It will favour zealots in both directions, which should mostly even out assuming zealotry is roughly as common in both directions. Also, I don't know of any less zealot-based approach except forced participation - which seems worse.
Citizen conventions typically consists of randomly selected citizens. This one consists of 150 randomly selected citizens using a statistical procedure (sortition, a variant of stratified sampling) to make it represent the whole.
Also I wrote a song called Caves of Steel.
Hey! I was thinking about you but had no way to get in touch. Ping me somehow!
Sorry I’ll do better next time my bad
I don’t know if she did, and don’t care. She was great and we were sad to see her go.
I left because the company was bought, and the new owners laid off some of its more expensive long-tenured employees, since they were putting the site effectively into maintenance mode, trying to sell if off. They just wanted to keep ThinkGeek and didn’t care to improve the other properties. I was forced out, but I was there a long time, and it was good for me to move on when I did.
So you did not read the story. OK.
So the text contradicts the headline: it is not about climate change, but about criticizing the company in public.
This is a fake news headline. Please fix it.
(I worked with Maren briefly. She was great to work with. I also worked at Slashdot for many years, and this headline is trash.)
A true believer in
No, it is not related to capitalism. Many Marxists share the view I am espousing, in fact.
I think it is fine to ban extremely graphic content, including sex and violence, as you described.
I think it is not fine to ban ideas.
So yes, allow cult recruiting, mentally ill people posting, anorexia promotion. All of that. Yes. Absolutely.
There is a potential difference between not-promotion, and censoring. There is definitely an expressed desire among some to censor, ban, block objectionable content like videos promoting pizzagate and other nonsense. I think that is insane.
But refusing to promote some content, that is a potentially different story, depending on how it is done.
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
The reason why they don't have an audio jack on the new iPad Pros is because it would intrude on the space taken up by the screen because there are almost no bezels—they've decided that aesthetic of small bezels is more important than the headphone jack.
No: in fact, it would be easier to place it on the new iPad Pro, because of the flat edges. There is more than enough room in the device for an audio jack. It has absolutely nothing to do with space.
But yes, it absolutely does have to do with the fact that Bluetooth headphones are becoming ubiquitous.
Yes, they did remove it — in large part —to make it waterproof.
Yes, it could have been made waterproof with the port, at additional cost and complexity. That doesn't make it not a reason.
"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight." -- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory
