They were a blockbuster success. $3 billion gross box office. A lot of people saw them.
I personally enjoyed them, but didn't really like them. I liked parts of them, and even enjoyed some of the changes they made, and backstory bits they added in.
But even with the additions it felt like butter scraped over too much bread.;)
"The fact that they need a code of conduct suggests that what you say is not true. "
They need a normal terms of use, like any other site; and calling it a Code of Conduct isn't the issue. This is from the Rust site:
We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, or similar personal characteristic. [...] If you feel you have been or are being harassed or made uncomfortable by a community member, please contact any of the Rust Moderation Team immediately. Whether you are a regular contributor or a newcomer, we care about making the community a safe space for you.
"safe space" originally simply meant a place free of violence etc. But, well, wikipedia puts it very well: "The term safe space has been extended to refer to an autonomous space for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with marginalization".
THAT is the issue. I expect a programming language community to exist to disseminate information about the programming language in a professional and efficient way. I support them in maintaining such a forum free from harassment and abuse. But I don't want to join the Rust forums to discuss LGBT themes of marginalization. I don't want to hear about your religious persecution. I don't care about your syndrome or your battle with cancer. I certainly don't want to listen to your anti-science twaddle about vaccination.
My experience with 'safe spaces' is pretty much consistent with the wikipedia description...a gathering of people who want to share personal stories of their abuse, empowerment, marginalization, and triumphs; and socialize with others with similar experiences in a supportive and non judgemental way. That's what I think I of when I think 'safe space'.
Rust is a programming language. Nobody has been marginalized for using rust. And everything else doesn't belong on the site. This is why it merits an eye roll. 'safe space' is the either the wrong term to describe their mission, or... if its the right term then the community has entirely the wrong mission.
If you can be excluded from interaction because people disagree with you, then it's not a viable language.
For what its worth, I just roll my eyes at rust's 'code of conduct'. Not because I disagree with it, per se, but because I think its a silly distraction.
If you are an offensive asshole, people will exclude you from interaction even without a "code of conduct".
anonymity or pseudo anonymity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is social media.
Your not wrong that facebook is a whole extra kind of evil with the real world ID layer, and your not wrong about that making facebook 'totally different' in that regard.
But in the way they 'create' engagement -- they aren't that dissimilar.
Pretty much. Nobody is buying bitcoin right now to make purchases, you simply don't buy something that's experiencing value increaases like this to use to buy a hamburger tomorrow.
Tons of people are buying into it precisely because its shooting up... which makes it shoot up higher. That not only speculation... its bubble behavior.
"Freedom of speech means that someone cannot shut me up just because they don't like what I am saying."
"They do not have to give me a platform to say it"
Who is 'they' and what is a 'platform' ? Should a high school student writing an essay not be given the widest latitude possible to write whatever they want to write? Always.
Is it reasonable for the maker of the pencil and paper to restrict the student only writing friendly, positive things, that won't be offensive, and that do not disparage the maker of the pencil ?
Yet this is essentially what we have here. Google is providing the 'pen', to a student in an eduational setting... and then putting ridiculous and frankly unreasonable boundaries on the freedom to express themselves, by dint of 'owning the platform'. Do you want to live in a world where the maker of your computer has editorial say of the novel you are writing?
There should be law in place to grant people, especially students and private individuals etc unrestricted creative expression. The rule should not be "if you don't like the platform don't use it"; everything is a "platform". And your freedom to express yourself creatively shouldn't be contingent on the collective agreement of the platform owners to allow it.
You found the loop hole: just live in a cave or on a desert island far from civilization.;)
Instead of ads, you'll try to play a movie and you'll get an error message about network connectivity that you can't dismiss or bypass or click-thru, rendering the TV completely unusable.
"The service is setup so Amazon unlocks the doors, the delivery person puts your package down just inside the door, and he closes the door. All on camera. If he goes off camera, he's fired. It's really that simple."
