Robocalls killed Voice as an application and a business. Over-the-top voice applications are a viable replacement for telco voice under most circumstances. A working solution for robocalls for most mobile phone subscribers would be to stop including voice as a phone feature. No more robocalls, we just use our alternatives.

What a strategic misstep for an industry to use PSTN's network effect against itself and its users. And what a sad, cynical state the FCC has been in with Ajit Pai having worked against the industry, the people, and the country for so long on the regulatory side. In addition to being a nuisance, these calls were very often dangerous, especially to the elderly. The industry and the policy made Americans targets of fraudsters worldwide. It's easy to find stories of folks who have been duped into giving up their money, access to their computers, etc.

*Finally*, the FCC is doing its job. Meanwhile, telcos will monetize spam features to protect you from abuse that they also monetize.

This isn't about DSL. It's about broadband availability.

The major carriers have failed to extend their networks as they should have. Internet access is now a basic requirement for normal life in America. We depend on these access providers to make their networks available, reliable, with sufficient throughput, and at a reasonable price. It is important enough that we have government-approved fees to fund the expansion of these services beyond the scope of densely populated areas.

The author of the advertisement was so fed up with his lack of access that he funded a high-profile message to make the point. This issue deserves attention. At a time when Americans are having a hard time agreeing on facts, not having access to information in rural and commercially less-desirable access markets further compounds the problem. We need to fix this.

Some soldiers can't walk away, they just keep living it. Is it a form of brain damage?
The rest of us are done. We won't forget, but we don't want to hear about it.

You can't shame Apple for advancing for occasionally having a miss when trying to advance their product. Not when you:
  - Can't swallow your pride and just provide command line grep
  - Are still in the 90's with trackpad functionality
  - Let IE languish from 2002 to 2005, letting your zombie competitor rise from the dead to take you down. And to smugly ask, "Where do you want to go today?" as if you're offering a path forward. It would be LOL if it wasn't so sad.
  - Spend more than a decade on FUD over Linux only to embrace it
  - Can't erase "Developers, Developers, Developers" from our collective memory
  - Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

Other than those who play PC games, Microsoft users are only those who are forced to use its products for work. The rest of us walked away decades ago. Whether or not we loath Apple's Touch Bar, none of us care what Microsoft thinks.

Bye Bye

Should everyone learn to cook? Should everyone learn to read? Barring extremes, I would say yes.
I met a person who didn't know eggs came from chickens. It does seem to me that a baseline of competence should be expected.

There is no need to bring us all up to the level of a professional software developer. But being able to do the equivalent of reading and writing small recipes might go far to enable each of us to understand a world immersed in digitally delivered services.

I'm on my fourth SE. I already have fifth in the mail, just in case. My third Amazon refurb. I also carry around an iPhone 7 for work, so I do know some of what I'm "missing" in the newer form factor.

Since the SE, Apple has not made a better phone for me.
1 - The size of the whole phone, when including the mandatory slim case one needs, is right. If Apple wants me to buy a tablet, it shouldn't force me to have a phone that competes with that purchase.
2 - The edges are squared, not rounded. This makes holding the phone easier. Aesthetically the nicest as well - a completely subjective point of view.
3 - It supports fingerprint-based login, not face recognition. This is my strong preference. I do not want face scanning for login. I would prefer to go back to PIN entry first.
4 - The SE is still fast enough. I do not notice performance issues. The network is usually what is slow. I am on Verizon on a grandfathered unlimited plan, which occasionally suffers from Verizon's punitive congestion management.

Downsides and Improvement Opportunities
1 - Apple's Support Posture. This is an EOL device. Some app developers give it little attention, resulting in rare, but potentially frustrating UI artifacts and issues.
2 - Not Water Resistant. Water issues have killed two of my SEs.
3 - Wasted Screen Space The SE could be updated to take up the rest of the available screen real estate.
4 - Needs the standard updates new phones get. Any new spectrum support. Anything for LTE/5G. Bluetooth updates. Force touch. Face recognition should be optional.

Like the Mac Mini, Apple is mismanaging the iPhone product line. Between the Mac Mini's lobotomy in 2014 and its return to usefulness in in 2018, the best Mini you could buy was *slower* than the middle tier in 2012. During that time, an Apple executive made jokes on stage at one of the big Apple reveal events about people who used a five-year-old PC, revealing that a) Apple no longer recognized its products' oft-cited longevity as part of the brand promise and b) the executive didn't understand the irony that Apple was not being a good steward of its own products.

In the iPhone's case, Apple is using the strength of its platform, its walled garden, to force current consumers into more expensive phones. While it looks good on paper, Apple is spending on an important account - its relationships with its customers.

This is an easy problem to solve. Launch the SE2 with similar form factor and the obvious improvements to baseline. Sell it for $450-600 depending on storage.
Launch new features at higher tiers with higher prices.

Not veiling the imbalance. It is obviously a factor.

Those skipping interviews after agreeing to be there are perpetuating the wrong they are crying about. In doing so, they also strengthen the practice as a norm.
When we skip an interview with Company A for Company B's bad behavior, we transferring the harm when the neither we, nor Company A, deserved the treatment.
If we want to improve the situation, we model the good behavior; we don't perpetuate the bad.
Painting all firms with with the same broad brush is not only unfair, but ignorant. Companies are made of people, and a growing subset are adopting the bad behavior.

If we are truly committed to cordiality and responsible communication between employer and employee, no one can adopt the bad behavior and then cry about others when they do. Let's take the higher ground and be civil. We can only protest from the high ground, and I'll stand with you from that position. For anyone who wants to skip interviews without calling to cancel, you should get a free pass from employers or responsible employees.

I agree with you, and my point is that the company is showing you their values by providing that response. That is the favor.

