dev_tty01

First, there is no Free speech violation here. A private content company is free to change their content. They can create things and they can delete things. Happens all the time.

Second, to compare de-publishing a few episodes of this sensationalist blow hard from a streaming service to the horrific tragedy that was Kristallnacht, is wildly inappropriate.

Is he though? I suspect Spotify owns the rights to those episodes and to his show, so I doubt he is free to publish these views in another avenue. Spotify wouldn't pay $100M and not contractually lock up all of those rights.

>First Amendment

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think it is reasonable to assume that when the vast majority of Americans refer to "free speech" they are making reference to the Bill of Rights and the First amendment. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to understand that, with regards to speech, the 1st amendment is only about preventing government from curtailing speech. It doesn't say any private individual or company has to allow all speech.

If the business model Google themselves created will somehow fail if we don't continue to allow them to suck more and more private data out of us then so be it. They will have to change their business model. I am not interested in changing to accommodate them.

By the way, there is nothing free here. All of those advertising dollars come out of our pockets via increased products costs.

Assuming it is an active real estate with lots of transactions, yes, the agent is absolutely more motivated to close the deal and move on to another deal than to get the highest commission possible on a particular deal. The situation is similar with recruiters. It is important to understand these motivations to correctly interpret what you are hearing from the agents/realtors.

Thanks for your comment. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. From my own (purely anecdotal) experience, if most people had been told that their phone would be unsupported after 3 years they would have considered that strongly in their purchase. Since my experience is anecdotal it proves nothing, but my major disagreement is that you point to sales numbers as evidence that people don't care about support.

>feature that obvious(based on sells numbers) was not a factor in deciding to buy the phone or not,

I don't think those customers were informed of the limited support prior to the sale, so those sales numbers are not meaningful in this context. Also, many companies offer longer support. Google is selling Pixel as a premium phone so (in my opinion) offering only 3 years of support is a major abuse of the customer relationship.

As far as pennies per phone, I was referring to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30075970

I don't think you have any basis for saying "was not a factor in deciding to buy the phone." Do you really think people buying the Pixel 3 knew it would only be supported for 3 years? Also, Google would not lose money if they supported the phone longer at a few pennies per phone. The Pixel phones (and others) are advertising and data delivery devices. Google makes money every time you use them.

Yes, this. The 6s came out in 2015 and is still supported. I used one until just a few months ago. Worked great.

Oops. Thanks. Yes, I meant comprised, although I suppose humans also lead to compromise...

Thanks for the comment. Your reference [1] shows that NASA's budget is typically 0.5% of the total Federal budget in recent years, not the DOD budget. In 2020, NASA was about 23 billion and the DOD was about 766 billion, or about 3%. As to your other point, yes, some of the DOD budget is spent on space. That number will continue to increase.

Interesting tidbit: In constant 2020 dollars, peak NASA spending during Apollo was only twice today's budget.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://www.statista.com/statistics/264494/nasas-budget/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spend...

*The third link says 2012, but it covers through 2020.

Yes, Herschel was a great project by the ESA. It certainly got short shrift within the US press despite significant contributions from NASA and JPL. I hope it got plenty of love from the European press. Great work.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but I have to disagree with this:

>Challenger & Columbia. Challenger wasn’t a NASA problem, it was a Politicians & Bureaucracy problem.

NASA managers overrode the recommendations of the engineers. That was absolutely a NASA problem. Sure they were under some political pressure, but they made the wrong call in the face of strong data. Columbia too was a management priorities problem.

That being said, NASA is doing great science. NASA is compromised of humans so they are therefore imperfect, but I would also love to see them get more support. Their $23 billion dollar budget is only 3% of the size of the DOD budget.

As far as SpaceX, they are a NASA subcontractor, executing goals specified by NASA. I don't understand your concern. (SpaceX also has a thriving private satellite business of course.) The entire Apollo program was executed by NASA paid subcontractors. That is how NASA operates. Their primary role is to spec, subcontract, and manage. SpaceX is doing things for less money than other subcontractors, so they are helping NASA's budget.

