That would probably have the opposite effect. No one in Russia would be part of troll farm companies that are designed to influence opinions if they had better alternatives for earning an income. Part of the reason that's an issue is because even though Russia cast off the Soviet-era central planning, the oligarchy that replaced it has no interest in embracing free market ideals when it might challenge their control, but another issue is that the rest of the world has sanctioned Russia to the extent that it makes it difficult for legitimate commerce to occur. Naturally, this means an expanse in shady (or outright illegal) enterprise.
If you think that trying to punish them economically will crush them, remember that Russians managed the longest run of any Communist country and the self-inflicted economic misery it brings. They're too proud to capitulate to western demands and they've been through worse economically and within recent memory for many of their citizens. Open up markets to them and create better economic opportunity and many of them are likely to act on that. It won't eliminate the troll farms, but it will make them more expensive, or subject them to outsourcing.
How do we educate the masses so they do this automatically?
I'm not sure if it's possible. The human mind is full of little cognitive pitfalls and there's often very little real consequence for most people for getting tripped up in one of them. If someone believes some bogus news article that already reinforces their existing (yet wholly incorrect) beliefs, what are the odds that those beliefs actually cause that person harm in a way that they can directly attribute to their mistaken beliefs? There's no good feedback that motivates better behavior. Worse is that it's comforting to people to have their beliefs reinforced, which makes it even more difficult to expend the additional effort needed to do research.
Even if you can get a person to go that far, there may be little reward outside of the act itself. No one is motivated to learn and share the truth if it just means that every other idiot around them who's more comfortable believing the lie will immediately dog pile the person who has done the research and found a better answer. And that's not just over trivial matters either. This has been true of science as well, where everyone expects the people to be better than the masses. Humans are tribal and we enjoy being part of the pack and even if we're neutral about something, might just join in with the crowd instead of trying to learn the truth. It costs less and increases social cohesion for the individuals to behave that way.
I think that the only realistic chance is for us to genetically modify ourselves and remove those traits. It's a dangerous bit of fire to play with for sure, but I'm not sure there's another way around it. Everyone says that they want people to be good critical thinkers, right up until those critical thinkers question whatever sacred cow the others might have. Then suddenly there isn't so much of a push for it. No person or group of people is likely to have the correct beliefs about everything, so there's always something that they'll try to suppress.
I've got a 6S and some time ago (seems like the last few months) it started acting this way where it needed to be unlocked before it would charge. This only seemed to happen if plugged in to a computer via USB cable though, which I don't do terribly often. I had just assumed it was some new "feature" designed to stymie attempts at cracking security by letting the battery drain down.
School boards are filled with people who have too much time on their hands. That typically means religious folk trying to shove more Jesus into the lessons or the new religious sort trying to shove more wokeness into lessons.
And if Facebook is serious about targeting poorer communities, I doubt the school boards will complain about the extra opportunity whether it is truly beneficial or not.
I think my take away from that job is that a spot check of skin color, gender, and ethnicity can tell you if you *lack* diversity.
I suppose it can if you think diversity is skin deep. However, I don't believe that your assumption is true.
The same group that insists that women are no different than men can't also argue that a lack of women would indicate a lack of diversity. If women are truly no different than men, why would you ever need any women (or for that matter men if you want to look at it from the other side) to be diverse since they are no different from men.
Diversity is only valuable to an organization when it moves past those superficial aspects. Even though I do believe that biological differences in men and women make certain tendencies in values, etc. more likely, I don't feel as though there's any human trait that is the exclusive property of one sex, one ethnicity, etc. The reality of the world might make it less likely for you find certain groups as represented as they might otherwise be due to sociological conditions (e.g. a lower rate of Latino students studying computer science due to that demographic being less well off and less likely to be able to afford early access to computers during the formative years of those students) or other external factors. What might make a person diverse in an organization is not inherent to their sex, skin color, or culture.
