It's waaay easier to change the logo than fix the memory leaks
It's waaay easier to change the logo than fix the memory leaks
No it's like taxing car owners to subsidize other car owners.
Uber and Lyft are taxi companies. They're not high tech replacements, they're not a radical new business model, they're the same effing thing, albeit with management that has decided, for some reason, that their services should be exempt from the same regulatory structure as pre-existing taxis because Ayn Rand.
In that respect, it's like taxing car owners who refuse to get licenses to subsidize licensed car owners.
Is that stupid? Well yes. But not because one is subsidizing another. It's stupid because both should be licensed.
Oh, but there's some good reason why Lyft and Uber have decided they don't like the current licensing system? Fine. Then look into it, and if it's really good, then implement reforms. The other 90% of the regulatory environment though, from quotas in cities with overcrowded streets to stop them from being even more clogged with taxis than they were already, to requiring insurance and ensuring basic accountability, that needs to stay.
This is a stupid decision, but it has nothing to do with subsidies. It has to do with the fact it doesn't address the underlying problems: Uber's lawlessness, and overregulation of the existing taxi market. Instead it buys into the fiction that a car ordered over the Internet is not a taxi. It is a taxi. Stop lying.
You didn't read TFA. Earth - the planet as a whole - doesn't have a "Summer" and a "Winter", those are local (specifically Northern vs Southern hemisphere) phenomena. Australians are not enjoiying the same season as Europeans, for example.
TFA is about the average temperature of the entire Earth. It being "summer" where you are doesn't come in to it.
Nobody's enthusiastic about X. We're not not happy about a replacement that lacks the features of X that we loved and in many cases relied upon.
And no, I don't want to hear that only "1% of users use the XSERVER variable" or that the underlying implementation wasn't very good.
Hardly anyone uses GNU/Linux, but we'd never accept that as an argument for abolishing the operating system and requiring Windows.
As for the latter - it doesn't matter if it's not perfect, it works damn it. I can manage a remote instance of LibreOffice as an app integrated on my desktop. I do this.
We'll be happy with Wayland when it's as good as, or better than, X11. Not when the underlying code is temporarily easier to understand (you think it'll stay that way?), but when its feature complete, by our standards, not by the developers.
Okay, so you don't value your freedom and you are happy being manipulated. The carrot side usually tastes okay.
No, he didn't say anything like that. If freedom isn't important to you, then perhaps you should think a bit about the stick? Oh wait. Maybe you're perfect and you've never made any embarrassing little mistakes?
Just read an interesting book called Our Final Invention about the nastiest stick, ASI with no use for us. Don't get me wrong. If the google does it first, I'm going to surrender ASAP. No sense in fighting the inevitable. Maybe the ASI will feel like keeping a few of us around in some sort of zoo?
If you think there's a stick, you'd find it better contribute to the discussion to describe it, rather than demand people read a book before continuing discussion here.
The truth is Google really doesn't have one. It makes its money mostly by using the information it has about you to display relevant ads. That information about you is private, and contrary to myth it's not exactly comprehensive - it isn't a full browsing history, or anything like that, just some quick generalizations based upon some key sites.
This is not bad. This is fine. It doesn't harm anyone's freedom in the slightest.
Yes, Google has the potential to be evil. They could, technically, start recording a log of most of the sites you've been to. They could sell browsing histories linked to personal information to third parties.
But so could Mozilla. Mozilla could do more than Google ever could dream of doing. Is Mozilla evil because it could be evil if it wanted to be? Is Mozilla restricting my freedom by being capable of recording my history and bookmarks and purchases and credit card numbers and selling it to third parties?
You know who can do more than even Mozilla can dream of doing? Microsoft. You know, the company that started the original "Google sells your details to advertisers" smear. They can abuse all of the information Mozilla could, for all of the browsers on your system. Plus they can let people know what the files on your PC are.
Why pick on Google? Because Microsoft and now Oracle have run smear campaigns against it?
Yes, Google's done some shitty things lately. Their search engine has become crappier. "Default" Android has become less open source. Their apps have become too AI infested and usually don't do what you want them to. Google+ was an unmitigated disaster. And yet none of these things were evil, just horrible, like fish flavored popsicle sticks, or Hollywood deciding to reboot The Godfather.
Don't confuse horribleness with evil. Just because Google's products aren't as good as they were doesn't mean they're also selling the names of the porn sites you subscribe to to your mother in law.
There's a combination of technologies being used. Packet inspection is the big one. Yes, you can bypass it by using HTTPS.
However, they're also doing it by host, but only with the consent of the host owner. The reason the host owner gives consent is because if they do, then their content will be both throttled, but also made free, to users who don't have unlimited plans.
Meh, women generally can take pain better than men can. If you doubt this for a second, imagine passing something the size of a bowling ball through... well, a very small orifice in your body. That's what childbirth is, and while it's still horrible in the majority of cases without an anesthetic, most women go through it anyway without major problems.
Women complain more partially because they're allowed to without risk of social alienation, and partially because they have more to complain about - the average female body isn't exactly optimal partially because of the compromises needed to support its maternal role. It's probably because they suffer more pain as a part of ordinary living that they're better able to manage it - if every women refused to have a child because the pain would be so agonizing, humanity would have died out 50,000 years ago.
I'd be curious to know whether painkillers in general have a better affect on men then women. It seems possible: if women already have a higher threshold for pain, they're unlikely to see a massive improvement from
I've read this announcement about three or four times, and from what I can figure out they're not talking about web "apps" - web pages that support the various HTML5 APIs to allow the web page to operate offline, but some Chrome APIs most people have never heard of.
I'm not saying it's a non-announcement, but most of those seriously affected are probably running bespoke corporate apps intended for Chromebooks. The stuff you find in Chrome's App Store usually consists of either HTML5 apps (unaffected) or HTML5 pages that kinda look like applications, or apps that use the Android APIs (a recent development.) What's out there intended for public use that's using the Chrome app APIs probably is in need of updating to modern standards anyway.
It isn't - I think, if I'm understanding things correctly - a big deal.
Google returns a few billion results for pretty much every search these days. That's the problem, it doesn't know when to say "There's literally nothing about this on the Internet". Google's programmers don't actually seem to understand that that is a useful answer.
That said, I haven't tried your search strings above, and for all I know every single page Google is returning is either relevant or actually contains the search term.
That would be a first though.
I guess it can work if scaled up. Take them from multiple places (one vehicle per source) to a central point, mix them up, and then fly from the hub to the multiple places.
While that sounds like it would add substantially to journey time, given these vehicles can travel line-of-sight, without stopping, in most cases the overall journey time should be shorter than by taxi.
It'd be a like mass transit with worse energy costs but with way cheaper infrastructure costs. I'd rather do mass transit, but in the US at least that has crazy opposition.
No he hasn't, that's what the fine print said.
T-Mobile's existing plans are not advertised as "Unlimited". Former plans advertised as "Unlimited" do, indeed, work exactly the way described by the GP. T-Mobile's current 3G, 6G, etc plans work the way you're describing, but aren't described as "Unlimited".
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.