In the UK, I generally find Starbucks music pretty calming, as it tends to be soft jazz or the like. It's one of the reasons I like the environment and find it relaxing.

Are the Starbucks in the US playing something different?

It would be interesting to see what kind of Cobra effect this will create. E.g. content creators make 2 videos, one with comments disabled and one redirecting for comments where less advertising income is expected.

The more typical scenario of course being that they get majorly sued for damages, while being publicly defamed for being an 'illegal haxxor'.

So the real question is, now that YouTube is messing things up, which (preferably more ethical) alternatives should be promoted? Scott Adams has made very good use of periscope (pscp.tv). Not to mention, RMS would like people to use archive.org more. Perhaps it's time to put the spotlight on alternative video platforms and find ways to allow content creators to monetize their content respectfully and move away from a monopoly who's largest interest is to data-mine its users?

So ... Photoshop?

Sounds like someone is thinking outside the box, leveraging some core competencies and hitting the ground running. An amazing display of synergy and proactivity if you ask me. I bet it runs on a blockchain on the cloud.

DDG will become as bad as Google if it's allowed to grow. Its founder already has no problems lying about your anonymity and monetizes your data

Please elaborate; otherwise it just sounds like a generic shill statement. It is no secret that DDG relies on 'data' from users in the broader sense (it *is* a search query engine). But that is a far cry from implying it does so in a way that is personally invasive like google.

I bet you're old.

You are missing the fact that google results are personalised. Meaning your results are more relevant because they've probably been personalised to your profile / locality. When I perform the same search, DDG results seem to be more relevant if anything (Google includes lots of spammy looking stuff). And adding 'flight' to the term immediately brings the right results unambiguously.

Effectively you're saying you prefer the so-called 'filter bubble' (which is fine, but I don't).

For what it's worth, I typically have the reverse experience with Google. While there have been a couple of times where google has yielded a 'better' result, typically for me it's the opposite. DDG results are far more relevant and, more importantly, diverse. Especially if you're trying to search for something that has a political undertone, or is likely to be copyrighted.

I'd never heard of this "Iconic streetwear brand" called "Supreme" before this. Iconic my butt. This is an ad and you should feel bad.

And now, in a Trumpesque turn of events, the media will now claim that the real Supreme paid the fake Supreme to partner with Samsung to make them famous, and that this was all part of their evil plan from the very beginning.

not only is it not a pure coincidence, but you might not be too surprised to find out that Tenor Gif has been long acquired by google, in order to serve ads to users browsing memes, by tagging said memes full of advertising keywords.

Interesting! So, people who are predisposed to eventually developing Parkinson's disease, are at an increased risk of having that manifest as an inflamed appendix requiring operation. Not only that, but this seems to be an early warning sign before the main disease (Parkinson's) manifests as well.

Brought to you by the "In medicine the exact reverse causal hypothesis always also sounds entirely reasonable too" department.

Incidentally, every time somebody discovers yet another brain-gut-axis link, I feel more and more sorry for Andrew Wakefield.

The claim that "the industry is dominated by men and therefore we couldn't train this in a gender-neutral way" is totally bogus from a machine-learning perspective. All that is needed to eliminate a bias arising from dataset imbalance is to balance the dataset.

More likely they realised that when using dispassionate criteria for optimal hiring, it would become very likely they'd not get the desired "Women > Men" politically correct outcome for all sorts of statistically valid reasons, and figured such optimal hiring was not worth its salt against all the money lost from lawsuits and bad PR in a time of a politically tense climate favouring women.

I completely agree with their choice, and would do the same. No need to feed oil to the fire

China.

Apparently. Just heard it from a greek colleague. I wanna see that live, hahah.