Google seems less likely to be able to do the same thing. Anyone doing research on Google is probably already interested.

Yes, thanks, this is the point I was trying to make.

If the assertion is that surface area increases as mass decreases, the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.

No, of course that's not the assertion. What the hell kind of assertion would that be?

If you spill a glass of water on the counter, the surface area of that water increases greatly but the mass stays the same. In fact, it evaporates faster that way so while the surface area stays much larger than it was, the mass actually reduces much faster as a result. What is likely happening here is very similar, except with ice instead of liquid water

I feel like I'd have better luck explaining this to a three year old.

All they would need to do is omit some results from the search and place others high in the list. They can even insert propaganda into seemingly unrelated searches. Something perhaps designed to manufacture rage at one particular party or candidate.

I don't think this is the case. I think most people when searching about politics are likely to be searching for evidence to back up an opinion they already hold. The other primary use case is likely to look up a candidate to see if they are in the same party as the searcher or not (since a lot of TV ads don't state party affiliation outright).

Of course I haven't done a study to prove this. Like most of you, I don't have time for that. Generally speaking, though, the troll articles that come up when you search on a political topic are very obvious and the only way someone would bite on those is if the article supports what they already want to think.

Well, "missing space" is definitely on-topic at least.

What the hell are you talking about? Mass != surface area. It's not a dodge, it's basic understanding.

I didn't know global warming only affected air temps...?

Coming at it from above would have made them easy targets.

Uh... but isn't that how they got to the trench in the first place?

A strike I would understand, but actively causing traffic congestion seems like a blatant disregard for the very people you're claiming to serve. As we saw with the bridge in NJ, traffic congestion causes real, life-threatening problems and we certainly do not need to be causing it artificially. There's got to be a better way for this organization to make their point.

Then doesn't the service sell itself? Why would they be afraid of something like Uber? Why would they be so afraid that they are literally willing to risk peoples lives to do it? If you intentionally cause traffic congestion, suddenly emergency vehicles also can't get through, which means people who need help won't get it when they need it, and some will die as a result.

Go figure the parent got modded "Troll." How disappointing.

Both Amazon and Apple engage in the kind of "free market capitalism" that made the Soprano's famous: pay us or you won't be around very much longer. They have the same relationship with the market that a pig farmer has to his pigs. The pigs have very little say in the matter.

Actually, I think the overall idea is more akin to renting a booth at a bazaar or flea market. The fact they are charging you to use their infrastructure doesn't seem all that bad. The 30% seems over the top to me and the extra rules they have in place to try to force you to use their infrastructure is the part that looks like racketeering.

The question to ask is: do most developers deal with these factors because it's worth 30%, or do they deal with it because they don't have another option? If it's the latter, then it's not capitalism that we're seeing here. Amazon appears to be trying to prove that there is another way.

I'm not at all convinced that the grass was greener "back in the day." People love to romanticize the time they spent growing up but that doesn't make it true.

Yes, or introduce a delay at either the top or the bottom while pressure normalizes, which defeats the purpose of a fast elevator anyway.

I know better than to disagree ;-)

This isn't about "OMG Apple is dying!" it's about the iPad (a single product line) not being able to sustain sales.