The film looks exactly like the protective plastic sheet on new phones that you are supposed to peel and doesn't cover the screen right to the edges so I think it was a pretty ok assumption to be made given the circumstances.
1,385 karma · joined July 27, 2012
Most of the backslash against Madrid regulations is coming from people that don't live in the center of the city and are using the issue as a proxy to voice their political views against the mayor's political party (affiliate to left-leaning Podemos).
Funny thing is that this measure was for the longest time in the previous mayoral team (under control from right-leaning Partido Popular) agenda as well.
On the anti-EU sentiment. I think it's important to point out that 62% of Spaniards (and rising since Brexit started) have a favorable view of the EU (according to Pew Research). Eurobarometer is also showing highest support for the EU in 35 years.
Is that sport player really a star os is he/she a star because he has an amazing team that creates the opportunities for him/her to stand out?
Is this law championed by a politician really his/her idea or does he/she have a team of advisors that helped shape it?
Nobody lives in a vacuum. There isn't a single person, dead or alive, that has accomplish anything of importance without the help of others (knowingly or unknowingly, wether directly or indirectly) but at some point you have to take that for granted, to a certain degree, and focus on the figure that drives the enterprise, or makes a new discovery thanks to previous ones, or leads a team, or publish a paper.
It's not media who loves to have a winner, in any case. It's all of us, and the media obliges because it knows that a story with a hero is better told and better heard. It just happens that for some reason, in this case, having a hero seems to be unacceptable for some and I can't quite put my finger on why...
There are all sorts of things you do with your smartphone and this VPN tracks all of them.
It's not as much as you'd think, specially if you can survive on the first couple of decades with regular shipments from earth, mostly for very advanced materials and electronics.
A lot of manufacturing capacity in our society is redundant and focused on non-essential items. In addition, some manufacturing processes are complex because of the scale of our society but could be made simpler for a small colony, especially if you are not worried about details or finishing quality and approach it from a more utilitarian perspective.
(and there is a large percentage of the population that prefers larger screen phones).
1. Apple does innovate. Every year. But doesn't tend to follow fads or new technologies for the sake of newness and those tend to be confused with innovation all the time.
2. As markets saturate and the smartphone becomes an everyday object, the behavior starts to resemble the fashion and accessories industry where brand image, and customer loyalty plays a larger role in purchase decisions. If Louis Vuitton sales 10% less bags YoY in China, nobody thinks it's because they have not innovated enough in handbag technology.
Apple is ok. At least as of now. They are still selling 84 billion $ worth of products on a given quarter.
All business are "in the business of making money", that's what being a business is. What sets them apart is how they make it. In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. A publisher that doesn't is more likely to lose influence and readership as time goes by. For a publication like Bloomberg, more so.
So yeah, they do care. That doesn't mean they don't fall for scams or bad reporting. They do, but it's in their best interest not to do so. In this case, I'm sure Bloomberg is already frantically calling all the reporter sources. They should have done it before the piece was published, sure, and they'll sure blame the reporter and the sources, but I think it's disingenuous to think they just shrug these things off.
They are not and impact and buzz around articles like this show it. General public does not know enough about technology to understand the ramifications of what they do. For some it might be shocking to know it is this easy to reuse location data for other purposes, or that by mixing different data points, you can de-anonymize pretty much anyone. These are concepts that are clear when you work with or like technology, but are not natural and need to be explained and learned.
Absolutely not. You are considering she's there as a journalist to produce and informative piece of news. She's there as a writer to produce a feature about how does it feel to be in one of these cruises.
By your standards, all gonzo journalism or, for that matter, any piece of new journalism is unprofessional. That is just plain absurd. The reader knows she is writing from a personal point of view and should be capable to understand what that means in the context of the experience.
Yes, robots are a cheaper and more reliable way to explore and extract resources but I doubt mankind will be happy with just that. We like to explore, and expand, and face challenges so I'd bet that no matter the setbacks or price tag, we will eventually prefer to do this things in person.
As an alternative: we could even redesign ourselves for space exploration if needed be.
There are several mechanisms in place on earth to stabilize changes in atmospheric composition and temperature (otherwise an sporadic eruption of a volcano or glacial eras would have thrown things out of whack long time ago). I don't think this is an hypothesis. We have seen some of them in action in recent years, like the advanced rate of reforestation due to larger levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The problem is we don't know what would happen if we push these to the limit or what their limit really is. And they are very complex in the way the interact. For example. Warmer oceans and larger levels of CO2 will make phytoplankton grow faster, absorbing more CO2 in return, but it will also accelerate the growth of zooplankton, that feeds on it. This creates a bottleneck.
So TL;DR: yeah, it's cool we have these mechanisms around but the goal should still be to keep things as close to the baseline as possible (and we have been really bad about it in the last century)
That doesn't make it any less true. Free speech doesn't depend on private support. The reach it can have does, but that's a big difference.
What is tiresome is people believing that every opinion has a right to be heard at the same volume and reach as any other, regardless of how the majority of society perceives them or even, in some cases, how despicable it can be.
> How long will conservatives sit back and watch as tech firms systematically attempt to erase their world view from the political conversation?
Let's stop pretending that this is true. Twitter is not "shadowbanning" anyone and, if anything, it's been the opposite. In a clear case of false balance they have been over-representing ideas held by a minority of the population in order to appear fair and balanced.
Now that is clear that the message doesn't resonate with many people as expected, there's a lot of frustration among conservative voices. It's time to start accepting that certain ideas are not being suppressed. They are just not that popular.
> doing nothing to an NYT journalist who (as noted above) says repeatedly she wants to kill all men, that she hates whites etc?
Context matters. And reading comprehension does to. And cherrypicking cases to prove a point is not really effective.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LsGJI_vni4x...
Forget 2018. This processor is roughly equal to the A8x (think iPads from 2016) and I doubt it will handle normal Windows 10 well on the 4 GB / 64 GB configuration.
I don't know. I understand the new MacBooks are not perfect for everybody but for me it has been more than OK, and I love the huge trackpad. I feel like a lot of the criticism seems excessive or are complaints that could very well be applied to the sad state of the PC industry as a whole.