That non superficial diversity is hard to find, which I think is the reason that so many people stop at the skin, and trying to focus on that too intently is only going to create problems. It's much like the dog breeders who bred their animals to enhance certain characteristics while failing to pay attention to the overall effects. Their dogs might have the preferred ear shape or style of tail, but they also unknowingly selected for dogs with deformed skeletal systems or greater propensity for various health maladies.
A spot check of skin color, gender, etc. might allow you to assign a higher probability to whether or not you lack diversity, but it can't tell you that for certain. As society progresses and more people are lifted out of poverty and as the world's cultures collide and meld, I think it eventually becomes useless as the various correlations (the stereotypes) dissipate and become small to non-existent. If we are all to truly become equal, then those physical traits are just spurious markers. Insistence that those things matter is just heading down the wrong path.
It's Facebook's money. They can do with it what they want. If you're really concerned that much, take it up at the next share holder meeting if you own any stock. If you don't, why do you care what they do with their money?
The cynic (or maybe the realist) in me just assumes that they drive page views (and therefore advertising) as opposed to anything more sinister. The social justice agenda doesn't go down terribly well around here and these articles seems unlikely to win anyone over. I think it just comes down the fact that anyone can have an opinion on political issues, and will argue in the comments endless, whereas if you run a story about some niche technology, there are fewer people with the knowledge or expertise to comment.
Yes, there is a taste difference between different beans. The grind mostly just determines to what extent the water is going to be able to leach flavor and oils from the grounds. Naturally with larger grounds, you get less flavor. Water temperature also plays a role in all of this as well. While a person can certainly go overboard on some of this, if you take the time to learn what you like and toy with the grind and water temperature a little bit, you can eventually arrive at a perfect cup of coffee. It may not be perfect for anyone else, but it'll be better than what you can get at a lot of coffee shops and far less expensive.
If you're used to drinking Folgers or some other type of swill water, I can see why you might finding it surprising that anyone would go to these kinds of efforts. Coffee addicts are probably worse than just about any other type of junkie when it comes to rituals surrounding preparation. Maybe that's because you have to drink the stuff rather than just shooting it in your arm or putting it up your nose, but once you get a good cup, cream, sugar, etc. are sinful. Just take the cream and Kahlua and make a white Russian as god intended. If you need those in your coffee, that's a good indication it's some pretty shit coffee.
You may want to look at the slides linked in the summary. The phrase "Physics invented and built by men, it’s not by invitation." occurs on a slide (titled "Discrimination against women") seemingly pointing out sexist notions against women in physics. He's not making that claim himself, but pointing to such a claim as an example of sexism.
Maybe you should be strummed out for not doing any basic research as well.
Yes to both. However, the exact way in which the world was batshit crazy has varied greatly. At one point, suggesting that the earth wasn't the center of the universe was enough to be burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Before then, questioning the nature of anything and pissing off the powers that be might well have gotten you literally burned at the stake.
By that same standard they cannot force you to divulge which finger will unlock your device. If they want someone to use a particular finger, they can ask and I suppose a person would be forced to comply, but if it happens to be wrong and locks law enforcement out or wipes the device, that's hardly the person's fault.
Hopefully Apple builds in some kind of ability for the facial recognition system to be told to require an additional password (or other credentials) if a user looks at it in a certain way or that it requires a certain facial expression in order to unlock.
That's rather unfortunate. Hopefully this nonsense gets thrown out.
New Zealand is a beautiful country and one that I would like to visit again. The people were all very nice, but the bozos they've elected as lawmakers don't appear to share some of those same traits.
There's an assumption in there that all of the images, videos, or other material of underage individuals was something that he captured decades ago. I'm not going to pretend to have a good understanding of this person. Most people don't write malware to infect thousands of different individuals, so this guy is probably somewhere outside of our understanding in some ways. I'm also not sure what being able to spy on people all of the time from age 14 does to a person's mind and how it might affect development. Even if you somehow started out "normal", I think that might warp a person a little bit.
