Even so, primary issues are what’s the data used for and how is it handled?

I’m sure they’ve apologized and promised to do better.

It's business is based on creating an environment creates and empowers divisiveness. Of course, things can be done, but every solution would reduce profits so each true solution is effectively impossible.

Not to go all The Defenders (60s TV show), but what's the probable cause behind all of the rampant searching of people and what they're carrying? Is it that since anyone might be a terrorist everyone is a legitimate suspect so it's all good? Seems to me that this police state crap is unconstitutional and with even less basis than NYC's stop + frisk BS.

Well, there’s depression and there’s depression. To overly simplify, there’s deep sadness and there’s an inability to function well independent of any deep sadness. So what are they talking about in the study? Apparently not explaining, and the study group is limited to older people. So the significance of the finding is kind of mushy.

So, a mystery partly solved. The local press is all over how bad the system’s gotten the last couple of years -- and as a daily rider, it seems no worse and maybe a little better. So why the crisis talk? It’s apparently (from what I can tell down there) without basis. So the explanation seems to be that it’s documented bullshit.

The thesis is that in fracture or new solutions for filling the gap are expensive. But since the backup is nearly always in place -- the power grid from which renewable users are "escaping", why is there much of a problem? And who's actually behind the study?

If I had an aged phone and its performance was prevented from degrading too much, wouldn’t I be disinclined to replace it, not encouraged, let alone forced to replace it? Isn't slower but capable of more better than faster and of limited use and ability? And if someone doesn't want to be forced [sic] into an upgrade, what's wrong with needing to replace the battery? I know one of the mainstream media's preferred storylines is Apple bashing, but this whole thing's kind of stupid. And wrong. And maybe the reason Apple is so fast to make the so-called throttling capable of being turned off is because that's what in the end may force [sic] more people into buying new phones than the so-called throttling.

If there was any doubt about Equifax's respect for adequate security instead of good enough: How do you blame the breach on one person when their should be at least one to verify that the patch was done. More than asking whether the job was done, I mean. So one can't blame it on one person but two at the least.

It looks like a drain if you watch percentages drop precipitously. But in my experience, the the *apparent" drop slows as the percentage drops, to the extent that it runs on 1% for quite awhile. And the time it takes to go to zero doesn't seem greatly increased. In other words, if I gauge by time, it doesn't look much worse.

Other questions for a little context: What percentage of Americans get news from the corporate media? We hear how awful the Facebook newsfeed is, but how does it compare to actual corporate media? What percentage of Americans know enough to understand whether reportage is at all accurate? ~67% relying on social media is a scary number. I just wonder whether there's scarier numbers out there.

In immigration reform for years now. So why would anyone expect them to do Donald's dirty work? There's a better plan in place for the Dreamers than anything Congress would ever do: The policy Donald shut down. But Donald never passes on an opportunity to punch down, like the infantile bully he is, as well as to pander to his base.

I have huge difficulty using Material Design apps. Pushing the first cardinal sin of bad design: Making the style, the look more important than ease of use.

I remember the old days when someone would start a business, maybe take out a loan to do so, maybe not, then manage the business to make profit while paying a reasonably fair wage, maybe provide health insurance. Apparently that’s no longer considered the proper way to manage a business. Going public with an unprofitable business is considered the right way as well as shaking down the government for handouts as perks. Me, I can’t understand how the new way is better for society. (Yes, I understand that the Foxconn deal, were it to actually happen, would probably be a net good for the hires, but I don't see how the state benefits.

Musk is a financier -- someone who engages in financial dealing. He has never managed a profitable business. Always great to the corporate media to overlook it all the time. Then again, it conflicts with their Musk scenario as they work their way towards complete irrelevance.