The HN title is an accurate reflection of the article and the event. When the RISC-V group has a similar event, there will be a similar article. Nothing deceptive or incorrect here.

Well, what if TSMC created an independent US based manufacturing presence that was DOD qualified? Or one of the other currently non-US manufacturers?

Okay, but there is no iMessage app, it is a protocol available to Messages users. Messages is the default SMS app and it defaults to using SMS. If a user ops in to iMessage, they get E2E and the other iMessage goodies. If they don't opt in, it does SMS and MMS. Even opted in, it does SMS and MMS to non iMessage users. So, the user has the choice to participate in iMessage the protocol or stick with SMS. Both options are available within the default SMS app.

The question here is whether Apple should be forced to implement RCS. They aren't stopping anyone from communicating since SMS and MMS are available. I suspect if RCS gains enough traction, Apple might add that capability for non iMessage users. I don't know that of course, but I wouldn't be surprised. iMessage still has many advantages over RCS for in-ecosystem users so it wouldn't harm them to add it. Time will tell I guess.

>Imagine if you bought a 4K television that had AppleTV built in, and then you find out that the 4K feature is only available if you use the built in AppleTV interface, and HDMI is limited to 1080P.

That would be a very bad product design decision. I would realize that I had made a bad purchase and I would return the TV to the store and buy one that didn't do that. There are lots and lots of TVs to choose from. On the other hand, if you really like AppleTV, you might not care. Either way, it is the consumer's choice, so no harm. Lots of TVs have features people don't like.

>There is a case to be made that such anti-competitive behavior is illegal.

No there isn't. iOS is a minority platform (globally) by a very large number. Also, there are a number of app based messaging options, many of which are quite popular and some use strong encryption.

In the Messages app preferences, you turn off the big switch that enables iMessage. No need to deregister or anything. Just flip the switch. The deregister process mentioned here is intended for leaving the iOS ecosystem so that messages will find you properly.

You might find this interesting:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/44093/details-on-t...

The discussion includes links to several relevant GAO reports. I agree that it would be interesting to see a single detailed list. That is not in these reports.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-224.pdf

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-112.pdf

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-112.pdf

I don't know. If the fuel coupling design is compatible with robotic access, it might be doable. That would seem easier than the dozens of repairs that astronauts did with Hubble. I assume we learned a lot with the Hubble servicing missions, some of which will be applicable to robotic work. The full list of Hubble service/repairs is quite remarkable if anyone is interested:

https://hubblesite.org/mission-and-telescope/servicing-missi...

I wonder if the target scheduling will take that into account to minimize average drift? Interesting set of calculations...

They are already ahead on their fuel budget due to the accuracy of the Ariane launch process. NASA said it would "significantly" extend the mission lifetime.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/29/nasa-says-webbs-exces...

NASA has often added video or image capability with low scientific value to increase public engagement, despite the associated risk and cost. They made a call not to do it this time. My only point is that it would have been a nice PR opportunity if they could have found a way to make it work within their mission parameters. I apologize if making such a simple and obvious point has offended you in some way.

Yes, I get all of that, but they still missed an excellent PR opportunity. NASA really could have built some engagement showing images of the deployment process, even if the images wouldn't have direct scientific benefit. Good PR leads to improved funding which leads to more science.

Yeah, I don't remember when it was added and I think the interface to that option has changed over time. There is also an option (SysPref->Users) to authenticate a Mac password change with your AppleID. Different option but the net effect is the same.

No, you can opt to login with your AppleID instead of a machine specific password. I never would, but that is an option.

I've always liked

    #define else

Well, the earth would be fine. The earth would carry on without us and it wouldn't be long until there were no traces of our incredibly short term existence. I've always been amused by "Save the Earth" campaigns. The proper phrase is "Save the Humans."

I've never met a single successful farmer that is either lazy or ignorant. Most people would never last a full week working on a farm. As far as rotational grazing, if you don't think modern farmers understand nutritional cycles you are sadly misinformed.

Before that, OP should get a clear set of expectations from the manager. If a manager doesn't express clear expectations and the metrics used to measure outcomes, then they can't expect them to be met.