Also, most 14 year old boys are interested in older women, not 14 year old girls. At that age we were trying to get a Playboy to look at naked women, not naked girls. Of course when you're 14, adult women want absolutely nothing to do with you, so you have to settle for someone your own age. But if you're still interested in 14 year old girls after 18, there may be something wrong with you or you might be developmentally stunted in some way.
I find it odd that apparently I'm supposed to figure out the sexual proclivities of everyone, in order to know who to be extra sensitive to. I don't know the gender, race, or sexual interests of most of the people involved in projects I work on, because why would you even bring that up? It's irelevant.
If you have no technical ability or merit but want to throw your weight around it's kind of hard to do that without something to suggest that some animals are more equal than others.
Doesn't make any sense to me why that would be part of the software development process.
People who can accomplish no good of their own often try to claim some special status or greatness through innate characteristics because it's all that they have. It's just as idiotic and reprehensible when it's because of sexual orientation or gender identity as it is when it's due to their skin color or national heritage. We've already seen well enough where this type of thinking leads in the instances of the latter cases, and the rhetoric espoused by those today who take pride in the former doesn't lead me to believe that they'd be much different were they to obtain similar levels of power.
when faced with a large outbreak. Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc.
If you have a large outbreak and it's the kind of flu that knocks people straight on their asses instead of just giving them some sniffles and aches and pains, there aren't enough medical care facilities to handle ~10% of the population suddenly needing medical care to potentially prevent their deaths. Even if you get a flu that has a 10% mortality rate, with 10% of the population catching it, that's around 3.5 million deaths in the U.S. That's well over the annual number of deaths and having that many in a short window would create large issue in itself.
That's another problem the world has (America especially). This idea that we can't do anything about these things.
There are things that can be done (I would say you're probably going to have the best results by taking personal precautions than anything the government tries to do), but it's not as easy as saying that we've got a really good plan and expecting the universe to go along with it. As the saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Outside of having something akin to antibiotics that would be easily distributable and effective at treating the illness, most of what you might try to propose is just not going to be feasible or nearly as effective as you'd like. If you could have these big plans at a national level that actually worked anywhere near as well as we would like, the Soviets would have won the cold war.
For something like the flu, I don't think there's much that can be done. A huge chunk of the population gets it every single year and you can't really vaccinate against it effectively, so if it's a particularly deadly strain it's going to kill a lot of people. It doesn't matter how good of a healthcare system you have, or what kind of coordinated response you think you have in place, because it will get overwhelmed.
About the only thing that can be done is to devise some way of treating viral infections or shutting them down, Basically something like antibiotics that can take out the virus or destroy enough of it to prevent people from getting ill to the point that it becomes fatal.
I was kind of curious so I searched "MikeeUSA" and one of the top hits is an Encyclopedia Dramatic page for him. That's pretty much a guarantee that he's some kind of complete nutter just in itself. Apparently he got thrown off of Sourceforge years and years ago for being a dick and has made posts online in support of men being able to marry or have sex with pre-pubescent girls.
Whether he's serious about any of that or just a troll trying to be utterly outrageous doesn't really matter. When someone has a reputation for spouting all kinds of inane or idiotic crap, it's hardly an ad hominem attack to point out that the person behind some new message has a history of spouting all kinds of crap. If someone told you that a car dealer you were looking to buy from had an extensive history of cheating customers and screwing them over and there's plenty of documented proof of it, you don't accuse the person of making ad hominem attacks against the car dealer. You thank that person for pointing that out and saving you from getting suckered.
Whether the CoC drives people away or not is irrelevant to the person making this push being deranged in some manner.
Indeed. No one is forcing anyone to use Google, YouTube, or any of the other services. If those companies want to become some kind of ideological echo chamber and chase away users, that's their own business. No one gets angry at the Mormon church for not having sermons from the Quran.
