starmftronajoll

From the linked article: “With mounting debts, the company was absorbed into a bigger construction conglomerate in 2006 – but continues to pair traditional temple building techniques with the latest technology.”

The brilliance of the cheese process struck me as well – we see a mess and then, the reveal of the amusingly simple cleanup. (This is an effectively edited promotional film, too. The story of the equipment is beautifully told.)

Your insight re: the parallel to software design is a valuable one, thank you.

Americans instinctively assume “boffin” is derogatory because it’s totally absent from American parlance (iOS autocorrects it to “bogging” in US), so without the cultural context it just sounds like a goofy word, like “doofus.” In an American context, it’s not a word that sounds as if it’s being spoken with admiration, so the true meaning is counterintuitive.

The iPhone manual [1] is good, and it’s not so hard to find.

[1] https://help.apple.com/iphone/11/

That said, it doesn’t break anything important, either, and it does bring the numbering in line with a major newspaper’s understandable insistence on accurate representation of the facts wherever possible. The numbers could quite reasonably be construed as arbitrary identifiers, as you have. But to the Times, they are a statement of fact — i.e., a statement of how many issues have been published. You’re right that it was silly to correct the numbering, but it was corrected as part of adherence to a journalistic culture that exists for un-silly reasons. So I appreciate the correction and find it pretty amusing.

Yes, it improves directionality, and you can choose from a number of presets to highlight different parts of the room depending on your situation. Apple’s how-to page for LiveListen [1] offers a glimpse of the interface and features that are already available to made-for-iPhone hearing aid users.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203990

This line of reasoning does indeed embrace an alternate theory, the theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare’s plays. And it does so based on an isolated morsel of circumstantial evidence, just as the OP described.

When an argument hinges on the sentiment “it seems unimaginable…” it often means that circumstantial evidence is being recast as something more definitive than it is.

But perhaps as an avid pirate, you might care about the naked hypocrisy exhibited by Disney re: copyright, which is the crux of the Jackson estate's clever argument here (clever to the layperson, at least -- who knows if it will hold much weight if the case goes to trial).

The author, Will Oremus, supports the assertion you highlighted in the portion of the article that you removed from your quotation with brackets and an ellipsis. In Oremus' original, the words "only with great reluctance" link to a previous article [1] by Oremus about the genesis of Google's advertising strategy, and he goes on to quote Brin and Page's 1998 paper [2] criticizing ad-funded search engines as inherently biased. The sourcing on Oremus' anecdotal knowledge of Zuckerberg's indifference to advertising is rather thin, but it's also a typical bit of color from a tech writer who, readers can assume, knows a lot of people in the industry. In any case, it strikes me as bad faith to argue that an author doesn't provide support for his assertions when you have excised some of that very support from your quote of the article.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/when_big_businesses_w...

[2] http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

This is a perennial story, but the best treatment of it, in my opinion, remains Chris Knittel's 2013 re-investigation of the case [1] for Vice Motherboard.

[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgay3n/headroom-h...

I stand corrected. Good catch.

The Switch has many logos on it, but a USB-C logo is not one of them. Nintendo does not use the term "USB-C" in its literature for the Switch.

Seems like the question would be to ask why nobody competes viably with Photoshop. Premiere is an odd example to single out — Avid and Final Cut, for instance, are full-featured and both have a substantial user base. The competition there is healthier than OP makes it out to be.

As for Photoshop, once it became the standard, it stayed that way by virtue of user inertia and the massive development resources it would take for a competitor to create a program in the same class. Photoshop is an extremely complex app and, on the whole, a very good one. It’s not without its frustrations, but nothing is.

In fairness, it was closed after being open for more than two and a half years. Although the point remains that the "no longer relevant" message is needlessly grating.

This is an op-ed written by an outside contributor, not a writer at the New York Times.