Same. I switched to Inoreader when Google Reader went under. I never actually visit Slashdot except when an article I'm interested in comes up. I also use it for seeing new content on YouTube channels I subscribe to as well, because I don't want YouTube to feed me ones it thinks I might be interested in. If I've subscribed to a channel then I want to see ALL the new content and I'll skip over ones I don't care about.

I also have several LaTeX feeds, a few webcomics, and some software project blogs that show up regularly. It's a great consolidating platform so I have a one-stop shop to keep up to date on all the things I'm tracking.

H*R reference? 'Sup my fellow young parson!

I didn't see that message at all. The message I got is "look at how much is packed into this device!" Nothing in the ad implied all of these other things were unnecessary or undesirable or that an iPad was all anyone needed.

Now, if the ad had showed all of that stuff being pushed into a garbage truck and an iPad replacing it, then I could see that message. But as it stands the message is "condense", not "replace".

Assuming that Uber and Lyft are barely profitable, they don't have extra cash to pay the drivers extra, therefore the only source of an increase in payment must come from an increase in ride fare (thus an increase in the percentage going to the drivers).

Assuming that Uber and Lyft receive a percentage of each ride's fare, then if they could increase prices it would increase the amount they receive per ride.

So if it's in their interest to increase the fare, which increases the amount per ride paid to the driver AND themselves, why won't they do it? Greed? No, not if they would make more the other way. Politics? Maybe.

More likely it's just tradeoffs: Lower fares mean less revenue per ride but more rides. On the other hand, higher fares mean more revenue per ride but fewer rides. Instead of pulling out of the city, why not just increase the fare price in that city? Because say that the fare for a ride was $200 and nobody would pay it? Then Uber and Lyft would still have to pay the driver $15.57 an hour. I'm guessing that's the issue: a requirement to pay a driver a certain amount even if no one is willing to pay for a ride at those prices.

I've spoken to many Uber drivers. Most I see do it as a hobby. One told me it was better than watching TV. Another few were retirees who just wanted something to do. Another few said they loved the flexibility: if they didn't feel like working one day, they didn't. The system works for that type of person. If it doesn't work for someone looking for a $15.57/hr job, perhaps they should look elsewhere.

Ditto. I have no interest in Youtube music. I don't want to watch any of their premium content. I just want to get rid of ads.

I'm not deluded into thinking I should get stuff for free. I'm willing to pay for the service. But if the cost of doing that is too high ($14/mo for the hour or two I spend watching per month?!) then I'm not paying, I'm blocking.

"Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess!"

How do I know it's not an AI Tom Hanks taking to Instagram instead of the real one?

Unfortunately the DOJ typically charges whistleblowers like this under the 1917 Espionage Act, which means the case is sealed even to the judge and they handle it internally. The defendant isn't even allowed to bring up evidence in their defense. There is no "fair trial", there is no jury. From wikipedia:

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said, "the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing," and that "legal scholars have strongly argued that the US Supreme Court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense." Professor at American University Washington College of Law and national security law expert Stephen Vladeck has said that the law “lacks the hallmarks of a carefully and precisely defined statutory restriction on speech.” Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, "basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It's almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what." Attorney and former whistleblower Jesselyn Radack notes that the law was enacted "35 years before the word 'classification' entered the government's lexicon" and believes that "under the Espionage Act, no prosecution of a non-spy can be fair or just." She added that mounting a legal defense to the Espionage Act is estimated to "cost $1 million to $3 million." In May 2019, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board published an opinion piece making the case for an amendment to allow a public-interest defense, as "the act has since become a tool of suppression, used to punish whistleblowers who expose governmental wrongdoing and criminality".