I suspect that the real angle behind this is a veiled threat of the government considering these platforms to be monopolies, in which case they probably would lose some of their freedom to discriminate on the content that they want to carry. Realistically, it won't even come to that. The government doesn't actually have the will to pursue that and it's the kind of thing that would just get quashed when the parties change power again. This is really just an opportunity for Congress to make speeches and act tough so that they have some good sound bites for their base.
It's just more song and dance and we'll need some new spectacle once the Senate hearings are over.
You'd still want to develop alternative forms of energy. Eventually we exhaust the world's supply of fissile materials in much the same way that the coal or oil runs out. Granted, that will take a long time even with the currently explored deposits, but nuclear is not the end game itself. Assuming your civilization lives long enough to explore and master space, you'd eventually want to build a Dyson sphere or a Ringworld. There are no downsides to solar when the sun is always shining.
You are aware that it's entirely possible to troll with facts (and I would say the best trolls probably do involve some facts) aren't you? It's not whether you've posted facts or not, but what you're trying to do with them. In this case, instigating a fight about who's fault it is. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but it's still a likely consequence.
Sometimes a little shit stirring is necessary or can help point out the absurdity of an article. Other times it's just shaking the ant farm to see if you can start a fight.
Or that the real target it something else. While everyone is busy monitoring Zuck's account and what this hacker is doing to their system as he's streaming and discussing what he's doing, they're not paying attention to what someone else is doing elsewhere at the same time.
I'm assuming that they can still enable the feature, but they just can't advertise it as being an ECG. I think it's kind of cool that they're doing more health stuff as that's what would make me want a smartwatch more than any of the phone integration stuff, but I don't think the features are quite there, or at least not for what Apple wants to charge.
I bought a surface book when they first came out, but probably won't get another one. Eventually it experienced some problems and Microsoft's support was bad. It was a pretty neat piece of hardware, but not a good value all things considered.
Slashdot Mirror
That would probably have the opposite effect. No one in Russia would be part of troll farm companies that are designed to influence opinions if they had better alternatives for earning an income. Part of the reason that's an issue is because even though Russia cast off the Soviet-era central planning, the oligarchy that replaced it has no interest in embracing free market ideals when it might challenge their control, but another issue is that the rest of the world has sanctioned Russia to the extent that it makes it difficult for legitimate commerce to occur. Naturally, this means an expanse in shady (or outright illegal) enterprise.
If you think that trying to punish them economically will crush them, remember that Russians managed the longest run of any Communist country and the self-inflicted economic misery it brings. They're too proud to capitulate to western demands and they've been through worse economically and within recent memory for many of their citizens. Open up markets to them and create better economic opportunity and many of them are likely to act on that. It won't eliminate the troll farms, but it will make them more expensive, or subject them to outsourcing.
How do we educate the masses so they do this automatically?
I'm not sure if it's possible. The human mind is full of little cognitive pitfalls and there's often very little real consequence for most people for getting tripped up in one of them. If someone believes some bogus news article that already reinforces their existing (yet wholly incorrect) beliefs, what are the odds that those beliefs actually cause that person harm in a way that they can directly attribute to their mistaken beliefs? There's no good feedback that motivates better behavior. Worse is that it's comforting to people to have their beliefs reinforced, which makes it even more difficult to expend the additional effort needed to do research.
Even if you can get a person to go that far, there may be little reward outside of the act itself. No one is motivated to learn and share the truth if it just means that every other idiot around them who's more comfortable believing the lie will immediately dog pile the person who has done the research and found a better answer. And that's not just over trivial matters either. This has been true of science as well, where everyone expects the people to be better than the masses. Humans are tribal and we enjoy being part of the pack and even if we're neutral about something, might just join in with the crowd instead of trying to learn the truth. It costs less and increases social cohesion for the individuals to behave that way.
