down the road from my window. Each thing has its ups and downs... but if you are trying to add "saving the environment", that's just delusional.
Expecting capitalism to select for high performers is like expecting natural selection to select for really long lived red blood cells. If your selection criteria are on the organizations, you select for organizations, and the individuals are just a function yielding that.
What on earth.
I expected some reasonably sensational comments, but this one really stands out. Why would you think this? Are modern CS classes somehow better at security? In my ACTUAL experience, the only people I've ever had thinking that declaring a member variable as private increases the security of the product or enforces an actual restriction in the compiled code are younger. Certainly I haven't seen attention to security as being present primarily in the young or old.
I mean, a lot of code is only meant for one platform type. Not writing code compatible with obsolete processors is no great sin.
"I've long advocated for a 'smart terminal' approach, where the 'app' is just a GUI with a set of capabilities, and all the smarts are up on the server."
This is just for toys though. Uh-oh, I'm in a bridge. That app isn't real, fuck that app. Uh-oh, I don't have a good net connection. Oh, look, others are streaming at this hotel, so while I have bandwidth my latency is trash. Now this app is trash because it doesn't respond to clicks. Uh-oh, the devs decided to shit the app up with adds. Uh-oh, the small company got bought by some malware garbage company and now their app has rights on my box/phone/whatever and it "upgraded" me to some shit hole.
You advocate for that user hostile shit all you like. Fuck that noise, hope it bankrupts any VCs dumb enough to stick their dick in it.
But if you are comparing noise made by a few bad actors, as you are when pointing out Islamic violence, then yes, the numbers are really relevant. If, for instance, one out of every 10,000 Muslims were some violet nitwit, then you would have an army of 150,000 violent nitwits. Similarly, if one out of every 10,000 Jews is some violent nitwit, then you have a gang of 1,400 violent nitwits. These are very different things, and if you were trying to make some statement about religions, you would hear about the first, and the second you likely would not.
First, not in all countries. Second, yes. This over representation is even small part of why "Jewish conspiracies" got traction. If you looked at the tiny Jewish population and the large number of Jewish scientists, mathematicians, etc. it would be fair to draw a conclusion, but much more difficult to pinpoint exactly why (culture, religion, genes, environment).
IMO gefilte fish is nootropic :P
I think it's a generality to say that "neither Christians nor Jews do this". Certainly, Christians do this sort of thing at much lower rates.
Jews? It's really ludicrous to even bring up the Jews. Jews don't exist. Numerically, that is.
A third of the world is Christian, roughly. (50% Catholic, 40% Protestant, 10% other, including the Orthodox churches)
A quarter of the world is Muslim, roughly (90% Sunni, 10% Shia)
15% of the world is Hindu, roughly.
Two tenths of a percent of the world is Jewish.
That means for every Jew, there's over a hundred Christians, over a hundred Muslims, around seventy Hindus, thirty five Buddhists,
There's more Sikhs than Jews. The Jews are roughly equal to the number of practitioners of Yoruba, and the Jewish number tends to include more non-religious folks than many of the other groups.
So if all religions were equally likely to incite violence, you'd expect for most violence to be Christian, then you'd expect Muslim, then Hindu, the traditional Chinese practitioners, then Buddhists.... you'd have a long list to get to Jews.
In practice, we hear more about Muslims than anyone, and we do hear about Christians some times. The fact that you don't hear about Jews doesn't mean anything- numerically, they don't exist. If you heard about Jewish violence at the same rate as you hear about Muslim violence, then the Jewish religion would be over a hundred times as violent or something. The fact that there's still some very violent strands of Islam that are extremely active right now is what makes the news, but seriously, Muslims as a group are so massive that it seems hard to make a comparison to billions based on the actions of thousands.
Wait, why would that be confusing?
1000 times larger is : size times 1000
1000 times smaller is : size times 1 / 1000
Leaving http://tiffzhang.com/startup/?... here...
Mobile versions are just excuses to stick static bullshit all over your phone, disable the basic UI features that makes the phones usable, and generally shit all over your mouth. Between Atomic and Chrome I mostly work around the fact that Safari will gleefully prevent me from using the few universal UI commands the phone offers, such as pinch-zoom, "yes scroll past the bottom so I can read the thing the ad is covering" and "zoom the fuck out, Jesus".
On my desktop, I certainly don't give a shit about a site offering me a mobile hell, and neither does anyone else. On my phone, I don't view "has a shitfucked mobile version" as a feature, though others may disagree. Is there a way to turn this new "feature" off? Everyone will want it disabled for desktop, and for mobile, well, I'd love to opt out of all of that crap entirely.
