What I don't get is the need for people to spread alarmism. I will gladly discuss the problem, and even more gladly discuss solutions. When I propose something I don't get something like, "I believe you are mistaken", or "That's interesting, can I hear more?" When I offer evidence I get accusations of lies, falsified data, and a bias source. As if such things are impossible on the side of alarmism.

I see. It's my inability to fathom a stressful future that's the problem. Why is it that if there is a claim of the possibility that the future will be just fine the alarmists don't express a feeling of relief. Wouldn't there at least be some expression of satisfaction of a job well done for averting the worst? Even if there is still more to do?

It's as if some people cannot fathom possibility that we've fixed the problem already, or perhaps we've been mistaken all along. It wouldn't be the first time science was wrong. I mean science is not done by consensus, it's done by trial and error. It shouldn't take 1000 scientists to prove something right or wrong, only one.

What's the draw of your alarmism? I'm baffled as well.

I'll go along with the claims of CAGW as it does no real harm in itself to reduce CO2. I'd just like to see solutions that don't mean reversing the technological, societal, and economic progress we've made. If CAGW is the problem then let's make nuclear power part of the solution. Those that cannot fathom nuclear power as part of the solution are especially baffling. We have an energy source that is inexpensive, safe, reliable, and very low CO2. For some reason nuclear is a word that shall not be spoken. As if nuclear power is a greater threat than even CAGW.

If nuclear power is to be feared more than CAGW then we have nothing to discuss. If we can discuss things logically enough that nuclear power is on the table then we can discuss how to make the world better rather than just plugging our ears and scream at the other side.

I've known two people in the last year who left Oracle to work at Google. On Java. Nothing to do with Android in either case.

A couple of points.
One, regular money only redistributes money yet it is also a thing. So the concept of a thing that redistributes money is proven
Two, Blockchain is better at redistributing money (and more importantly auditable transactions) than existing systems. Think Fax v Email. Three, BTC is only one of 1000+ blockchain type currencies. Other varieties do actually provide different uses such as Power Ledger, which was designed specifically to trade units of energy in the electricity generation market. This is a real thing being used by real people and businesses. There are literally dozens of these types of application that have use.

For a technology site I find it odd that so many people here don't actually understand the technology behind it.

Because that's how you get popcorn.

This is why various VPNs will work well. Get a pipe to the EU, where data neutrality is (today) somewhat assured. Rinse, repeat.

The new UI for the Podcasts app is really awful, but I can chalk that up to the general dumbing down of user interfaces everywhere. My big problem is just basic functionality...you can't have a bunch of podcasts (even in the same feed!) play one after the other, so you have to mess with the phone when one ends to start the next one. This kills usability for me, because I really don't like touching the phone while I'm driving. I'm not usually in 5 MPH traffic crawling along...it's usually 45-55 MPH heavy traffic with traffic lights, crazy aggressive drivers and one second with your eyes off the road can mean an accident.

I don't mind UI changes when they make the app more functional. I can't stand changes that hide functionality or take away working features. Someone should put an idea in Jony Ive's ear to have a small hidden switch on the back of new iPhones...one side is "consumer" and the other is "reasonably tech-friendly" and it allows app developers to make 2 versions of their app. (Hey, I'm going to file a patent and sell it to Apple for a million bucks.)

Are you kidding, broham? Have you actually used an iPhone? Android is way more pleasant, regardless of cost.

Of course because tulips and decentralised digital currency are exactly the same thing.

Where are these people? I read a bit about Cryptocurrency, and I've never seen anyone ever say that.
What they do say is that decentralised currency is disruptive, and in a currency market worth trillions, so the potential market of such a technology is in the trillions of dollars. BTC is currently about $300B MCAP, so if you follow the logic there is more room for growth.

But go back to tulips if that is more your level...

At what exchange rate? I send money around a little bit, the 'no fees' line mean they rape you on the rate they give you.
Another issue is why do you accept 1 business day as ok? So you send on a Friday you have to wait until at least Monday? Blockchain transactions are done in seconds anywhere in the world. Last issue is if for whatever reason your local government decides they don't want to allow you to use your money how you see fit, what are your alternatives.
Decentralised currency has use cases. And while those use cases exist there will be a market.

Oh Oracle is indeed all evil. Just not because of that - they are all evil because of many other things.

Westboro Baptists. Trolling since before it was cool.

They're a nuisance only if you let them get to you. Just realize that they're pretty much the real life equivalent of internet trolls, if you ignore them they'll eventually start losing interest.

From your history its hard to believe you aren't spamming for freeznet

The NPR article is incorrect. She only looked at the sun without glasses for a few seconds. She found that uncomfortable. A woman nearby had eclipse viewing glasses but wasn't viewing the eclipse because she said she was blind as a bat anyway. So she asked to borrow the glasses.

She then viewed the sun for 15-20 seconds through those glasses, which they suspect is when the damage occurred. The glasses were probably fakes which didn't block all the rays of the sun. So this isn't a story about an idiot staring at the sun without glasses and destroying her vision as the NPR article implies. It's a story about some evil person destroying someone else's vision for life just so they could make a quick buck.

(Though I suppose it's possible she really is an idiot and made the whole thing up to hide her embarrassment.)

Star Trek Discovery is crap because it's just a weird science-fiction TV show that happens to have taken elements from Star Trek and pasted them on weird shit that never got mentioned once in ST:TNG, ST:DS9 or ST:Voyager.

"Spore drive"? Give me a fucking break. And Klingons that look like constipated fish-men? Fuck that.

Everywhere that's not China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea is America soil. The universal Empire asserts universal jurisdiction for its cruel laws and contemptible kangaroo courts.

Don't like it? Go argue with the Air Force. Be sure to bring along your own air force.

is my hoverboard bad.

I have sympathy for that viewpoint, but it's no more complex than C++ (including the two most common libraries), but it does a lot more with less library use and boilerplate. It took me a month to feel comfortable with Perl 6. A lot of that "kitchen sink" stuff is really useful. gather/take iteratively builds data structures. emit/tap is for event handling. Junctions and parallel loops are just plain awesome. But each feature seemed unnecessary until I needed to use it. I'd advise against making a firm judgment without using Perl 6 on a project, or at least analyzing how its features would be used on a project. (I still use the old perl for little scripts, especially those that need to be dead reliable.)

If they do publish fees or caps then in principle the FTC can hold them to it. Thus all a competitor needs to do is to say that Comcast's average fee is over $100 a month. They can let that be the regining belief or they can publish their own rates.