During the debate, Secretary Clinton threw some (what she believed to be) barbs at Mr. Trump, which left me puzzled:
Putting aside the context mentioned elsewhere, it is profoundly unfair to discriminate against women at the workplace because of their biology. Today, women are denied jobs over the possibility of getting pregnant, or fired for getting pregnant. By contrast, men who father children frequently end up doing better in the workplace than before. By stating that this is an inconvenience to employers, Trump is stating that this unfair state of affairs should continue. That's unacceptable.
"Birther lie" was racist!
Leaving aside, whether or not it was a "lie" or who was the first to bring it up, how is it racist? McCain's eligibility was questioned in 2008 — he presented his birth certificate and that ended it. This year Trump questioned Cruz's eligibility — correctly or not, nobody said, it was "racist"?..
Yes, it was extremely racist. It was racist primarily because there was absolutely no basis in fact, and yet it was promoted as a major issue by certain conservative elements (including Trump) for many years. The racism in this issue was apparent in particular with how it was presented: people claimed, despite contradictory evidence, that he was born in Africa and was a Muslim, as if either condition disqualified him from being a US citizen (they don't: he still has a US citizen for a mother).
The problem is the particular business model they use: impose a specific cap based upon the plan, and then charge large overage rates if you go over.
If it were just a matter of paying a base charge and then paying per GB (or similar) used, then it might make sense. Those overage rates, however, make the model problematic at best. Especially when they fail to notify customers that they're getting close to their quota.
I think that there's a good probability that this claim is true, but all that this shows is that people who pirate or don't pirate believe it to be the case that having legal options for accessing content is a better deterrent. Unfortunately, humans very often do not understand their own motivations.
What you'd need to do to actually tease out the causation here is to do actual policy trials. This is exceedingly difficult, unfortunately, as it's not so easy to just mandate that some number of people be given access to legal content: there's a lot of infrastructure work involved, and it requires licensing agreements. I don't think it's completely impossible, just hard.
In the mean time, I think it should be natural to accept the conclusion of the OP article until evidence against it is presented.
I can understand removal of the headphone jack from a phone (to some extent): modern phone design is extraordinarily tight and removing every little piece can help the overall design. But on a laptop? There's no design reason to do this. The cost of the jack is tiny. The utility isn't huge for all users, but it's definitely useful for a large number of them.
Why would they even need to field a survey for this? If Bluetooth or other wireless headphones become ubiquitous, maybe. But not until then.
I think it's mostly just Samsung that still has hardware home/back/switcher buttons for Android devices. Most other devices use the built-in software buttons. I strongly prefer the software buttons myself, for two main reasons:
1. There's a fourth menu option for some apps that isn't anywhere visible on phones with hardware buttons (it shows up as three dots and displays a small pop-up menu on phones with software buttons). If I remember correctly, you long-press either the back or app switcher buttons to view it on phones with hardware buttons. I think the use of this feature is less common in modern Android apps, though.
2. Especially when using the device in landscape mode, I very frequently hit either the back or switcher buttons accidentally, which, depending upon the app, can interrupt my activity. This is the #1 reason why I switched my Samsung tablet over to Cyanogenmod, as there's an option to disable the hardware buttons (the other reason being I really don't like Samsung's custom skin).
Google Play Services is just a library. It doesn't access locations itself, but offers an interface for retrieving location information. Apps still have to have location permission themselves to get location information through Google Play Services (See the description of the api here, particularly the "Specify App Permissions" section).
The problem is that the economic theory results that produce good outcomes for market systems have a number of major assumptions, assumptions that are entirely violated in this situation.
One of those assumptions is perfect information. For-profit schools are very good at deceiving their students with a variety of wild promises, and as new students don't usually have good access to the people who would be making decisions about hiring them later, those students just aren't adept at separating the truth from the lies.
Another issue is that these market arguments rely upon the concept of individual utility maximization. But education is one of those things that doesn't just benefit a single person in isolation: a more highly-educated populace is better for everybody, not just for those receiving the education. By ignoring overall utility, these simple macroeconomic arguments are maximizing the wrong thing.
Finally, the simple macroeconomic case here assumes that everybody has the same capacity to spend, even if they have differing desire to spend. In reality, making student loans less available will do nothing but price poor students out of college, which will exacerbate intergenerational income inequality (that is, it will serve to help keep the poor poorer and the rich richer). If we want a society where everybody has a chance to succeed based upon their own merits and work, then we need to have free education for all. Period.
1. Having a broad education is valuable for a number of different reasons. Not least of which is that it benefits society as a whole when people have a decent understanding of the world around them. University isn't and shouldn't be all about job preparation.
2. Most of the uptick in university costs has been a result of ballooning administrative pay. This has in large part mirrored the exploding pay of upper management in many private organizations. Making more schools private won't help this problem: it may well exacerbate it.
3. An actual solution to this kind of thing would involve more direct funding of the schools. If states and/or the federal government directly funded schools to the point that education was close to free for students, then they could quite reasonably put into place policies that would restrict administrative pay at such institutions. In fact, there would be a lot of pressure to do exactly this as expensive universities would look quite bad.
This is generally not true. Sometimes it's a matter of people picking the wrong degree. But these days a bigger problem is just people who graduated around 2008-2010. A huge fraction of the pain of this most recent crash fell squarely on the shoulders of recent grads, and this had nothing at all to do with their skills or the quality of their educations.
Today, new grads are doing better, though we're still not back to healthy levels. What we need for this kind of issue where it relates to education policy is that education should be publicly-funded to the point that it's free or nearly free, so that people can go to school without fear of winding up deep in debt and unable to pay that debt. Having better macroeconomic policy at the national level to prevent or mitigate this kind of crash would also be nice.