As a longtime reader, I remember their heyday 20 years ago when they had all kind of regular columns, in-depth analysis, correspondents embedding themselves in scenes and at shows.

Slowly the content began to get crappier in various ways, until about a year ago Conde Nast fired everyone but a couple of reviewers. And so the site only publishes a handful of reviews a week, and all the rest of the content is reposts from newswire-type sources and TMZ.

Now it seems they've just given up on producing content in general, hoping they can farm out the missing content to social-media types to create for free. It can never, ever, ever match what was lost. It's just going to be another YouTube comments section.

I took a class on driving laws in my state. It was a few years ago, but I don't think the laws have changed since then. If so, everyone is still following the old law, except in this one instance.

I'm willing to believe some out-of-state transplants who don't know the law in Texas were the first to unknowingly break it, then everyone else who does know the law but recognizes it's ridiculous followed them.

Doesn't matter what kind of lanes are between them, or even if they are two different road surfaces separated by a median.

Portrait is the correct orientation for what is essentially a moving portrait. The problem is what it's a portrait of. The vertical bars don't hide anything worth seeing. And there's nothing worth seeing between the bars, either.

Yeah, but not the old Delhi.

Some of us recognize that the idiots occasionally need to be herded and coaxed into doing the right thing, not for their sake, but for ours having to inhabit the same world as them. This same impetus is behind, for example, the designation and punishment of crime. "Lack of self control" is neither a license, nor an excuse.

Anyway, the dope man has you so squarely by the balls that you're lashing out at the mere suggestion you, or anyone, might need some help.

Been considering VR for gaming, it seems like an interesting toy. I saw the pawn shop had a Quest 3 for $200 this weekend. Left it on the shelf because I remember the "requires a Facebook account" thing, although apparently that requirement has been axed now.

What would these other headsets give me above a Quest 3 for gaming? Not really interested in cameras, apps, or an integrated OS. I'd want something as lightweight as possible - physically and conceptually. If it's not strictly about i/o, I'd rather not have it. I may be willing to put up with it - not for $1,800 though.

Ok bot.

No monopoly is required for them to violate the law.

That's true even in the US, not that we enforce antitrust law here.

And you've made your own non-anonymous coward comment. You're afraid to not be a cuck for corporations.

Yep. Imagine signing up to pay someone a subscription fee that you can get a night's sleep.

A reference to selling useless products to people.

Looking for health patterns that drug makers could use to target you for a sales pitch.

The same people who use smart watches to keep track of steps, sleep, and other fitness indicators. Beds that adjust temperature and other factors, and analyze sleep patterns and quality, can be very useful and valuable.

The problem / silliness isn't that the bed is "smart". The bullshit factor in this proposition is that those useful features and functions aren't local to the bed - they're in the hands of the gatekeepers at the other end of an internet connection. Rule Number One: if a feature or function doesn't inherently require an internet connection, then it mustn't rely upon such a connection.

I'm pretty sure that it IS feature complete. It seems unlikely that the Web-based controls and capabilities are NOT among the advertised features. Too bad for people who didn't grasp the implications of "Web-based". Perhaps now they finally have a fucking clue.

I think even the folks who signed on for Alexa understand that problems with Web infrastructure will cause the nosy bitch to malfunction or behave strangely. Why in hell would anyone imagine that their Amazon-controlled bed wouldn't be subject to the same kind of failure?

The Luddites didn't want to ban technology.

They wanted The People to share in the benefits, not just the capitalists (who have all the investment capital.)

You are still falling for and propagating anti-Luddite PR over a century old.