I think that the only realistic chance is for us to genetically modify ourselves and remove those traits. It's a dangerous bit of fire to play with for sure, but I'm not sure there's another way around it. Everyone says that they want people to be good critical thinkers, right up until those critical thinkers question whatever sacred cow the others might have. Then suddenly there isn't so much of a push for it. No person or group of people is likely to have the correct beliefs about everything, so there's always something that they'll try to suppress.
I've got a 6S and some time ago (seems like the last few months) it started acting this way where it needed to be unlocked before it would charge. This only seemed to happen if plugged in to a computer via USB cable though, which I don't do terribly often. I had just assumed it was some new "feature" designed to stymie attempts at cracking security by letting the battery drain down.
School boards are filled with people who have too much time on their hands. That typically means religious folk trying to shove more Jesus into the lessons or the new religious sort trying to shove more wokeness into lessons.
And if Facebook is serious about targeting poorer communities, I doubt the school boards will complain about the extra opportunity whether it is truly beneficial or not.
I think my take away from that job is that a spot check of skin color, gender, and ethnicity can tell you if you *lack* diversity.
I suppose it can if you think diversity is skin deep. However, I don't believe that your assumption is true.
The same group that insists that women are no different than men can't also argue that a lack of women would indicate a lack of diversity. If women are truly no different than men, why would you ever need any women (or for that matter men if you want to look at it from the other side) to be diverse since they are no different from men.
Diversity is only valuable to an organization when it moves past those superficial aspects. Even though I do believe that biological differences in men and women make certain tendencies in values, etc. more likely, I don't feel as though there's any human trait that is the exclusive property of one sex, one ethnicity, etc. The reality of the world might make it less likely for you find certain groups as represented as they might otherwise be due to sociological conditions (e.g. a lower rate of Latino students studying computer science due to that demographic being less well off and less likely to be able to afford early access to computers during the formative years of those students) or other external factors. What might make a person diverse in an organization is not inherent to their sex, skin color, or culture.
That non superficial diversity is hard to find, which I think is the reason that so many people stop at the skin, and trying to focus on that too intently is only going to create problems. It's much like the dog breeders who bred their animals to enhance certain characteristics while failing to pay attention to the overall effects. Their dogs might have the preferred ear shape or style of tail, but they also unknowingly selected for dogs with deformed skeletal systems or greater propensity for various health maladies.
A spot check of skin color, gender, etc. might allow you to assign a higher probability to whether or not you lack diversity, but it can't tell you that for certain. As society progresses and more people are lifted out of poverty and as the world's cultures collide and meld, I think it eventually becomes useless as the various correlations (the stereotypes) dissipate and become small to non-existent. If we are all to truly become equal, then those physical traits are just spurious markers. Insistence that those things matter is just heading down the wrong path.
It's Facebook's money. They can do with it what they want. If you're really concerned that much, take it up at the next share holder meeting if you own any stock. If you don't, why do you care what they do with their money?
The cynic (or maybe the realist) in me just assumes that they drive page views (and therefore advertising) as opposed to anything more sinister. The social justice agenda doesn't go down terribly well around here and these articles seems unlikely to win anyone over. I think it just comes down the fact that anyone can have an opinion on political issues, and will argue in the comments endless, whereas if you run a story about some niche technology, there are fewer people with the knowledge or expertise to comment.
Yes, there is a taste difference between different beans. The grind mostly just determines to what extent the water is going to be able to leach flavor and oils from the grounds. Naturally with larger grounds, you get less flavor. Water temperature also plays a role in all of this as well. While a person can certainly go overboard on some of this, if you take the time to learn what you like and toy with the grind and water temperature a little bit, you can eventually arrive at a perfect cup of coffee. It may not be perfect for anyone else, but it'll be better than what you can get at a lot of coffee shops and far less expensive.