That and all the javascript that launches appstore are easily my pet peeves with browsing on my iphone. That can mostly be worked around by using Chrome, Atomic, or Mercury, but still, sheesh.
The difference between a revenge plot and a solution that just happens to fuck over the people who have been giant dicks is a slim one. I prefer to think it is revenge, because, well, it seems so pleasing if it is.
I'm sure he'll do it. They blocked him for like decade with their shenanigans, this one they can't block.
He didn't do it for the wrong reasons. For YEARS he tried to put a studio there, but they wouldn't budge, and insisted on the residential tag on his land. Finally, he said, ok, fine.
So he could have capitulated- which would frankly be ludicrous- or find a way to actually be smart with it, which is what he did.
This, by the way, is like the third coolest thing he's done, with Star Wars at 2 and 2+ billion to charity at 1.
Sigh. "Posted from my iPhone!". Yea, sorry about that. This makes sense if you route the comment to a different point based on assumed source.
> I am calling attention to your failure.
No, you are calling attention to *yours*.
I said:
"Because Steam accounts can be made in an automated fashion, this will greatly ramp up the effort needed by spammers- they'll have to steal cards or spend money."
This is factual. If each account must spend $5, they must either spend their OWN money, or spend someone ELSE's money.
An AC responded with:
"Also to spend money you have to hand over your personal information such as your full home address."
This is NOT CORRECT. Thus, I responded with:
"This is not correct. You can pay cash."
If you purchase a steam card at best buy, gamestop, etc, you can get money to your account without giving them your actual information. You obviously don't want to actually provide false info if it would change your sales tax, but I doubt that's what AC was talking about. There's also some mainly-euro option to pay as well.
To which, YOU replied:
"Try again."
Quoting only my above, correct, statement.
Deciding that you were probably confused, and apparently have a very tiny upload bandwidth, or maybe a keyboard lined with poison daggers, I asked:
"I seriously don't even understand what you are asking here. Or confused about?"
To which you replied, still not answering what the hell you are confused about, with your little gem about "calling attention to my failure".
So, everything I said has been factual and clear. Everything you have said has been terse and confrontational. I think you've typed three sentences, and all have been incorrect.
The Nitrogen (or any asphyxiation that doesn't involve the buildup of Carbon Dioxide) method involves turning off the brain's ability to feel pain as prelude to death.
Given the terrible fuckups that we see in executions recently, it's reasonable to assume that almost anything that can be screwed up, will be screwed up, and this one seems a lot simpler than some three needle solution using drugs you can't get made by anonymous compounding pharmacists you can't find with quality you can't test for administered by doctors that aren't trained. No, none of those things HAVE to happen, but they seem to keep happening.
This sort of execution method sidesteps those problems. But, why do we suspect it is painless? Mostly because people who recover from accidental exposure to Nitrogen generally report being utterly surprised.
In practice, it may be more humane to administer a sedative or even anesthesia beforehand. But acquiring those seems to be the problem in the first place: still, more options would likely be available than in the classic "three drug combination" of lethal injection, where an anesthetic (hopefully) dulls the pain, while a paralytic agent stops breathing (which causes pain) and a heart stopping agent stops the heart (which causes pain).
If they don't go this route, you'll likely see a condemned man struggling to hold his breath as long as he can, trying to avoid death, and eventually losing consciousness, inhaling, regaining consciousness for a moment to flail, and then dying. One thing that's missing from all the real life accounts is that almost everyone who gets into trouble with nitrogen or another oxygen displacing agent doesn't realize that they are in danger until it is too late or almost so, and as such the reports of painlessness are definitely flavored by that fact.
"Who small spender" implies that Steam is beginning to ramp actions up against players who don't spend money. This is an anti-spam measure, and it's actually pretty sensational to ever phrase it as being about "small spenders".
This is not correct. You can pay cash.
I mean, I've definitely spent less than 100. I'm not even sure I've spent 50. I'm certainly no heavy user, but GoD Factory: Wingman isn't anywhere else.
Their goal isn't to shit on light users like me, it's to prevent fucking SPAMMERS. At 5 bucks per account, spamming is nowhere near profitable. At 50 bucks per account, they just shit on casuals.
Right but a Battlefront game is gonna have good game play.
As a Star Wars fan this shit always leaves me so conflicted. Such a lucrative license with so much good stuff.
EA's umbrella companies vary in quality, but many are very good. The corporate burden of being under EA is just fucking immense though, and they put shit into games that should not have shit.
I'll definitely buy Battlefront. My general dislike of the corporation is simply far less than my desire to play some fucking Star Wars. It definitely feels like a captive audience trick, though.