Regardless of whether or not he was listening to something at the time, it's rude to keep essentially a headset on while you talk to someone in "real life". Just as it's rude to have your phone conversation directly in someones face. So yes, the guy ordering the coffee is most definitely the asshole here, as he says.

That only makes sense if you cater to machines first and humans second. The important information for most humans will be the day, not the year, therefore it should go first.

To use the WiFi, right?

"I've seen advertisements for smartphone docks that can add a display, keyboard, perhaps a mouse, Ethernet, storage, and most anything else people might think of for a desktop computer or laptop dock."

So basically converting the mobile device to a PC. I fail to see how that changes the initial statement that most meaningful work is still carried out using a PC.

Well, for instance doctors notes, while taken using dictation, are still transcribed by a person using a PC afterwards. So that's really not relevant.

There is no comparison to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Trump has admitted on live television that he did what he's accused of. His chief of staff has gleefully admitted that they do it all the time. We have a ton of witnesses all corroborating the same set of circumstances which mean Trump has acted to serve his own personal interests over the countrys interests. The evidence is overwhelming. No comparison can reasonably be made. Even Watergate was childs play next to this.
 
  And it's not even Trumps first impeachable or criminal offence, it's just one that's simple enough that it can be easily explained to the public. At least democrats try to do the right thing here. Republicans aren't even trying - and don't even bother to hide that fact either.

"he's highly likely to not only win 2020 but smashingly"....
How exactly do you figure that? If voter turnout is even half decent, he's very likely to lose, since his base is a minority of the overall population, and not by a small margin. If anything, a lawless, borderline retarded, corrupt president should bring people out to vote.
 
So unless Trump cheats, he's more likely to lose. Which means he'll probably win....

"The drug lord's brother has been able to price the phone so low by cutting out the middlemen like networks and retailers"

Sounds more like a great money laundering strategy to me. Sell something people want, even if you make a small loss, as long as the money gets cleaned.

They have definitely not been replaced by cell phones. Working out with a fitbit on your wrist is much more comfortable than lugging around a phone. Functionally they may be able to serve the same purposes, but form factor is also important in this space.
 
  That data is a commodity isn't exactly news either, but I'm not aware that you sign away your rights to your data when you use a fitbit. Is that the case (or was it in recent history)?

Completely agreed with the bad writing. I was thinking that they could have taken the storyline so far and put it into pretty much any setting, and it would have worked equally well / badly. Might as well have been watching a western show. It's pretty shoddy. The episode structure is also pretty uninteresting - basically it's 1. Introduce obstacle 2. Clear obstacle 3. Credits. Booooring.

"Nobody ever says, 'Oh, it's not going to work,' or 'Streaming isn't the future.' Everyone accepts that streaming is pretty much inevitable. The biggest concern with Stadia is that it might not exist."
 
  Euhm, with games specifically, a LOT of people are saying it will not work, streaming is not the future. And until we have just about zero latency connections worldwide, they're right.
 
  This one Google should probably just close down.

And which currencies aren't, exactly? I get that the fluctuations are smaller, but accouncements of political changes often do impact currencies.

That's what the whole trade war thing is about anyway.

The Finnish trial didn't fail. And I'm not aware that there have actually been that many others of that scale in the first place.

Having a pilot program with so few people will prove nothing. Apart from the painfully obvious "having more money is nice". It wont address any of the concerns about incentives or overall economic impact. So really, he's just giving away money in a sort of lottery.

Aaw, now who will be rude to me and spit in my Coke?