That's the wedge to get customer acceptance. And some articles show a pair of hands just reaching through the door to leave the package, but the article I saw showed a picture of a guy putting groceries in the fridge... which given they bought whole foods kind of makes a lot of sense right? How is a little cloud cam at the front door going to see him nicking things from the kitchen? The article also went on from there... how amazon would would be partnering with every 'merry maid' and dog walking service too.
My grandmother needed assistance for a year or so to help clean up, make sure she took her medicine, after my grandfather passed away. So a couple times a day, various nurses and health care workers showed up. She's since moved into a home. As her sons (my father and uncle); went through her home packing things up and sorting things out they discovered an incredible amount of theft had taken place. Jewellery, china, coats, silverware...
My other grandmother was considering some in home care after some cataract surgery and the hospital advised my mom to make sure anything valuable was out of sight, and locked away. They said "it would go missing and you'll never be able to prove they stole it."
It's an epidemic.
"If someone really wants to break into your house, they'll just use a fucking brick. Off camera as well."
The number of people who will stab you for $50 is a tiny subset of the number of people who will take an unattended $50 left lying around.
The vast majority of thieves that will nick your grandmothers silverware while putting vegetables in the fridge would never throw a fucking brick through a window in a million years. The fact that that people willing to kick the door in and shoot anyone they find inside in order to steal $100 worth of pawn-able goods exist in the world simply does not justify letting delivery people into your house when you aren't home.
And that's assuming you aren't home. What if you are. What if you called in sick, or your daughter came home from school early and is taking a shower. Sure they knock first... and the occupant ignores the door because they don't want to let anyone in... and then in comes a delivery person. Are you really so obsessed with your amazon deliveries that you are going to proactively think to block the key from working in all these scenarios. And after 50 deliveries, are you really going to review the security footage every time?
What if he gets an accomplice, delivery guy walks in, backs up to the camera blocking its view, and an accomplice walks in through the blocked line of site. The delivery agent walks out package in place. The accomplice has the run of the place and lets himself out the back door.
"The other kind of response people have are to direct their attention to a specific product within their existing desires. E.g. You're thirsty, the advert will likely make you drink Coke instead of say Pepsi."
I'm sure you already know all this, since you're actually in marketing...
Most people have more abstract pre-existing desires than 'I'm thirsty... I need a drink'. Stuff like "I want to be successful. I want to fit in. I want to be happy. I want to be healthy. I want to be secure. I want to be loved. I want to be respected. I want to have fun. I want to find meaning in life. I want to be attractive. I want to be comfortable."
Coke hasn't really advertised that its product will resolve your immediate thirst problem in decades. It's been advertising to a batch of those more abstract wants. Likewise, car ads aren't made for people who need to get somewhere.
In either case only the really weak of mind end up spending more. Most people just end up spending the same but with different vendors.
Here's a few stats that refute that argument, showing advertising directly increases sales accross all vendors. (so its not just shifting dollars from vendor a to vendor b).
Here's a study that shows people who are already fans of a product will buy more of the product due to ads. (ie if Adidas was ALREADY their preferred vendor when it comes time to buy shorts they'll buy adidias so showing them ads isn't going to help right? Nope... they'll buy more than they would have otherwise with ads.)
The ad system, analytics, and telemetry, only require a few megabytes a month of data to download and update.
We are fast approaching the point where Samsung / Sony / etc could sell you a TV with a cellular radio good and 20GB pre-paid data that would last it 20 years.
It doesn't need to connect to your network, or follow your routers rules.
" (Side note: I trust Google with my location data more than the government)."
That's cute.
"You are incredibly weak minded."
If you think advertising doesn't work on people, or that it only works on the 'incredibly weak minded', and above all if you think that it doesn't work on you, then you are delusional.
Its far more sensible to assume that it does work on you, in ways you aren't immediately cognizant of. After all practically nobody sees an add for a new car with a sunroof and immediately heads out to buy it; its not that simplistic.
"it entices me to pick one product over the other"
You've already lost if your starting point is choosing which product to buy.
I'd say a good example that the incompetent manage to find where they ran the installer twice in parallel.
