Matrix II was a perfect sequel for the great third movie that they didn't make. Neo using his matrix ability to fry the bots that were attacking them outside of the matrix was a perfect setup for taking the mystery deeper. Was there a matrix within a matrix? Was humanity ever not living in the matrix? Was there never a human society in "the real world"?
Instead they stopped asking tough questions and just turned it into a stock war movie where a small, stalwart band of resistors, hopelessly out manned and out gunned, manages to defeat an immensely powerful enemy. It's a the movie type we've seen since the '40's, only with cyberpunk trappings.

Remember, though: the original Star Wars was an homage to the space opera serials of the '30's and '40's. That's why it started at 'Episode IV'. There was no intention ab ovo to make it a franchise. It was more of an inside joke for movie geeks that happened to work out well for them once they realized the marketing potential of the universe.

Yes, but, aside from the labor component that has theoretically been accounted for, those costs shouldn't change. They're not variable, once the phone is in production. They're just unknown one time costs at the time of budgeting. But Apple will have to do the same design and QA/QC either way, since those are based on the consumer protection laws and norms of the purchaser's country.

Based on your first example, I don't think you understand what "charity" means. It's not an imposition, as you imply. If you lowered your price it would mean that you took $40 of value in some form other than immediate monetary compensation. Whether it's a public relations coup that you think you will benefit from at a later date, a warm fuzzy feeling inside, or the reduction in stress from knowing that you won't be inconvenienced while checking out with a credit card because of slow internet, you will have found some offsetting value.

If it's just a reduction of value imposed by the government, it a tax, a fee, or "taking". Charity is not coerced.

I thought "calories" were a measure of tastiness.

Hence my mother's diet advice: If it tastes good, spit it out.

enlightenment

It's the WM equivalent of Val Kilmer's character from "Real Genius": brilliant, flaky, fun to hang out with, inconsistently reliable (but with good intentions), and gets you into unnecessarily complicated situations at random intervals.

". . . machine learning is a core competence of Google."
And monetizing consumer data is their core business model.

I will admit that Google's results are often better. However, my privacy has value to me as well, and the cost/benefit doesn't work out in my head. I'll stay with the company that's not trying to build a model of me to sell to advertisers as long as I the service is available. I'm not confident it will be long, since the large population of users that haven't consciously considered the long-term ramifications of so much of their personal data being harvested have established a standard that doesn't weight privacy very highly.

  I'll enjoy the availability of alternatives while I can, though.

The term "atheist" was applied to Christians in the Roman Empire, not because they didn't believe in any God, but because they objected to others' belief in gods that didn't coincide with their conception of divinity. They were opposed to one or more gods. In the modern era, where monotheism has become dominant in many parts of the world, the meaning has evolved, but the bit in "History of the World" where Mel Brooks made fun of the Jews only being able to afford one god was kind of accurate. For the most part, Romans were okay with whatever tribal or local gods people prayed too, as long as they also publicly supported the standard pantheon, by which they proved their respect for the culture and their participation in the Empire. Those who refused (Christians and Jews, primarily) were seen as subversive for not falling in line with the dominant tradition, similar to the way some people are currently painting Muslims in many parts of the world.

my first thought is that this is evidence of a finance department coup meant to oust an ineffective marketing department.

Bad idea that shows no understanding of the marketplace in which they operate. I feel confident that there were better ways that they could have chosen to wind down a non-profitable service that would have had less of a negative impact on their overall corporate reputation.

Actually, there's quite a lot of information available both online, and in the inserts that come in the drug packaging. If more people had a general understanding of statistical terms and concepts, there wouldn't be as great a need for protecting them from the surface-level misrepresentations.

That said, I agree that people shouldn't have to suffer just because of the state of the educational system in this country at the time when they were coming through it.

If only we could just get the other AMA, the American Marketing Association, working on the side of good . . .

For years people have made the claim, with a good deal of justification, that people did not have the patience to learn new software in order to switch to a new platform. More recently, though, people have been eased into the idea through their smartphones. People regularly try out multiple apps to access all manner of functionality, and don't think twice about it. I suspect that this attitude could be harnessed by the Linux community, particularly by using the ubiquity of Linux on smartphones to encourage people to install apps they are already familiar with onto a desktop running a free, secure OS that doesn't spy on them. It's not a movement at present, but it's much more doable than in years past. The environment and infrastructure for showing people that linux apps can be just as easy to use as Windows apps is finally in place.

For a study to be funded, it must be ground-breaking. For a study to break new ground, it must be non-obvious. For it to be non-obvious, it must be, to some degree, counter-intuitive. To be counter-intuitive,it must, to some degree, be illogical (at least from a standard perspective.)
Since scientists can improve their chance of getting funded if they are studying illogical things, there's likely going to be a strong bias toward studying things that aren't true . Some of these things will not b shown to be conclusively wrong, either due to poor design or willful negligence of proper methodology.Unfortunately, this does not get caught by the peer review process, because "peers"can exhibit the same behaviors as movie critics (you can always find one willing to make a positive comment just to see their name in print, or be able to add a line to their vita.)
Because of the proliferation of "journals" in the Internet era, there is a "news cycle" view within the scientific press now, where each publication is trying to be first to report new discoveries.
Preliminary studies that would never have been published in the past are presented in the same format that well-studied research streams were previously, so that the start-up journals can appear to have the same legitimacy as the leaders in the field.
The popular press, desperate for sensational headlines, jumps on these illogical theories with scant research and inconclusive results and treats them like news, simply to fill the requirement for 24-hour reporting.

Given a choice between trusting my data to a hipster company motivated by profit, but convinced that it is a still a trendsetter, and a company whose entire business model is based on the collection and distribution of information that it collects by looking over people's shoulders, I actaually feel safer with the deluded hipsters. Even if they are no more trustworthy, their reach is not as great, so I'm willing to bet the fallout will be (marginally) easier to contain.

On some level, to Apple, I'm a customer. To Google, I'm just a product.

Reminds me of "Brazil" (the Terry Gilliam one, not the courntry.)

Every manager I've questioned about the shortcomings of cubicles has said that it's good for intra-office communication and creative collaboration . . . before walking into their private office and shutting the door behind them. Even in an organization where they made a point that managers didn't have private offices (though, senior managers and executives, of course, still did) most of the managers camped out in the few small conference rooms where employees were supposed to be able to go for "spontaneous collaborative sessions."

I guess this meant that they realized that they have nothing to offer intellectually or creatively to the work of the office.