Prominent world politicians urge adoption of new changes to the C++ standard concerning private inheritance and templates.

What this is trying to do is imply that because they have technical expertise in how dangerous AI-controlled weapons are, that technical expertise makes them experts about political decisions concerning weapons. It doesn't, and there is no more reason to pay attention to them than to the average guy in the street (who understands that some weapons are dangerous, and may have opinions on their use, but certainly doesn't get a national press release about it).

I was under the impression that if you upgrade from 7 to 10, your 7 key will no longer be valid. So grabbing your free copy and saving won't work. At any rate, grabbing a free copy wouldn't work anyway because it's the activation key that you need, and burning a free copy to load later on won't mean you'll have an activation key you can use later on.

Does the interviewee go through the original post and look at everything that got a score of 5? That's a fairly low bar to hit, and probably a bit unreasonable.

It's extremely unreasonable. Many of the good questions ended up with ratings of 4. That's because a common strategy to disrupt the questioning is to wait until the last minute and moderate down all the rating 5 comments you don't like so that if the questions are chosen by rating none of them will get picked (and since it's the last minute, the time frame for someone to notice and mod them up again is small).

Yes, but this is different, because the supposed copyright law was in the other direction. If there's anything that the evil geniuses behind our copyright laws would *not* do, it's to make it *easier* to copy works legally, which is what this claims is being done.

That's because when the government forces the cost on private businesses, that hides the source of the increased costs. When the government actually has to raise taxes to pay for it, people can figure out that it's too expensive. If the company raises its prices because of government mandates, people just say "greedy companies" rather than blaming the government. Making the government pay for these things directly is an important part of having checks and balances on the government because people notice taxes.

In other words, "if you make the government pay for it, people will complain about raising taxes" is a feature, not a bug. That's the point--the government should make it obvious that it is taking the money, so the public can decide whether it's really worth it. And sometimes they won't.

Pro will not let you stop updates, you can only delay them.

According to TFA and TFSummary, 99% of the accepted requests are privacy related and are not about crooks and swindlers.

If you've rooted your phone you can just remove all the google framework crap.

How? Is there a guide somewhere to what things actually have to be removed?

The answer to a user interface problem is not "the misleading user interface's behavior is described in the manual".

By your reasoning, there's no such thing as a user interface problem at all, as long as the behavior is described in a manual somewhere.

Google Photos is a different application than backup sync. More at 11.

Nonsense. This is a user interface problem. The whole thing is designed such that someone who runs Google Photos would reasonably believe that Google Photos is doing the uploading and that if you get rid of Google Photos, it will not upload.

User interface problems inherently lead to users not knowing how to do things. Replying "it doesn't work that way, and the user should have known that" is just trying to deny the concept of user interface problems--at some point, the fact that the user doesn't know something is the fault of the interface designer, not the user.

It's called a "hatchetman" and is an old trick for business administration. Googling the term produced a lot of dictionary definitions, but not much in the way of in-depth articles. But now that you know what it's called, you can look it up.

"High crime in Republican states" can mean high crime in Democratic-run areas within Republican states.

Fewer women click ads for such jobs for reasons unrelated to the prevalence of such ads. Women are much less inclined to work long hours for more pay in preference to being with their family. $200K jobs are likely to be the type of job which requires prioritizing work over everything else, so women won't click on such ads.

The biggest worry about people judging you because of stupid stuff on the Internet is individual private decisions, such as employers or potential dates looking you up. Public blame is not the same thing as private blame, especially in this case, where the social justice warriors are for once on the right side but their influence is limited to preventing public blame--they can't keep someone from not hiring, or dating, or renting to, a victim.

I'd also expect that the effects of the Fappening are unusually low because it is about celebrities. Nobody's going to refuse to hire Kim Kardashian because someone posted nude pictures of her.

I wouldn't want to work for a company who judged me for the stupid shit I did as a teenager or if I were a homosexual.>/blockquote>

I would like to work for a company who enables me to earn money that I can use to eat and pay rent.

It's easy to say "I wouldn't want to work for a company that wouldn't hire me" if you don't need a job. If you need a job, you would much rather be hired by a company who hates you than not be hired.