Everyone else who was in testing ran the installer just fine, and started testing the software. Later on it went out to a limited release of customers... next day I had a report of some bizarre installation failures. Some idiot had downloaded the installer, double clicked, and then since the window didn't open up fast enough doubleclicked it again. Then a competent person would have realized the 2nd setup window was because they'd launched it twice... but not this guy... and he went back and forth between the two setup instances making different choices along the way in the two wizards and not realizing it. The end result was some weirdly corrupt configuration settings.
"If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it."
Think about what that actually means.
" monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange."
At the end of the year, there is less money in your bank account. That is the service they provide you.
'better translation', 'predictive alerts', 'location'... all so that they can sell access to you to someone who wants to sell you something you didn't need, targeted to you. To plant a seed to buy it.
I have noticed over the last several years, my efforts to block ads and consume ad free sources has had the unexpected side benefit of reducing our material wants... and reduce our spending in general. We simply don't buy as much, even the kids want noticably less. The result, I think, is that when we do want things its stuff we really do want.
What you see as 'relevant ads' in your search results, I see as something I was perfectly happy not knowing about, that i don't need, and won't miss.
That's not surprising, the two groups that are best for finding bugs are the power users and the completely incompetent.
I'd say that there are at least 3 groups. Some developers are also really good testers. Some power users are really good testers. And the totally incompetent also are brilliant at finding bugs.
And you really want your QA to include all 3 types, because they each find different kinds of problems.
"Where as the only predictions we get from the global warming camp are either so far in the future that they won't be testable until those who made and funded the predictions are all dead, OR they turn out to be completely off."
They have reliably been predicting temperature increases since the 70s and 80s and lots of those predictions are pretty close.
The effect of those predictions on things like the antartic ice sheet, glaciers, the north west passage etc has also all been borne out.
Climate and weather are pretty chaotic systems, and respond to unpredictable events (solar activity, volcanic activity, massive forest fires, etc) and assumptions about human activities like the rate of deforestation or industrialization of developing countries that you just can't know decades in advance even if your model is perfect.
the broad strokes stuff has been correct. the temperature is rising. carbon levels are rising. ice is melting. ocean levels are rising.
the fact that a climate prediction made in 1980 is off because their estimates of volcanic activity, the rate of industrialization (in China and India were off) resulting in underestimating the manmade aerosol emissions etc etc... hardly refutes the theory itself.
" Once every few months I need to fast charge my phone, so I plug it in. 15 minutes and I've got 3-4 hrs of battery ready to go."
That pretty much nails the issue. I'm not excited by wireless charging, but i have no objection to it either.... I wrote "meh" precisely because I'm not committed either way.
I guess I do like the CHOICE though.
I figure it won't be long before courageous it is to remove the charging port and remove that choice too.
And then the people using solar chargers while camping will be pissed, and the people with usb batteries will be pissed, and the people used to rapid charging it occasionally for whatever reason will be pissed...
Thanks that's actually pretty informative, putting the cost into real pespective instead of just relative efficiency.
I will say that I still don't like that my phone is always quite warm to the touch when its on its wireless charger. I instinctively beleive that's not "good for it".
And that stuff like those addon USB battery packs and solar chargers and crank chargers don't work as well because there the loss of efficiency really matters. But I concede that's more of a niche.
" Oh, and in the end the argument is sounding an awful lot like "black people are too poor, lazy and irresponsible to get an ID so let's not require them to have one"
Nothing of the sort.
" Think of all the things that require a photo ID, renting anything, buying some things, entering a Federal building, boarding a plane, GETTING A JOB, cashing a check, opening a bank account, collecting government benefits, etc, etc"
None of those things are required. Lots of people work for cash, or don't work for any number of reasons. How often do people enter federal building. Lots of people never fly. checks can be handled by simply signing it over to someone you trust to cash it, or maybe you already have an account from 40 years ago, etc, etc.
The point is, lots of people are getting along fine without one.
"If having a photo ID is such a burden, all that needs to go and we need to go back to trusting people to honestly identify themselves."
I didn't say that. I didn't even say that its unreasonable to have some sort of photo id... but we should recognize that its going to be a burden on people who don't have id to get it, and we should recognize that the demographics of people who don't have id aligns with racial and income demographics.
Any system we implement should pay attention that reality, and go above and beyond to ensure that people who don't have ID can get ID rather than get trapped in a Kafkaesque maze of catch-22s where they need x to get y, and y to get x etc.
You want voter id... fine figure out a method where anyone who shoes up can leave with an ID. And if you can do that without tatooing a number on everyone's forehead and wrist that would be terrific.
"If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?"
A scientist has predicted superbugs that will prove immune to all known antibiotics will decimate humanity within the century. What if that doesn't happen? Does that invalidate the theory of natural selection?
A scientist has predicted a mega-earthquake off the coast of British within the next hundred years. If that doesn't happen, would that invalidate the theory of plate tectonics?
That's about how absurd your position is.
Climate models are making all kinds of predictions, and lots of the predictions are coming true. And every time one fails we refine the models. What do you really expect... the observational data we have doesn't change, we just keep adding more... the new models still have to fit the data. There is no theory here you can slay at a single stroke with one test.
Even if a super volcano went off and the resulting clouds of dust sent the world into an unscheduled ice-age that wouldn't invalidate the theories behind climate change. It just obviously means any model that didn't incorporate this new event would not predict anything useful.
wireless charge is...meh. I've got a phone with it, i'd rather plug it in. It charges faster plugged in, it charges cooler plugged in, and it takes less electricity to charge it plugged in.
wireless charging is pretty much a step backwards in every possible way... except a slight convenience.
So? The supreme court ruled it wasn't an "undue burden".
An 'undue burden' is a burden that is deemed unreasonably great.
That doesn't refute that its a burden, nor does it refute that the burden disproportionately affects the poor or affects people of color.
And I'm not even suggesting that the supreme court erred in judging it a reasonable burden. Frankly, I think its pretty reasonable too... but I am under no illusions that everyone can get an id with equal ease. I remember growing up and some of my friends had a miserable time getting ID while for others it was trivial.
Bank account in your own name, fixed address receiving utility bills in your name, birth certificate in hand... you can obtain / replace your ID without much trouble. But if your living with someone (all the bills in someone elses name), you don't have your birth certificate, or bank account, etc... getting ID is a royal PITA. Getting a bank account requires ID. Getting a replacement birth cert requires ID... getting a state ID requires the others.
"Every employed person is likely to be working between 9 and 5, Monday through Friday. Is it inconvenient to give up a lunch break, or lose a bit of time on the clock?"
Yeah, people living paycheck to paycheck are going to be hurt more by giving up some time on the clock. And they likely work for employers who won't give them the time off.
"Sure. It's inconvenient for anyone, yet somehow everyone has always managed to deal with it. "
The people who didn't manage to deal with it didn't vote.
"Rich folks would breeze through because they have drivers licenses?? Poor people don't? People of color don't?"
Yes.
The most common voter ID is a driverâ(TM)s license, and minorities are less likely to drive. A 2007 study found that in California, New Mexico, and Washington, whites were more likely to have driverâ(TM)s licenses than nonwhites. In Orange County, Calif., about 92 percent of white voters had driverâ(TM)s licenses, compared with only 84 percent of Latino voters and 81 percent of âoeotherâ voters. A 2005 study of Wisconsin similarly found that while about 80 percent of white residents had licenses, only about half of African-American and Hispanic residents had licenses.
"Think about it, if getting to a government office is a problem for getting an ID, then it's a problem to get to any office for any reason. Yet people manage every day no matter what they do or how much they make."
That's a pretty ridiculous argument. If 98% of rich people manage it, and 90% of poor people manage it... you've created a bias. Nobody said 'all poor people can't get registered', only that it's a bigger obstacle that disproportionately affects them.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone even go see The Hobbit?
They were a blockbuster success. $3 billion gross box office. A lot of people saw them.
I personally enjoyed them, but didn't really like them. I liked parts of them, and even enjoyed some of the changes they made, and backstory bits they added in.
But even with the additions it felt like butter scraped over too much bread. ;)
"The fact that they need a code of conduct suggests that what you say is not true. "
They need a normal terms of use, like any other site; and calling it a Code of Conduct isn't the issue. This is from the Rust site:
We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, or similar personal characteristic. [...]
If you feel you have been or are being harassed or made uncomfortable by a community member, please contact any of the Rust Moderation Team immediately. Whether you are a regular contributor or a newcomer, we care about making the community a safe space for you.
"safe space" originally simply meant a place free of violence etc. But, well, wikipedia puts it very well: "The term safe space has been extended to refer to an autonomous space for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with marginalization".
THAT is the issue. I expect a programming language community to exist to disseminate information about the programming language in a professional and efficient way. I support them in maintaining such a forum free from harassment and abuse. But I don't want to join the Rust forums to discuss LGBT themes of marginalization. I don't want to hear about your religious persecution. I don't care about your syndrome or your battle with cancer. I certainly don't want to listen to your anti-science twaddle about vaccination.
My experience with 'safe spaces' is pretty much consistent with the wikipedia description...a gathering of people who want to share personal stories of their abuse, empowerment, marginalization, and triumphs; and socialize with others with similar experiences in a supportive and non judgemental way. That's what I think I of when I think 'safe space'.
Rust is a programming language. Nobody has been marginalized for using rust. And everything else doesn't belong on the site. This is why it merits an eye roll. 'safe space' is the either the wrong term to describe their mission, or... if its the right term then the community has entirely the wrong mission.
"What's the benefit to this versus what I already have?"
Presumably it's available out of the box and ready to go with a few touches of a button, with official support from the vendor.
If you can be excluded from interaction because people disagree with you, then it's not a viable language.
For what its worth, I just roll my eyes at rust's 'code of conduct'. Not because I disagree with it, per se, but because I think its a silly distraction.
If you are an offensive asshole, people will exclude you from interaction even without a "code of conduct".
Typically fresh hires get more than the people already running the same cogs. They tricked the niave oldsters into not finding out the truth
And then the companies fire all the old people so they can be replaced with younger people willing to work for less.
Right. :p
anonymity or pseudo anonymity has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is social media.
Your not wrong that facebook is a whole extra kind of evil with the real world ID layer, and your not wrong about that making facebook 'totally different' in that regard.
But in the way they 'create' engagement -- they aren't that dissimilar.
But if you come back to /. to see if any one replied you'll get your little dopamine hit. Same shit.
PS: Your welcome.
Pretty much. Nobody is buying bitcoin right now to make purchases, you simply don't buy something that's experiencing value increaases like this to use to buy a hamburger tomorrow.
Tons of people are buying into it precisely because its shooting up... which makes it shoot up higher. That not only speculation... its bubble behavior.
"Freedom of speech means that someone cannot shut me up just because they don't like what I am saying."
"They do not have to give me a platform to say it"
Who is 'they' and what is a 'platform' ?
Should a high school student writing an essay not be given the widest latitude possible to write whatever they want to write? Always.
Is it reasonable for the maker of the pencil and paper to restrict the student only writing friendly, positive things, that won't be offensive, and that do not disparage the maker of the pencil ?
Yet this is essentially what we have here. Google is providing the 'pen', to a student in an eduational setting... and then putting ridiculous and frankly unreasonable boundaries on the freedom to express themselves, by dint of 'owning the platform'. Do you want to live in a world where the maker of your computer has editorial say of the novel you are writing?
There should be law in place to grant people, especially students and private individuals etc unrestricted creative expression. The rule should not be "if you don't like the platform don't use it"; everything is a "platform". And your freedom to express yourself creatively shouldn't be contingent on the collective agreement of the platform owners to allow it.
You found the loop hole: just live in a cave or on a desert island far from civilization. ;)
Instead of ads, you'll try to play a movie and you'll get an error message about network connectivity that you can't dismiss or bypass or click-thru, rendering the TV completely unusable.
It's like 'winning'.
"The service is setup so Amazon unlocks the doors, the delivery person puts your package down just inside the door, and he closes the door. All on camera. If he goes off camera, he's fired. It's really that simple."