If you're used to drinking Folgers or some other type of swill water, I can see why you might finding it surprising that anyone would go to these kinds of efforts. Coffee addicts are probably worse than just about any other type of junkie when it comes to rituals surrounding preparation. Maybe that's because you have to drink the stuff rather than just shooting it in your arm or putting it up your nose, but once you get a good cup, cream, sugar, etc. are sinful. Just take the cream and Kahlua and make a white Russian as god intended. If you need those in your coffee, that's a good indication it's some pretty shit coffee.
You may want to look at the slides linked in the summary. The phrase "Physics invented and built by men, it’s not by invitation." occurs on a slide (titled "Discrimination against women") seemingly pointing out sexist notions against women in physics. He's not making that claim himself, but pointing to such a claim as an example of sexism.
Maybe you should be strummed out for not doing any basic research as well.
Yes to both. However, the exact way in which the world was batshit crazy has varied greatly. At one point, suggesting that the earth wasn't the center of the universe was enough to be burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Before then, questioning the nature of anything and pissing off the powers that be might well have gotten you literally burned at the stake.
By that same standard they cannot force you to divulge which finger will unlock your device. If they want someone to use a particular finger, they can ask and I suppose a person would be forced to comply, but if it happens to be wrong and locks law enforcement out or wipes the device, that's hardly the person's fault.
Hopefully Apple builds in some kind of ability for the facial recognition system to be told to require an additional password (or other credentials) if a user looks at it in a certain way or that it requires a certain facial expression in order to unlock.
That's rather unfortunate. Hopefully this nonsense gets thrown out.
New Zealand is a beautiful country and one that I would like to visit again. The people were all very nice, but the bozos they've elected as lawmakers don't appear to share some of those same traits.
There's an assumption in there that all of the images, videos, or other material of underage individuals was something that he captured decades ago. I'm not going to pretend to have a good understanding of this person. Most people don't write malware to infect thousands of different individuals, so this guy is probably somewhere outside of our understanding in some ways. I'm also not sure what being able to spy on people all of the time from age 14 does to a person's mind and how it might affect development. Even if you somehow started out "normal", I think that might warp a person a little bit.
Also, most 14 year old boys are interested in older women, not 14 year old girls. At that age we were trying to get a Playboy to look at naked women, not naked girls. Of course when you're 14, adult women want absolutely nothing to do with you, so you have to settle for someone your own age. But if you're still interested in 14 year old girls after 18, there may be something wrong with you or you might be developmentally stunted in some way.
I find it odd that apparently I'm supposed to figure out the sexual proclivities of everyone, in order to know who to be extra sensitive to. I don't know the gender, race, or sexual interests of most of the people involved in projects I work on, because why would you even bring that up? It's irelevant.
If you have no technical ability or merit but want to throw your weight around it's kind of hard to do that without something to suggest that some animals are more equal than others.
Doesn't make any sense to me why that would be part of the software development process.
People who can accomplish no good of their own often try to claim some special status or greatness through innate characteristics because it's all that they have. It's just as idiotic and reprehensible when it's because of sexual orientation or gender identity as it is when it's due to their skin color or national heritage. We've already seen well enough where this type of thinking leads in the instances of the latter cases, and the rhetoric espoused by those today who take pride in the former doesn't lead me to believe that they'd be much different were they to obtain similar levels of power.
This isn't exactly a huge deal for the Wikimedia foundation anyways. If you look at their financial reports, they've got plenty of money.
when faced with a large outbreak. Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc.
If you have a large outbreak and it's the kind of flu that knocks people straight on their asses instead of just giving them some sniffles and aches and pains, there aren't enough medical care facilities to handle ~10% of the population suddenly needing medical care to potentially prevent their deaths. Even if you get a flu that has a 10% mortality rate, with 10% of the population catching it, that's around 3.5 million deaths in the U.S. That's well over the annual number of deaths and having that many in a short window would create large issue in itself.
That's another problem the world has (America especially). This idea that we can't do anything about these things.
