You definitely both hit the nail on the head and answered your own question. The last Dice article on Swift was one of the worst programming articles I've ever read. Thanks to you for mentioning that this is an another Dice article--I'll save myself a waste of time and NOT RTFA.

I don't think Yahoo was ever top dog search?

I remember switching from Altavista to Google sometime around 98/99. WebCrawler before that? Yahoo is one of those companies I've never understood why people used their products. Or, for that matter, how they're still around today.

I, on a personal level, am skeptical about the usage--or at least the possible over-usage--of mood-altering medications primarily because we know so little about the way they work. See TFA as an example. I'm doubly skeptical on using SSRIs and other drugs on childrens, adolescents, and even young adults, as there are even more uncertainties about these drugs on still-developing brains!

Having said that, SSRIs are common medications today. The kind of people who are suicidal or have such a mood-disorder that going on a shooting rampage seems like a good idea are exactly the people for whom you would expect SSRIs to be prescribed! In other words, are SSRIs causing these issues (and earning your blame), or were the problems there to begin with?

I don't know, and I don't know of any studies or other medical evidence that points either way. IMH(and not not scientifically grounded)O, I would, like you, suspect some causal relationship.

My experience running SolidWorks through MasterCAM was very different.

Feed MasterCAM the specs on your machine and the part file, and what you got Just Worked. Clamp the workpiece and you could walk away.

Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.

I access from the UK so I can't tell if they do or don't now. I know they used to, but things have changed a bit since then.

We'll have to see the results of the new investigation, I imagine.

The trouble is in this instance, is that the people who have the decision making power (you, in this instance) aren't the same as the people who are being abused (the provider of the thing you're searching for). To say that it's okay because you have the power to change what you do, doesn't change the fact that you won't change because you're not the one being screwed.

Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.

- Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
- Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
- Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.

Company B's previous recourse was basically, to live with it - Google have control over the entire stack, top to bottom. Companies can't go elsewhere because Google index them, not the other way around, and Google keep how they calculate popularity hidden, so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally). It's therefore up to the searchers to go elsewhere to get search results, but because Google are trusted to provide the correct answers, why would people do that? It's not the user's fault that Google dishonestly reports their results as the best even if others are better, it's Google's.

Anyway, in Europe it's against the law for Google to act in that way considering their position as provider of 66% of searches, so it was challenged. Google's solution in response to that legal action was to allow companies to pay Google to be promoted to top spot, but companies (naturally) thought that it was unfair that they would have to pay for equal consideration when Google do it to themselves for free. Now they have to come up with another idea.

"Never" is an awfully long time, especially when you are talking about the climate. What actual timeframe are you talking about?

There's not law that does what he says, so it's kind of a moot point!

And when it comes down to it, county commissioners, city planners, zoning officials, etc are neither bound by the availability of plans or the lack of plans. If anti-development commissioners are elected, they can vote against expansive development all they want, completely regardless of sea level rise estimates.

FWIW, I would be an anti-development commissioner!

Reference for where the state "bann[ed] any such consideration or planning for the future"? Not to a biased media source with no sources, please.

You're absolutely right. Things are always--necessarily--better when they are centrally decided and mandated. Fireproofing is an excellent example. Thank goodness for codes that required asbestos, Tris, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Too bad those contrarians just want to stand in the way of progress.