That's the wedge to get customer acceptance. And some articles show a pair of hands just reaching through the door to leave the package, but the article I saw showed a picture of a guy putting groceries in the fridge... which given they bought whole foods kind of makes a lot of sense right? How is a little cloud cam at the front door going to see him nicking things from the kitchen? The article also went on from there... how amazon would would be partnering with every 'merry maid' and dog walking service too.
My grandmother needed assistance for a year or so to help clean up, make sure she took her medicine, after my grandfather passed away. So a couple times a day, various nurses and health care workers showed up. She's since moved into a home. As her sons (my father and uncle); went through her home packing things up and sorting things out they discovered an incredible amount of theft had taken place. Jewellery, china, coats, silverware...
My other grandmother was considering some in home care after some cataract surgery and the hospital advised my mom to make sure anything valuable was out of sight, and locked away. They said "it would go missing and you'll never be able to prove they stole it."
It's an epidemic.
"If someone really wants to break into your house, they'll just use a fucking brick. Off camera as well."
The number of people who will stab you for $50 is a tiny subset of the number of people who will take an unattended $50 left lying around.
The vast majority of thieves that will nick your grandmothers silverware while putting vegetables in the fridge would never throw a fucking brick through a window in a million years. The fact that that people willing to kick the door in and shoot anyone they find inside in order to steal $100 worth of pawn-able goods exist in the world simply does not justify letting delivery people into your house when you aren't home.
And that's assuming you aren't home. What if you are. What if you called in sick, or your daughter came home from school early and is taking a shower. Sure they knock first... and the occupant ignores the door because they don't want to let anyone in... and then in comes a delivery person. Are you really so obsessed with your amazon deliveries that you are going to proactively think to block the key from working in all these scenarios. And after 50 deliveries, are you really going to review the security footage every time?
What if he gets an accomplice, delivery guy walks in, backs up to the camera blocking its view, and an accomplice walks in through the blocked line of site. The delivery agent walks out package in place. The accomplice has the run of the place and lets himself out the back door.
"The other kind of response people have are to direct their attention to a specific product within their existing desires. E.g. You're thirsty, the advert will likely make you drink Coke instead of say Pepsi."
I'm sure you already know all this, since you're actually in marketing...
Most people have more abstract pre-existing desires than 'I'm thirsty... I need a drink'. Stuff like "I want to be successful. I want to fit in. I want to be happy. I want to be healthy. I want to be secure. I want to be loved. I want to be respected. I want to have fun. I want to find meaning in life. I want to be attractive. I want to be comfortable."
Coke hasn't really advertised that its product will resolve your immediate thirst problem in decades. It's been advertising to a batch of those more abstract wants. Likewise, car ads aren't made for people who need to get somewhere.
In either case only the really weak of mind end up spending more. Most people just end up spending the same but with different vendors.
Here's a few stats that refute that argument, showing advertising directly increases sales accross all vendors. (so its not just shifting dollars from vendor a to vendor b).
https://www.kff.org/health-cos...
Here's a study that shows people who are already fans of a product will buy more of the product due to ads. (ie if Adidas was ALREADY their preferred vendor when it comes time to buy shorts they'll buy adidias so showing them ads isn't going to help right? Nope... they'll buy more than they would have otherwise with ads.)
https://sproutsocial.com/insig...
The ad system, analytics, and telemetry, only require a few megabytes a month of data to download and update.
We are fast approaching the point where Samsung / Sony / etc could sell you a TV with a cellular radio good and 20GB pre-paid data that would last it 20 years.
It doesn't need to connect to your network, or follow your routers rules.
" (Side note: I trust Google with my location data more than the government)."
That's cute.
"You are incredibly weak minded."
If you think advertising doesn't work on people, or that it only works on the 'incredibly weak minded', and above all if you think that it doesn't work on you, then you are delusional.
Its far more sensible to assume that it does work on you, in ways you aren't immediately cognizant of. After all practically nobody sees an add for a new car with a sunroof and immediately heads out to buy it; its not that simplistic.