There are things that can be done (I would say you're probably going to have the best results by taking personal precautions than anything the government tries to do), but it's not as easy as saying that we've got a really good plan and expecting the universe to go along with it. As the saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Outside of having something akin to antibiotics that would be easily distributable and effective at treating the illness, most of what you might try to propose is just not going to be feasible or nearly as effective as you'd like. If you could have these big plans at a national level that actually worked anywhere near as well as we would like, the Soviets would have won the cold war.
For something like the flu, I don't think there's much that can be done. A huge chunk of the population gets it every single year and you can't really vaccinate against it effectively, so if it's a particularly deadly strain it's going to kill a lot of people. It doesn't matter how good of a healthcare system you have, or what kind of coordinated response you think you have in place, because it will get overwhelmed.
About the only thing that can be done is to devise some way of treating viral infections or shutting them down, Basically something like antibiotics that can take out the virus or destroy enough of it to prevent people from getting ill to the point that it becomes fatal.
I was kind of curious so I searched "MikeeUSA" and one of the top hits is an Encyclopedia Dramatic page for him. That's pretty much a guarantee that he's some kind of complete nutter just in itself. Apparently he got thrown off of Sourceforge years and years ago for being a dick and has made posts online in support of men being able to marry or have sex with pre-pubescent girls.
Whether he's serious about any of that or just a troll trying to be utterly outrageous doesn't really matter. When someone has a reputation for spouting all kinds of inane or idiotic crap, it's hardly an ad hominem attack to point out that the person behind some new message has a history of spouting all kinds of crap. If someone told you that a car dealer you were looking to buy from had an extensive history of cheating customers and screwing them over and there's plenty of documented proof of it, you don't accuse the person of making ad hominem attacks against the car dealer. You thank that person for pointing that out and saving you from getting suckered.
Whether the CoC drives people away or not is irrelevant to the person making this push being deranged in some manner.
Apparently the XS wasn't "excess", but "access". Must be the Silicon Valley accent that threw me.
Indeed. No one is forcing anyone to use Google, YouTube, or any of the other services. If those companies want to become some kind of ideological echo chamber and chase away users, that's their own business. No one gets angry at the Mormon church for not having sermons from the Quran.
I suspect that the real angle behind this is a veiled threat of the government considering these platforms to be monopolies, in which case they probably would lose some of their freedom to discriminate on the content that they want to carry. Realistically, it won't even come to that. The government doesn't actually have the will to pursue that and it's the kind of thing that would just get quashed when the parties change power again. This is really just an opportunity for Congress to make speeches and act tough so that they have some good sound bites for their base.
It's just more song and dance and we'll need some new spectacle once the Senate hearings are over.
You'd still want to develop alternative forms of energy. Eventually we exhaust the world's supply of fissile materials in much the same way that the coal or oil runs out. Granted, that will take a long time even with the currently explored deposits, but nuclear is not the end game itself. Assuming your civilization lives long enough to explore and master space, you'd eventually want to build a Dyson sphere or a Ringworld. There are no downsides to solar when the sun is always shining.
You are aware that it's entirely possible to troll with facts (and I would say the best trolls probably do involve some facts) aren't you? It's not whether you've posted facts or not, but what you're trying to do with them. In this case, instigating a fight about who's fault it is. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but it's still a likely consequence.
Sometimes a little shit stirring is necessary or can help point out the absurdity of an article. Other times it's just shaking the ant farm to see if you can start a fight.
Or that the real target it something else. While everyone is busy monitoring Zuck's account and what this hacker is doing to their system as he's streaming and discussing what he's doing, they're not paying attention to what someone else is doing elsewhere at the same time.
I'm assuming that they can still enable the feature, but they just can't advertise it as being an ECG. I think it's kind of cool that they're doing more health stuff as that's what would make me want a smartwatch more than any of the phone integration stuff, but I don't think the features are quite there, or at least not for what Apple wants to charge.
I bought a surface book when they first came out, but probably won't get another one. Eventually it experienced some problems and Microsoft's support was bad. It was a pretty neat piece of hardware, but not a good value all things considered.