There are imbalances, both structural and based on scale. Some of our struggle, arguably, comes from emergent properties that come from these differences. For example, we discuss as though one had a relationship with their company. But in reality, there are the individuals in the company, there is the legal relationship between 'corporate' entity and the individual, and there is the structure of the value generated by the role. I don't think we'll be able to get around describing in unbalanced terms, and yes, it is happeneing.

I focus on the applicants because they are the target of my advice. The recruiters we refer to may represent the company, but are not, in fact, the company. They often will not understand the position they are hiring for. They are just a person, and not the one most a part of the potential relationship. When they 'snub', they may be doing a mediocre job, and underperforming in what they're asked to do. My point is that we know the situation on the employer side is often more complex, and we shouldn't take things as personally (even though it sucks). Yes, it reflects badly on the employer, yes, you'll remember it, etc.

On 3 - They aren't. Both sides are dealing with a difficult reality. When, as a hiring manager, your whole day is blocked off to meet applicants, and half don't show, it is a hardship. Both sides have real stakes.

Employers' job is not to solve everyone's unemployment problem. It's not a tenable position.

I have healthy relationships with those with whom I transact. If you can't, it may say more about you than it does about the job market.

Last time you went to a restaurant, how did you tip?

I agree pretty much with all of your response.

We have a generation (millennials) in the US that had worse economic circumstances than many feel was fair. Despite the hard feelings that many have, I argue that taking the optimistic and deferential approach, rather than being cynical, will provide better outcomes for everyone involved.

One point I neglected to make was that there are rare times when it may be appropriate, even at a late stage, for the company to stop communicating entirely. This happened once, to me, and I was furious, but was lucky to find out why later. The company entered into merger talks and was instructed by its legal and finance teams to stop communicating 100% with outside parties that weren't operationally integral. So I got the silent treatment, and I hated it. My point is that there are reasons that we may never find out, and we need to expect that, even if it seems rude.

In many of the comments, I'm seeing folks equating not showing up for a mutually agreed interview as being a misdeed equivalent to not returning a response to an application. This just isn't the case. Once an agreement has been made, it should either be honored or the party that cannot meet its commitment should handle the commitment with due car; if you can't make it, you should inform the other and provide as much notice as possible.

In the game of employee-employer matchmaking, we should dispassionately understand a few things.
1 - Both sides show their values throughout the process, and choices made will be remembered.
2 - Many listings are semi-genuine - On the employer side, many job listings must go up, even if there are likely employees in mind for the position, due to legal and regulatory requirements. In these cases, employers often do consider applications that come in, but the candidates face an uphill battle.
3 - Many applications aren't genuine - they are filled out because the applicant is required to show evidence of having attempted to gain employment as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits.

The Non-Obligation to Return Initial Communication
4. A response to an initial direct communication is a courtesy, not an obligation.
5. If an employer tells you, "if you don't hear back, you didn't get the job" after a meaningful interview, they are doing you a favor. They mean "keep looking." If the employer follows this message with an offer or request for interviews, they are doing so from a less advantageous conversational position than if they had been more cordial.
6. Without automation, the cost of responding to each application is quite high. Many employers don't have this. Employees should understand this.
  In a strong economy, a listing may receive three, ten, or twenty weak applicants to respond to. In a strong economy, it may be hundreds.

After Meaningful Communication - The duty of courtesy grows with the relationship.
7. If the employer and employee trade significant conversation, and send signals that plan to continue to pursue the other, it signals to the other that they may want to decline other opportunities or change how they allocate their time. This is where each party should consider the costs the other party may bear. At this point, either party should expect a signal to the other if the relationship is off.
8. Formal commitments, like a mutually agreed, scheduled interviews, should be kept if at all possible. Either side should take commitment failure at this stage to be indicative of the quality of the relationship if formally entered.
9. When an employer takes too long to return a response after formalities, it is sometimes less the result of values at the company, and more the result of an overly complicated consensus culture or dysfunction at that firm. Take it with an eye roll, not as a grievance.
10. Either party may provide *more* courtesy than what is described above. That reflects a higher standard in that person or organization, and the employee should recognize and appreciate it.

- Regardless of the economy, healthy relationships require continued commitment and care. Though it seems to be getting rarer, we should play our part with the expectation of achieving that aim. Otherwise, in our disillusionment, we may leave potentially great relationships on the table due to our own bad behavior.

Milk was milk before companies turned it into a brand. But you're right that trademarks are a serious and expensive game.

Still, wouldn't it be more enjoyable to watch Milk vs Melk play out in the news? What about "Mlikish" as a fallback for when Melk doesn't work? Mlikish is clearly not Milk, as is made perfectly clear by the ISH.

I personally prefer our melky, milkish options over what comes out of the cow.

And to Anonymous Coward, my apologies. *Upper Midwest*!

Non-dairy milk alternatives have an easy solution. Adopt the midwest's pronunciation and just call it "melk". Easy enough, right?

The problem comes down to economics. You're buying a device that requires DC power, and the manufacturer is not going to decide the converter; it is going to choose an existing DC converter and supply it with the device. They might put a sticker on it. The socket-friendly option would cost a dollar or two more, which, when included in the Amazon price, just might give the competing device the edge. You and the other buyers didn't research the socket friendliness of the device, and there would be little opportunity for the manufacturer to convey this advantage in the first place.

What incentive does the manufacturer have to improving products this way? Not enough to add $1 to the price. So there you have it.

BTW, the article was incoherent. Let me coin the term "blogspreading" to refer to an article that takes up space and makes you spend more time than necessary to figure out what it's talking about.

The Quad Core Mac Mini I bought in 2012 is faster than any Mac Mini sold in 2018. Get it together, Apple.