Regardless of what you think of what Snowden did, there is no evidence that he turned anything over to hostile governments: he handed it over to journalists from the Guardian because he explicitly said that he had his own biases but didn't want to be the one who made the decision what to release to the public. He also warned the journalists the information there could harm the US and some of its agents and they should only release what was absolutely necessary. Perhaps that was the wrong call, perhaps not. But given that head of the NSA (Tapper) had just lied to congress about what the NSA was doing, I'm not sure he saw he had much of a choice.

He did not flee to Russia, the US grounded him there by revoking his passport while he was trying to travel to Ecuador. He lived in the terminal for a month before Russia granted him asylum. Not quite in line with the propaganda trying to turn him into a Russian spy.

I've used Bitwarden for the last few years and really enjoyed it. Plugins and apps for our phones and browsers make password entering very easy.

Since I take care of all the financials and most of our accounts, we use a family vault so my wife can access everything, particularly if I was to die she wouldn't have difficulty finding or getting everything.

In the event both of us die and leave the kids behind, I have my brother set up as being able to request access. He clicks the button requesting access to my accounts from his, and then I have it set so I have two weeks to deny it. If I don't, then he gets access. He's reciprocated this setup with me.

I feel like it's a really good balance of security and convenience with a lot of really nice features for multiple use-cases.

I'm an NVidia Shield owner and I'm pretty ticked off right now. I want to control the content on my device that I paid for. I don't want to see a different background show (that takes up most of the screen) every time I turn it on. Not to mention that advertising images of scantily clad females is now being shown to my kids, who use the device daily. This is egregious.

So here's my story: My iPhone X had an aging battery so I took it to the Apple Store because I figured a $60 replacement charge was worth my time.

First they tried to make me trade in my phone for a newer one. I refused.

Then they finally went to replace the battery and two hours later told me they couldn't because there was "evidence of water damage"...but they could replace it with the same model for $500. I could see pictures on the rep's tablet so I asked if I could see the moisture damage. She clutched the tablet to her stomach and said that it was proprietary information.

I was feeling pretty ripped off. I bought a kit (yes, from iFixit) and was able to repair it myself in about an hour. And the "moisture damage"? Non-existent.

This is why we need a right to repair.

If you are going to model it as a circuit, then you need to have another path: an additional resistor in parallel (the "seal" where air can escape).

So now if you add more resistance in your series path with a second resistor (mask) you are directing more current through your parallel resistor (the gap next to your face).

You can continue to increase the resistance in the series path by adding more masks. Make it infinite resistance, or an open. The parallel path now has all of the current.

Huh. I remember when Google forced me to move from Google Chat TO Google Hangouts...now I have to go back to what I wanted all along? Okay.

I agree. I regularly talk to Uber drivers and the comment made to me multiple times is "I'm doing this right now because I'd rather be driving around earning a little money than just sitting at home watching TV not earning anything."

I travel quite a bit for work and am a regular user of Uber. The last five years I have made it a point to ask Uber drivers if they enjoy what they are doing, why they are doing it, and whether they think it is worth the wear and tear on their vehicle. The answers, without exception, are along the lines of:
* I like it a lot
* The flexibility and being able to set my own hours is fantastic
* I enjoy just being able to make a few bucks on my way somewhere else
* I'm retired so this is a way for me to keep active (Probably 25% of my drivers have been retired schoolteachers, engineers, and real estate agents).
* Of course it's worth it to me, I'm not stupid
* I only drive during surge pricing

I have asked many what they think of California's efforts to classify them as employees and get them health insurance. The two responses from California's efforts which I recall were along the lines of "that would be nice if it happened but that's not why I'm doing this."

I just don't get it. We have a lot of people who like the flexibility and think it's worth it because of that. A lot of retirees who just enjoy doing it. All of whom seemed to me like intelligent and able to weigh their own cost/benefit to some extent. And yet for their own good we are willing to shut down this option so drivers can "go get a real job"? No one is being forced to work for Uber. Remove this opportunity and other opportunities don't just spring up.

I like using Uber. The drivers, in my experience, apparently like working this type of job. Who is it that is trying to force change for the good of who?