Trump is trying to play this like zero sum game in which he wins and everyone else loses. In economics that's a really stupid way to do things because if everyone else loses who is buying all the stuff you're winning at making? No one. Oops, you collapse as well. Sure China has some rather aggravating trade practices and corporate espionage seems like a regular old Tuesday over there... but you can't just go slapping tariffs on everyone and everything without some serious repercussions that he seems incapable of grasping. China needs the same things it needed before the trade war, and it's going to start looking elsewhere for them, and set up new trade agreements with other countries for those things. And when the trade war settles and the dust clear and the US is exporting stuff again to them... are they going to buy it, or stick with their new trade partners? Historically it has always taken YEARS to re-enter a market that a trade war has pushed us out of. Or anyone for that matter. And since China seems more than happy to just sit and wait for Trump to rot, this is not going to end well for him.

By the time it's "that important" to the people who make the decisions, it will be too late to do much of anything about it. This is the sort of thing you have to be VERY proactive about. There are feedback loops that are incredibly difficult to reverse and crossing certain thresholds triggers those. It's like freeway repair. The longer you wait, because "it's not that bad yet" the more expensive and disruptive the fix becomes. Sure a few hundred million for some potholes and cracks sounds like a lot, but it sounds like very little compared to $1.5 billion to replace the entire roadbed. Same with global warming. Yeah, the changes we need to make sound like a lot and disruptive but compared to what it will take a mere 5 years from now, 10 years from now... it's nothing.

That's called clutter. Knowing that the median is grassy conveys nothing useful to a map user. Knowing where the lawn around a house is conveys nothing useful to a map user. When google highlights an area on a map it conveys information that is useful. This orange area here has a high concentration of shopping and restaurants. New to the city and looking for something to do? These are areas to focus on. Yeah, it's cool that their algorithm can pull out the detail like that... but it doesn't help the end user any, and as the article even said, becomes confusing in some areas.

There does seem to be a rather extreme obsession with gutting useful in favor of thin.

Saint.

Someone needs to translate this to a more appropriate terminology for our profession, this could prove hilarious while simultaneously providing more fodder for the SJWs to lose their collective shit over.

You know, not everyone who uses a mac is a whiny millennial. The problem here is that rather than admit to having a problem with their keyboard design and fixing it, the added band-aid, and lied about why they added it and didn't fix the problem in any way. And this is on a high-end luxury product line no less. It isn't isn't a feeling of entitlement so much as promised value for money spent. "It just works" is the byline of Apple products and clearly, the just don't.

My only guess here is that with a decrease in availability of the types typically used for animal feed, some used for other purposes would need to be co-opted leading to a shortage for the kind in beer? As for price increase, let's face it, that has never been a straight linear relationship. A 10 cent increase in a part leads to a multi-dollar increase in the final product. Happens all the time.

Kind of the whole point of the 10th amendment. Since the federal agency that would have the logical authority to regulate this has stated they do not have the legal authority to do so, the 10th amendment kicks in and reserves this to the states meaning the FCC doesn't have the right to block net neutrality regulations of any kind any more by their own legal defense.

The truly hilarious thing here is that the ISPs fought so hard to get rid of federal level regulations thinking this would make it easier for them, when in reality all it did was open the door for 50 completely different sets of regulations across the country, some maybe weak, but definitely some far more restrictive than what already existed. So instead of having to meet one standard, there will likely be multiple different standards. I'm willing to bet there are some people in the ISP industry wishing they had left well enough alone at this point. And you are completely correct. You can't claim you don't have authority, and then claim you have authority in the same breath. Either you do have the power to regulate, or you don't. You can't have both.

The ironic thing about this post being that SpaceX does it so much cheaper than the "socialist" option, that they are literally pissing the entire launch industry around the world off. I have a good friend who works range optics at Vandenberg and knows a lot of people from the various launch teams. He says the ULA people hate SpaceX. No matter how polite they are in press etc, they hate SpaceX. When a Falcon Heavy can lift nearly double the payload of a Delta IV Heavy and do it for 1/3 the cost... yeah. I have no idea what the economics will be when BFR is up and running, but if they pull it off as envisioned, it will be even cheaper by far to lift significantly more payload. And if the idea of Earth to Earth pans out, and I really hope it does, his estimated price in an astronomical conference presentation was about the cost of a business class airline ticket. It comes down to scale and he envisions a huge scale up. They already account for a significant fraction of all annual launches globally. SpaceX has never been about being a rich mans game. He is using sort of the same model he did with Tesla where you build the expensive one and use the money generated from the sales for that to fund the next round, and repeat, getting cheaper and scaling each time. So you get a really rich guy to fund R&D and take him around the Moon. That allows you to use the money to further develop without spending your own, etc. But their end goal has always been about making spaceflight options affordable for all. Roughly as affordable as airline travel is now. I guess we'll see how it all plays out over the next decade or so, but so far he has stuck to the model and it is starting to pay off as they have a LONG waitlist of launch payloads and are ramping up production of Block 5 Falcon 9s as well as working hard to cut turn around time. They've already cut it from months to weeks. Again, stated end goal is same day relaunch.

Utah has a swath of cities that has been dubbed The Silicon Slopes because pretty much every tech company is now here. Microsoft has set up offices. Adobe. Facebook is building a gigantic new datacenter. The NSA has their massive data facility here. Along with more startups than I can keep track of. The construction of office parks and buildings along a 30 mile stretch of freeway is insane. Housing prices here are great, power is cheap as well which is attracting large datacenters. Access to infrastructure is also easy, and Utah is taking advantage of it dumping hundreds of millions into freeway expansion and other projects to attract the business. Park City has also seen a lot of tech and start up growth as well using the "ski culture" the way California used the surf culture. Hit the slopes before work etc.

I have to agree. Google has actually always informed in their agree to terms that they WILL be collecting and analyzing data about you. And I'm not talking about it being hidden either, they straight up say it. And you know what, of all the companies out there that do it, I get real value from it. They scan my emails and extract shipping numbers so that my Google Home can tell me about them. Or flight plans so that I get alerted when I need to leave wherever I am based on real time traffic data (also gathered by trackgin android phones) in order to make my flight. I know in the past Google has kept data in-house to inform their own services. Their own ad placement services, their on maps, their own email, and assistant software. If, and yes that is a big if because do we really know, but if it is staying within Google and just bouncing between services, I really don't care at that point. I would be curious to know what anonymized me looks like though, and it would be cool as a user to get a yearly report of how many times my anonymized data was used, etc. Where as Facebook gleans tons of data about me and my likes, I get very little actual benefit from that. Google however simplifies my tasks, coordinates all the many actions I take during the day and places them at my fingertips like no one else. I'm at least getting real, tangible benefit for them having access to me.

and realize they aren't the customer of companies like this... they are the product.

You are aware that GTA V is on PC, right? And wasn't just a port either, included entirely new levels of detail because the PC could support it over the console versions, right?