Irwin tools, Klein tools, Blaster Corp products, John Deere stuff, K-Bar, Leatherman, Ogio backpacks, and Patagonia. I'm sure there are others but these brands have held up well for me over time. It's definitely a short list. Lowe's Kobalt brand seems to be good for now but Craftsman is junk now, most major appliances are garbage, every television manufacturer I can think of has garbage QA, aside from Samsung and apple I can't think of a reputable phone brand sold in the US but even Apple quality has lessened a bit and Samsung has the exploding battery issue. It's gotten really hard to find quality that isn't hand made.
The whole Kenmore/Whirlpool/Maytag/Jenn-Air/etc branding joke is that they switch which brand is the good one frequently to sucker people into buying garbage so you really have to be careful and do your homework for every single device. Have a great white Whirlpool dishwasher that replaced a near identical looking model. Apparently the motor and a few other parts were significantly different as while the prior model only made "the energy star sounds" it frequently clogged and never cleaned. The new one is a champ, uses less energy, less water, cleans everything, fits more dishes, and never clogs and I'm pretty sure it was cheaper than the previous model. The previous house had an amazing portable dishwasher I'd plumbed in. I had to replace the motor once and the impeller twice (user error) but the thing was over 20 years old and still ran like new. They certainly don't build them to last like that anymore.
Soil composition, fertilizers, vegetable strains, and weather conditions all impact taste. Tomatoes from my garden made from heirloom seeds taste significantly better than best boy, beefsteak, or even tomatoes on the vine. I've had tomatoes from Italy, in Romania if all places, and can concur that even the produce exported tastes worlds better than what you can buy in the average US supermarket. I'd wager that the type of produce grown in the US is the culprit as it tends to be more important to have shelf stable and attractive produce than tasty produce. Stuff from my garden or the farmer's market is comparable to produce I've had in Europe.
Google makes their billions from exactly this kind of data. Roku makes most of they're money this way now. Amazon literally invests millions to get data like this. It's worth more than gold, the reason being accurate data is the single most important thing you can have, especially when it comes to consumers. You now have the buying metrics, where you are, when you watch, roughly how many people are in the house, which apps you use, most likely what shows you're watching, and information on nearly all the other devices attached to the same network. Once you're in the home you have almost everything. They might even be able to tell your bathroom habits based on when you pause shows. All of this information is valuable to someone. Don't forget that they sell these units and they stay in the house for years all the whole making money using your electricity to do so.
Rtings really helped me in my television selection. I ended up getting a great deal that wasn't available through their affiliate link. They really break down important things like lighting and brightness and really try to tailor the best television for you, not for everyone or just enthusiasts.
I mean the parent comment isn't wrong. Any trend based around exclusivity is bound to lose when the exclusivity inevitably spreads. Companies have to go way upscale to be able to afford to go super exclusive and you can only really do this with privately held companies. Hipsters are just one form of trend setters,I wonder if there's a chart somewhere that tracks different types of influencers and the markets that they influence. It seems like something someone would have spent money on making because of its inherent usefulness in sales and marketing.
Statistically likely, not guaranteed. I'm already statistically likely to be dead and resistant to chemo but so far so good. The patients know the risk though and decades is dramatically longer a time frame than they likely have. Hopefully this works wonders and can be pushed to other types of cancers.
I've been in corporate IT where this happened. All company apps were built internally. None were able to run on anything past Windows XP. On top of my regular help desk, asset management, software project, and lease refresh program I was also somehow supposed to make the software work with Windows 7 as they had let the developers go. This is the same company that refused my sane security requirements and ignored just about everything until too late. I hear they have since outsourced IT and networking and it's failing dramatically, but they are saving money right?
