That's pretty expensive. There may be some prepaid plans that are worse ($30 for 1Gb+unlimited V&T is probably hard to beat), but once you get to the regular subscriptions from the big four, especially family plans, it's really poor value.
I was always surprised Google structured Fi that way, it struck me that building a phone service around a price schedule is doomed to failure. Sooner or later everyone else changes their prices (or what you get for those prices) and suddenly your innovative pricing doesn't look so great any more.
The future is not 3D TV.
The future is not Virtual Reality.
The future is near field power devices.
(caveat: I was one of the IPO participants in startups for both 3D TV and Virtual Reality companies in Hong Kong)
They're saying that technically accurate or not, the article is misleading and doesn't give context. In particular, this supposed threat is almost impossible to exploit in practice, as it requires the attacker:
1. Knows exactly when you're going to swap a SIM card over or otherwise change phones
2. Also knows you simultaneously have a bunch of messages waiting to be sent, that the attacker actually cares about.
3. Also knows that you have gone into settings, and unchecked a setting that would normally be checked that warns you if a change in encryption keys has occurred
4. Has access to all the infrastructure in the middle.
That's a tall order. It'd be easier to just steal your phone, or hit you on the head with a blunt instrument XKCD style until you talk.
The letter also points out that the article discourages people from using a popular messaging platform over this issue whose security is generally first rate, encouraging them to seek alternatives that either may be insecure, or may be taken as a sign of guilt (eg Signal), making it easier to pinpoint dissidents with something to hide.
So, yeah, the article may be technically correct, the best kind of correct, but if it leaves people with a false impression, then it's probably right to withdraw it.
You forget who wrote the code.
Yeah, I must admit I'm on the impulsive side though. The entire conspiracy theory that, for example, he tweets to draw attention away from the crap he's doing has two fatal flaws: he's always tweeted like that, and he doesn't actually apparently give a rat's ass if anyone knows he's corrupt and racist.
He's essentially had some luck in his life, but doesn't strike me as particularly smart or calculating. He apparently based his election campaign by studying Mussolini, apparently oblivious to the long term damage such a strategy will cause to, well, pretty much everyone.
I'm not seeing it. I see someone impulsive and thin skinned, who takes the easy route when offered, and has little imagination or understanding of people.
Both 3D TV and VR are doing it wrong.
What you really want is 5-6 screens arranged in a cube. In the case of 3D, you want the screens facing out. In the case of VR, you want the screens to be much larger and facing in.
Nah, when he was put in place, it was a backwater little desk posting, exactly like it should have been. He was literally in charge of cleaning up the physical mess left behind by the Cardassians.
Then they discover the wormhole, and Star Fleet wants to put somebody appropriate in charge, but they have to appease the locals, who now view The Sisko as the Emissary.
At least, that's how I remember it.
To be specific, it's what some movie directors, including James Cameron and even Martin Scorcese wanted, but as you say, that's not really what people watching their creations wanted.
My Panasonic 50-something in TV is *not* a smart TV, and it's about 2 years old. I specifically shopped for a "dumb" TV. The features of smart TVs will quickly become outdated and cumbersome, and I hope to keep a TV for a good 10+ years. It was cheaper than the smart versions.
"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.