"it entices me to pick one product over the other"
You've already lost if your starting point is choosing which product to buy.
I'd say a good example that the incompetent manage to find where they ran the installer twice in parallel.
Everyone else who was in testing ran the installer just fine, and started testing the software. Later on it went out to a limited release of customers... next day I had a report of some bizarre installation failures. Some idiot had downloaded the installer, double clicked, and then since the window didn't open up fast enough doubleclicked it again. Then a competent person would have realized the 2nd setup window was because they'd launched it twice... but not this guy... and he went back and forth between the two setup instances making different choices along the way in the two wizards and not realizing it. The end result was some weirdly corrupt configuration settings.
"If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it."
Think about what that actually means.
" monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange."
At the end of the year, there is less money in your bank account. That is the service they provide you.
'better translation', 'predictive alerts', 'location' ... all so that they can sell access to you to someone who wants to sell you something you didn't need, targeted to you. To plant a seed to buy it.
I have noticed over the last several years, my efforts to block ads and consume ad free sources has had the unexpected side benefit of reducing our material wants... and reduce our spending in general. We simply don't buy as much, even the kids want noticably less. The result, I think, is that when we do want things its stuff we really do want.
What you see as 'relevant ads' in your search results, I see as something I was perfectly happy not knowing about, that i don't need, and won't miss.
That's not surprising, the two groups that are best for finding bugs are the power users and the completely incompetent.
I'd say that there are at least 3 groups. Some developers are also really good testers. Some power users are really good testers. And the totally incompetent also are brilliant at finding bugs.
And you really want your QA to include all 3 types, because they each find different kinds of problems.
"Where as the only predictions we get from the global warming camp are either so far in the future that they won't be testable until those who made and funded the predictions are all dead, OR they turn out to be completely off."
They have reliably been predicting temperature increases since the 70s and 80s and lots of those predictions are pretty close.
The effect of those predictions on things like the antartic ice sheet, glaciers, the north west passage etc has also all been borne out.
Climate and weather are pretty chaotic systems, and respond to unpredictable events (solar activity, volcanic activity, massive forest fires, etc) and assumptions about human activities like the rate of deforestation or industrialization of developing countries that you just can't know decades in advance even if your model is perfect.
the broad strokes stuff has been correct.
the temperature is rising.
carbon levels are rising.
ice is melting.
ocean levels are rising.
the fact that a climate prediction made in 1980 is off because their estimates of volcanic activity, the rate of industrialization (in China and India were off) resulting in underestimating the manmade aerosol emissions etc etc... hardly refutes the theory itself.
" Once every few months I need to fast charge my phone, so I plug it in. 15 minutes and I've got 3-4 hrs of battery ready to go."
That pretty much nails the issue. I'm not excited by wireless charging, but i have no objection to it either. ... I wrote "meh" precisely because I'm not committed either way.
I guess I do like the CHOICE though.
I figure it won't be long before courageous it is to remove the charging port and remove that choice too.
And then the people using solar chargers while camping will be pissed, and the people with usb batteries will be pissed, and the people used to rapid charging it occasionally for whatever reason will be pissed...
Thanks that's actually pretty informative, putting the cost into real pespective instead of just relative efficiency.
I will say that I still don't like that my phone is always quite warm to the touch when its on its wireless charger. I instinctively beleive that's not "good for it".
And that stuff like those addon USB battery packs and solar chargers and crank chargers don't work as well because there the loss of efficiency really matters. But I concede that's more of a niche.
" Oh, and in the end the argument is sounding an awful lot like "black people are too poor, lazy and irresponsible to get an ID so let's not require them to have one"
Nothing of the sort.
" Think of all the things that require a photo ID, renting anything, buying some things, entering a Federal building, boarding a plane, GETTING A JOB, cashing a check, opening a bank account, collecting government benefits, etc, etc"
None of those things are required. Lots of people work for cash, or don't work for any number of reasons. How often do people enter federal building. Lots of people never fly. checks can be handled by simply signing it over to someone you trust to cash it, or maybe you already have an account from 40 years ago, etc, etc.
