Comment Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary." (Score 2) 446
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Including women
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Including women
Should women be given free choice or not? One wonders exactly what the social-justice crowd had in mind.
The vast majority of women choose to study social sciences. Men don't.
Should their freedom of choice be curtailed? Should we 'force' women to study something they're not interested in? Because if such inhibition of personal freedoms is not acceptable then perhaps we should stop treating these obvious gender-aligned differences in preference as "flaws", and start treating them as "features" of our species.
The social justice crowd would of course insist that it's all "nurture" and not "nature". But how many times must this absurd belief system be obliterated with logic for it to finally disappear? ---> https://vimeo.com/19707588
One must note that the ice sheet has **ONLY** existed for 10,000 years.
It's very important to stress this point, as those who do not understand geologic time are at risk of thinking that 10,000 years is a long time.
It's a nanosecond on the geologic clock.
This is a very young icesheet. It's loss is noteworthy, but does not have significance when viewed on macro timeframes.
I'm building an iPhone app that tells you (on your iPhone screen) what time it is on your Apple Watch.
It's a way to use your phone, so that you don't have to glance at your watch.
It's going to be awesome. Next I'm going to make a way to show you the iPhone alerts on your Apple Watch, on your iPhone.
See? See what you just did?
You completely re-framed the debate on to terms which are easier to defend.
The debate is not over warming. It's over "man made" warming.
The earth has historically been far, far colder and far, far warmer than it is now. Even if the earth was in the middle of a major warming trend (which is questionable from the micro-second of geologic time that we have been paying attention) the issue is important because current *policy* initiatives assume man-made causality.
*That* is what needs to be clearly established. Stop re-framing the debate around our the easy to establish truth that our climate changes. Our climate has always and forever been changing.
Keep in mind that Google themselves promotes AdBlockPlus pretty heavily within their Chrome store, and that Google is whitelisted in ABP.
If this is indeed an ulterior motive, then it would seem to indicate that Google has become concerned about other ad blockers that fall outside their control.
I think Microsoft is a better analogy.
Like Microsoft, Facebook is monopolistic to the point that every major business decision is made with the goal of expanding and cementing exclusive control. And like Microsoft, Facebook rarely 'sells' these decisions to its users. Rarely, it seems is the question of "Why would users want this?" placed at a higher priority than "How can we achieve absolute control?"
An interesting manifestation of their "power over popularity" focus is that both Microsoft (historically) and Facebook are notably design-challenged companies, with aesthetics that seem dated and "secondary" to their self-centered mission.
The Internet is a big place. Restricting access to a few sites is effectively useless.
To film an entire "sphere" of video simultaneously, and then have the Oculus (client) display a subset of that data depending on where the user was looking?
That system would not only involve fewer moving parts, but less movement-related lag. It would also allow multiple simultaneous users to access the vantage point.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is fundamentally a belief system. There is no evidence of anthropogenic warming, and as we all know the climate has never not been changing since the formation of the Earth. The data is weak and those who disagree with it are publicly ex-communicated.
The addition of a religious element -- no less, a Catholic one -- is almost poetically perfect for this belief system which masks so many hidden agendas.
At least now perhaps we can put to rest some of these awful trends in web design:
- Oversized graphics that require excessive scrolling.
- Parallax silliness (Because we can)
- Round bio photos (Because Apple, that's why)
- Giant "flat design" icons that add zero value
- The full-screen expanded "hero" div which is basically this decade's "title screen". (Seriously, title screens suck. Why is one that requires slowly 'scrolling' past -
- better than one that one clicks past?)
- The giant quote. Does this need to fill up 1/3 of my screen? Why?
Obviously: Since without Life our oceans would be larger, it doesn't take a genius to see that life is negatively impacting the size of our oceans.
As a conservationist I am deeply concerned about this.
Also, by the same token -- it disturbs me that all this out-of-control biology has clearly had an effect on the chemical composition of our atmosphere. Why is no one more freaked out by this? Historic records clearly show that our atmosphere has become tainted with oxygen as a result of all this "life".
Are you okay with chemical changes to the atmosphere, and smaller oceans? Well? Are you?!
This tech is soon going to be coupled with:
a) Robots
b) Self driving 2-wheel vehicles
But here's the more important takeaway from this:
Ninebot stole Segway's technology. Segway sued them and the case went nowhere as Ninebot's profits soared. Then Ninebot bought Segway.
See the business model here?
Well to be fair, there is a certain irony about calling the energy "renewable" when it couldn't be sustained.
Still, it's an impressive accomplishment that they pulled it off as long as they did. It should be noted though that:
1) It's not replicable everywhere at any time.
2) Costa Rica doesn't have particularly demanding energy needs (as the "stupid" guy above pointed out).
It's *extremely* telling that Google is running after luxury brands.
Why?
Because everyone at Apple and Google know the truth. And the truth is: This is not a product anyone needs.
How do you sell something nobody actually needs? Well... Nobody knows the answer to that question better than watch manufacturers.
The immediate flight to "luxury" speaks volumes about the actual utility value of these silly gadgets.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
