bsanr2

I don't think this is necessarily true. Your standard desktop computer has gotten much easier for a casual user to navigate over time, but not any less robust for power users. This is because powerful tools for customization and building are still exposed to power users. Google has slowly stripped away many of these tools. One has to wonder why, and my guess would be that it's because they would expose either the unethical ways Google deals with results, or the failure of its search model.

I submitted a post about this some time ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28113007

It's not just an issue of refining results to fit a majority of the population. Something is seriously wrong with it.

If we're optimizing for the cyclist's safety wrt a "pack" of cars, they themselves should pull over and wait for the "pack" to pass. Otherwise, a driver doing their best to clear the hazard as quickly as possible is the ideal compromise. A cyclist that is impeding the natural flow of traffic with a slower speed than is normal for the road is a danger to himself and others; any individual driver cannot account for the behavior of other drivers, particularly those who might drive recklessly if impeded by others' attempts to wait out a slow cyclist. Your protocol increases the danger, per likely factors.

The other wrinkle to this is that, outside of cities, cycling in America is a luxury sport. The people who partake in it are most in the position to force changes to infrastructure that supports safer cycling. NJB and other similar commentators make it clear that infrastructure improvement, not changes to driver behavior, is the most efficacious way to imrpove cyclist safety.

Why not Red or White Spot?

Right, move to a city center with million-dollar studio apartments instead.

The channel mentions regularly that this isn't because of a lack of demand, but because of restrictive zoning laws and building codes that forbid it.

I tend to overtake cyclists specifically for their safety. I figure that the farther I am from them, the lower a chance of a collision there is. If that holds true, then the only options when encountering one is to slow down and possibly impede other traffic, or speed up, overtake, and move away. This works for single cyclists. Groups would be different, but I've never encountered them.

It's important to point out that DMSA's release alledges that media has been trading on rumors that Evergrande had made the earlier missed debt payments before the grace period ended, when in fact it it had not. Several commentators over the past few weeks have pointed out that all of the media reports saying that the payments had been made were circuitously cited; no one had heard from a creditor directly. Now we have.

So now one has to wonder why essentially every major journalistic entity involved in the financial space would bet their reputation on hearsay, for something with such limited effects; especially when it would only buy a few weeks, at most, of this false belief.

A lot of people seem intent on letting us know that this is the case, at least.

In this case, "brands" meant platforms. So instead of getting results full of small websites that talked directly about your query, you got Pinterest spam. Because Pinteret is "trustworthy."

>Curtis wanted to investigate why the critics of Donald Trump and Brexit were unable to offer an alternative vision for the future We did, but no one wants to listen to us "commies," "tree-huggers," and "minorities."

>a decline of mass democracy in the West leading to politicians favoring big business.

Startling parallels to the decline of much of the World Wide Web (and Google's utility in searching it - ironically, I can't find the blog post describing the pivot to "brands" in the wake of a deluge of SEO trash, and its negative effects on search efficacy).

I'm cautiously interested in watching it. It seems like it will have both interesting insights and interesting blindspots.

>what is so hard to understand about that for journalists and companies?

They've gotten used to redefining existing words to better fit a desired narrative, a habit picked up from your given tech company marketing department. It's funny that you mention XR, which was itself coined in part to get around Microsoft's co-opting of "mixed reality" (which itself evolved to encompass all forms of n-reality after initially being coined to replace "augmented reality", I believe by Magic Leap). It's a mess.

Okay, and humor me: why might I have come to that conclusion? Note that I've actually already explained why, so there's no reason for you to "fail to understand." All you have to do is bring yourself to actually write it out, in your own words.

Games have always been pretty linear, though. The ones that had a notable degree of "freedom" found that freedom in

a) Choosing which enemies to go and kill with your chosen color of pixel burst.

or

b) Choosing which set of text and vaguely representational spritework the game would expose to you.

Many "linear" games offer tactical rather than strategic freedom. There is a sort of conservation of experiential depth, limited by the players' ability/inclination to absorb new interaction concepts, and the availability of developer resources to build them.

Because I've had this conversation in bad faith far too often, I would like for you to paraphrase what you think my argument has been up to this point, so that I may ascertain your ability or willingness to understand it.

>The dormitory’s nine identical residential floors would be organized into eight “houses” with eight “suites” (shown here) with eight bedrooms.

Sounds unironically like something Scientology-adjacent.

No? The point is that poverty and financial weakness in the black community is a direct result of racist attacks on black economic activity, often carried out or backed by the government, and now practically self-sustaining by nature of the force and length of application. You right an off-balance body with equal and opposite force to the direction of momentum.

It was a joke.

I fully expect the price to crash gloriously once the pullback starts, to fractions of a percent, but 1% of the current is still impressive. 8 grand to $5 million? That's, uh, not too bad.

The laws of digital physics say that FOSS jank must be conserved, they just moved it to someplace people won't mind. I'd rather have weird update numbers than weird updates.

Because race was an explicit and continues to be an implicit factor in separating the haves from the have-nots.

>Probably from BlackRock in this case, not from WhiteRock.

That's cultural appropriation.

And by law, you're not obligated. The contention was that such questions have no "scientific" value, when they do, insofar as employment data is useful to researchers and policymakers.

I imagine that it will be much like the dotcom bust, with a handful of resilient applications outlasting the 99% that are weak or straight-up scams. One wonders if Gamestop is going to pull an Amazon or a Pets.com.

>White people have a skewed view of their extant privilege, and do not actually have to take the steps they do to gain a non-existent "minority privilege"

How would you propose to level the entrenched inequities if not by reversing the previously unequal distribution of scarce resources?

It's used by the EEOC to track racial (and sexual, and disabled) equity in employment.

As a black man, I usually decline to put my race on job applications. Even though EEOC information isn't supposed to be used to discriminate against applicants, I don't believe for a second that it isn't. Unfortunately, having attended an HBCU, I don't know how helpful that is. I've seriously considered, recently, marking my race as "white" for future apps. It wouldn't be a complete lie; my great-grandmother was white. However, I keep remembering th anecdotes of black professionals with "white-sounding" names who were welcomed enthusiastically during the phone interview, only to get the cold shoulder when they showed up to the office.

In case anyone was keeping track, the ability to get the job you trained in your degree for is more important than getting into your specific desired degree program.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/african...

The newest episode of CSI: Vegas included a segment highlighing "gait analysis" as a technique used to identify a suspect from camera footage. To their credit, one of the characters mentions that it's too new of an approach to hold up in court on its own, but as per other error-prone identification techniques investigators have used and abused in the past, I imagine that data as in TFA throws a wrench into the chances of it ever seeing primetime.

There is quite a lot of appalling real estate-related NPR investigative programming to find, if one is so inclined. Reveal in particular is a mainstay of, "Inspiring justifiable Sunday afternoon vexation over the state of Americam society."

https://revealnews.org/podcast/losing-ground/

>Does that mean selective hiring needs to end?

In all honesty, I'm of the opinion that job recruiting should involve an objective "required skills" floor, and then a lottery for all who meet it. It'd been known for some time that hiring is very difficult to do objectively and often has similar outcomes wrt retention as sheer chance. Luck plays a massive role in opportunity and accomplishment, and a systematic acknowledgment of this might do well to readjust people's attitudes towards how professional accomplishment squares with economic dignity.