The point is, lots of people are getting along fine without one.
"If having a photo ID is such a burden, all that needs to go and we need to go back to trusting people to honestly identify themselves."
I didn't say that. I didn't even say that its unreasonable to have some sort of photo id... but we should recognize that its going to be a burden on people who don't have id to get it, and we should recognize that the demographics of people who don't have id aligns with racial and income demographics.
Any system we implement should pay attention that reality, and go above and beyond to ensure that people who don't have ID can get ID rather than get trapped in a Kafkaesque maze of catch-22s where they need x to get y, and y to get x etc.
You want voter id... fine figure out a method where anyone who shoes up can leave with an ID. And if you can do that without tatooing a number on everyone's forehead and wrist that would be terrific.
"If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?"
A scientist has predicted superbugs that will prove immune to all known antibiotics will decimate humanity within the century. What if that doesn't happen? Does that invalidate the theory of natural selection?
A scientist has predicted a mega-earthquake off the coast of British within the next hundred years. If that doesn't happen, would that invalidate the theory of plate tectonics?
That's about how absurd your position is.
Climate models are making all kinds of predictions, and lots of the predictions are coming true. And every time one fails we refine the models. What do you really expect ... the observational data we have doesn't change, we just keep adding more... the new models still have to fit the data. There is no theory here you can slay at a single stroke with one test.
Even if a super volcano went off and the resulting clouds of dust sent the world into an unscheduled ice-age that wouldn't invalidate the theories behind climate change. It just obviously means any model that didn't incorporate this new event would not predict anything useful.
wireless charge is ...meh.
I've got a phone with it, i'd rather plug it in.
It charges faster plugged in, it charges cooler plugged in, and it takes less electricity to charge it plugged in.
wireless charging is pretty much a step backwards in every possible way... except a slight convenience.
So? The supreme court ruled it wasn't an "undue burden".
An 'undue burden' is a burden that is deemed unreasonably great.
That doesn't refute that its a burden, nor does it refute that the burden disproportionately affects the poor or affects people of color.
And I'm not even suggesting that the supreme court erred in judging it a reasonable burden. Frankly, I think its pretty reasonable too... but I am under no illusions that everyone can get an id with equal ease. I remember growing up and some of my friends had a miserable time getting ID while for others it was trivial.
Bank account in your own name, fixed address receiving utility bills in your name, birth certificate in hand... you can obtain / replace your ID without much trouble. But if your living with someone (all the bills in someone elses name), you don't have your birth certificate, or bank account, etc... getting ID is a royal PITA. Getting a bank account requires ID. Getting a replacement birth cert requires ID... getting a state ID requires the others.
"I don't buy that for a second."
"Every employed person is likely to be working between 9 and 5, Monday through Friday. Is it inconvenient to give up a lunch break, or lose a bit of time on the clock?"
Yeah, people living paycheck to paycheck are going to be hurt more by giving up some time on the clock. And they likely work for employers who won't give them the time off.
"Sure. It's inconvenient for anyone, yet somehow everyone has always managed to deal with it. "
The people who didn't manage to deal with it didn't vote.
"Rich folks would breeze through because they have drivers licenses?? Poor people don't? People of color don't?"
Yes.
The most common voter ID is a driverâ(TM)s license, and minorities are less likely to drive. A 2007 study found that in California, New Mexico, and Washington, whites were more likely to have driverâ(TM)s licenses than nonwhites. In Orange County, Calif., about 92 percent of white voters had driverâ(TM)s licenses, compared with only 84 percent of Latino voters and 81 percent of âoeotherâ voters. A 2005 study of Wisconsin similarly found that while about 80 percent of white residents had licenses, only about half of African-American and Hispanic residents had licenses.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
"Think about it, if getting to a government office is a problem for getting an ID, then it's a problem to get to any office for any reason. Yet people manage every day no matter what they do or how much they make."
That's a pretty ridiculous argument. If 98% of rich people manage it, and 90% of poor people manage it... you've created a bias. Nobody said 'all poor people can't get registered', only that it's a bigger obstacle that disproportionately affects them.