My presence in private is a protected right in the United States. Being able to track which office I go into in a complex, tracking which room in a house I am in, etc. These types of things require a warrant based on reasonable suspicion and this has been ruled on numerous times. If you're moving from place to place in public view, sure, that's allowed. The police can also follow you and watch you enter a building, but what is the functional difference between preventing access to my house to watch me move from room to room and using cell phone data to track me. My carrier is someone I contract with. I pay them. They should be working in my favor to the fullest extent of the law. While I sympathize with overburdened police forces and tough crimes there's a reason we have these protections in place, to prevent a police state where the police are more beholden to the state than the public it is expected to be serving.
Loss aversion is actually significantly powerful and difficult to overcome, but think about why, it's only very recently that humanity can easily procure anything it needs for survival with relative ease in most countries. While getting something new is exciting losing something is far harder when you never know when/if your going to be able to gain it again. It's helped humans survive throughout our history, so I wouldn't be hard on yourself that it wasn't easy to detach, you were just practicing a survival skill.
If you're in the position to afford hand made Amish furniture, you can probably afford movers. OSB is great for inexpensive furniture that doesn't move. The downside is once the wood gets wet or damaged it degrades quickly, unlike solid wood which will warp and split if not properly treated. One of the absolute best furniture products for strength and durability is actually plywood but people see it as a "cheap" product instead of the engineering marvel that it is. I think what it really comes down to is that when you're younger it makes sense to buy cheaper more disposable furniture. It's going to see more wear and tear and you're still finding your own style which is likely to change when you have a partner. When you become an adult and start moving less it makes sense to buy something that is going to be able to last longer with proper care. Solid woods tend to wear better over time because it's not a paper veneer over the OSB. Like most things it's about using the appropriate tool or resource for the task. I recently had to build a behind the sofa table for my wife. There simply didn't exist a product that fit our needs (12 feet long and thin) went with solid oak and while it fit we did indeed have the problem that it wouldn't fit through the stairwell and we had to walk it around the outside of the house. I doubt it would fit in an apartment.
You can sell your home though various portals without having to ever speak to a realtor. Walmart has innovated in a few different places but primarily logistics. Disney is not just an animation hub, they work on robotics, software, as well as psychology and other areas. I think it's easier to see when your company isn't already a behemoth. Amazon arguably has done innovation better than most, but a lot of that has been through investor money other people wouldn't have access to. Established companies have to balance the books and as they've shifted towards profitability and revenue innovation has necessarily slowed.
I think you're already seeing many of your problems getting closer to solutions. There is that natural tension though between capitalism and it's tendency towards monopoly and the government's responsibility to ensure that the market stays healthy and competitive.
Excellent explanation, thanks. The story was definitely suspect, but I entirely missed the FBI involvement at all. Why couldn't a federal judge order the return of property in a case? Is it a jurisdictional issue, i.e. if for some reason the local police had it, that would require a municipal judge?
Let's say we take your comment at face value, the law written to specifically target them was pretty poorly written and had wide ranging impacts. There were already ways for the government to take down Backpage if what you're saying is true, they should have taken those actions. What the law did was remove safe harbors protections for all websites to target one specific website, that's overreach. I'm not a fan of useless laws, I'm even more against laws that are harmful. Quite frankly the law didn't help stop child trafficking, and that's even more a problem. So what happened? The sites moved outside of the U.S., policing became harder, and even more children are victimized.
Wait, prostitutes have their own individual websites now? I was under the impression that a lot of websites had either closed or limited access to Americans for to some poor laws written to go after Backpage. The effects have been more prostitutes hurt or murdered and no less prostitution, it's just not as in the open anymore.
Yes but couldn't they just use plain view to claim that in searching your phone the pirated videos became plain view? In that case you would literally be aiding your own prosecution of something even if you didn't intend to by giving up your password. The only real requirement is that the officer be legally allowed on the device, which a warrant allows and belief that the item is illegal, which is all but impossible to disprove. You literally open the door to further prosecution, even if the first accusation is thrown out. The laws were not written in such a way as to cover technology.
