I don't think that was what the GP was claiming, just refuting the idea that Apple had a history of adding useless features. Apple have been ahead of the curve on certain features that are now mainstream, and have made a few missteps (Thunderbolt, for example).The Touchbar is pretty ridiculous and not part of any historical pattern. I'm tempted to say it's something that could only exist because Jobs died...

The iMac range is for the desktop -- the only battery in it should be for keeping the system clock running.

I'm a cyclist... I call riding past bus stops "surfing".

What I'm trying to say is to make multiple tow legal if the trailers are active vehicles with a "slave" steering mechanism controlled from the front.

Call me a luddite, but why make this legal while there is still a ban on any vehicle having more than one trailer. Surely a multitrailer lorry-train with physical wires and wireless backup would offer all the same advantages, but be much safer and easier to manage? Not to mention less hackable.

But Trumpists don't believe in Enlightenment ideals. The Trump camp is dominated by people who want to uphold religion and some caricature of what they think is traditional.

He did mention lunch, though. If you're stuck at your desk for lunch (because there's nowhere else to go) why not have a shuftie at a few websites?

But... "Many of these differences are small" and they are only on average. And Google hire a tiny percentage of the people in the world. Where does he demonstrate that the effect size of these differences in the Google setting are non-zero?

The Spanish Inquisition would "let" you confess by torture. Your repentance would often involve being burned at the stake so that you'd have had your punishment on Earth and would therefore be allowed into heaven. What a privilege.

Q: At the risk of getting into circular definitions... does that mean that you only call people SJWs if they self-identify as SJWs?

A: It doesn't. Because you just called someone who doesn't self-identify as "SJW" SJW.

So regardless of who started it, you're generalising.

Google made a point of acknowledging that some of the points in the memo discussed working conditions, and specifically said that those parts weren't why he was fired. The bits where he said that women weren't as good at dev work or leadership weren't about working conditions, and those are the bits that got him the sack.

Actually, part of his diatribe was about working conditions, and he commented that there were training opportunities that were only available to so-called "diversity" candidates. In their public response, Google made a point of acknowledging this, and saying that this was not why he was fired. He was fired for the parts of the message that weren't a discussion of working conditions.

Reductio ad absurdam: There are laws against assault. That makes assault political. So assaulting a colleague is a political issue. Ergo you can't fire an employee for assault.

But that's not what the GP said at all. Being "the hero of Trumpists" doesn't mean that everyone who supports him is Trumpist.

Nope.

What you're doing sounds more like if I had to do this:
rm
-
r
f
*
...on the command line in order to perform a recursive delete.

If users knew the commands, classifiers and other bits and bobs that chain together in the system, the problem space of pattern recognition would be reduced drastically, making the voice recognition far more reliable.

rm -rf * follows a predictable, formal grammar, which is much easier for the computer to process than typing: "Computer, please delete all the files in the current directory and all their subfolders and any subfolders that they have ad infinitum".

Using formal command syntax in speaking (eg: "Computer: delete recursively [all files] in [the current directory]") would make voice command much, much easier. As it stands, the technology currently has to cope with sound recognition and natural language parsing and interpretation simultaneously, and that's a Very Hard Task.