I mean, you've got the right to not answer the door. They just have the right to break the door down because of the lawful warrant. You don't have to help with your own incarceration, i.e. point out evidence they were unable to find, why would you be expected to do the same thing on their phone? Police can't force people to testify either. If your only evidence of a crime rests on the defendent's compliance you've got a poor case. If you can't tie an IP to a device on a specific date and time without forcing someone to open their own device and admit guilt and ownership, then you're really not trying hard enough. The only way that the police can prove who committed a crime on a cell phone that is encrypted is either admission of ownership or compulsion. Neither of which is evidence of a crime in and of itself. They would still have to prove that the person who owned the phone committed the crime, otherwise why have the burden of proof on the prosecutor? These aren't civil cases we're generally talking about where the evidence requirement is lighter these are criminal cases where, as far as I understand anyways, the burdens are much higher. Add to that a cell phone is essentially a tracking device. While your position is certainly a reasonable one to take, I don't think it truly encapsulates the intent of our court system as designed and in fact expressly works against innocent until proven guilty.
Which part of the legal system isn't expressed accurately there? I'm asking out of my own ignorance, not as an accusation, I've only been a juror once.
Most people use very few deductions, and most people use the same credits it deductions. Tax software shows that's it's trivially simple for the vast majority of of people. Where tax law gets complicated is high net worth, self employment, or business ownership. If love for taxes for these people to be simpler, but realistically if you need these deductions that aren't already captured by the IRS you should be hiring a competent tax professional. There's no reason the vast majority of Americans need to file except that it's intentionally painful to make people hate taxes, the IRS knows how much you make and what you owe because they already receive your tax documents from the organizations that provide them to you.
Interesting information. There's definitely a bit of marketing going on there, but it seems that they have at least some peering. Without concrete public evidence otherwise I'll concede that Google must have great peering.
None of your comments have been relevant to the app. Your comments been complaints about specific verbiage used to describe a particular problem, common to startups, that the dev wished to avoid. We'd love to hear your points on what the app could use, however you've done nothing but insinuate that the developer doesn't appreciate his users because a particular word choice caught you wrong. I can see no other reason someone would take offense to a word choice unless they were personally offended. Please feel free to enlighten us by refuting any point of my comment. Your reply realistically doesn't do anything to respond to my summary.
Didn't notice I was being downvoted. Legitimately don't care about it either. I'll be dead most likely within a few years and I can't take internet points with me or cash them in to take care of my family when I'm gone. Thanks for the kind words though.
No. I don't not believe they've done this. They don't peer easily or often and peering with local partners is not something most people want to do, even Google. It takes trust on the part of the local service provider, which Google hasn't built as Google is often a direct competitor to their local products. Peering at the ISP level is really hard because it's all relationship management. Google couldn't manage their own fiber and built up a good deal of animosity with other networks in doing so, especially in the US.
2. It's a valid and well understood term on the board you're on
3. It's a legitimate problem for those with finite resources
That leads to the conclusion that you probably don't pay for things often which is why you got your feelings hurt. There is literally no way that term should be offensive to you unless you abusively take advantage of services and then some then when it comes time to pay.
Last mile times are always going to cause lag. 5g won't be rolled out for years, then you'll need a phone to take advantage of it so that's not going to help. Last mile in US performance is really poor unless you're on full fiber which isn't offered in most of the US. Even with direct peering to the ISPs, which they don't have, this isn't likely to be a superior experience compared to a local machine. They'll have to push the entire video stream along with the intelligence. That's a lot of data that can't be lagged.
First time someone gets bored at Google they will drop this like nothing with a month or two notice and any games purchased will be vapor. Google doesn't care about it's users. It's just another platform to extract data mining or ai from. Google makes massive unilateral consumer unfriendly changes before breakfast. They barely care about business customers. If you're not ads or ad related and bringing in money you're not worth anything.
But you don't become a large company without first starting small. Even large corporations tend to use pilot programs in order to establish product market fit. Disney for instance tested their software on less valuable material before deciding to create Disney+.