I actually looked at the article before posting. Most of the mask isn't very colorful, and the few spots of light hardly seemed to count. So but I refused to believe that's what they meant unless they were going to say it. Call it a "color-changing Mask" or "Mask with pulsating colors" or whatever it was supposed to do.

I suppose it might look less lame in the dark? Ha! Who am I kidding?

It would be a lot less lame if it was actually an efficacious filter.

You are obviously not using the accepted definition of RGB, so this summary makes no sense. Give us a fucking clue, please.

Same thing in Germany, the Netherlands (as GP mentioned), I'm sure there are others. Sensible.

> Switzerland fined turkish people for a meeting were the fact that Armenian genocide didn't happen was promoted and then the EU turned the decision because "free speech".

So Switzerland is part of the EU now?

Santa Clara County, actually...
https://www.mercurynews.com/20...

Right.

Except... when you're in government, or are an interesting company in an industry that they're interested in snooping on, then they could easily gather all of the next-to-zero percentage of the overall traffic produced by you and others like you... and store it wherever the hell they wanted, no?

As the OP said, "If you're going to talk about trade secrets, you're a moron."

Same goes if you're a state or local government agency.

If it's an under-lockdown birthday party playdate your kid is "attending" via Zoom, hopefully it's safe to assume it's not something they're interested in.

Eclipse has been an absolute turd since Juno. I never imagined I'd use anything else, but that was the end for me. Give up on it already.

Oh, and I'll also pass on the serving of Microsoft, thanks.

You may be an expert on left wing media; I'm not. All I can say is that I've seen both parts of that quote reported in places I'd consider "left" leaning, as well as more centrist like NPR and the BBC. Hearing the second part doesn't change the fact that Trump clearly didn't feel it was necessary to criticize white nationalists until he was pressed to take a stand, and then he said the most politic thing. The fact that he didn't shout it out the first time says a lot about Trump right there.

The first part by itself is more "newsworthy", however... and you'll find that media left, right, and center always emphasize the juiciest bits. That is a valid criticism of the media in general, but also a reflection of the modern audience's limited attention span. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same venues I referred to also reported the story in a briefer fashion that excluded the second part.

Interesting question, but why are we talking about media coverage of the news, anyway? You brought up "left wing media", something certain people like to complain a lot every chance they get... but the original story is about advertising on Facebook, and the comment you replied to was talking about posts (often ads), presumably also in the context of Facebook.

So I'll address your question as if it was on that topic: I think it's true that there's no perfect rule to eliminate distortions of the truth in ads by omissions or quotes used without the full context, and even if there was, every politician does it, so you'd have to ban political ads altogether. Truly not a bad idea, and most of the audience that Facebook is selling would love them for it. Except Zuckerberg wants the advertisers' money, and it's also very difficult to define what's "political". Better to go ahead and take the money, but for christ's sake have some standards!

Because, as the GP pointed out, there are some things that can be factually determined to be true or false. However, because of the reason you point out, framing matters. But even things that are not as simple as true-or-false can be adjudicated to be excessively misleading. Misleading quotes taken wildly out of context could and should also be fairly banned.

In addition to banning objective untruths, Facebook could have a rule along the lines of "Factual but misleading quotes are not allowed, IF the average person's interpretation of the quote would change if they saw the quote along with any other comments by (or words written by) the same person, in the same context, around the same time, or in the same written work.". The legalese might be more painful; that's just pseudocode.

Could they do it without being seen as biased in the court of public opinion? I think they have a duty to try, but they must set up an independent panel that reviews all complaints, and that panel must make all its decisions, and its decision-making process, completely public. Those interested in seeing the controversial ads could still see them, along with all the accompanying discussion and judgement. But they wouldn't be pushed by Facebook as paid ads to the intended audience. Then, if you think your ad got banned unfairly, you bring it to the court of public opinion. Make a big stink about it on Twitter that gets Donny's attention, or get your favorite fair-and-balanced media outlet to raise a stink for you, and then people can seek out the ad to see for themselves the evidence for why it didn't pass muster. Maybe they'll agree, maybe not. But if you, as the one who tried to buy the ad, feel you're standing on firm moral ground, go nuts and reap the benefits from the "any publicity is good publicity" when your ad itself becomes the news. Yay for you!

My point is, while it's difficult to be fair, and not everyone may agree, keep everything open and you're unlikely to face criticism from anyone reasonable. And being a private company, the first amendment doesn't enter the question. Unfortunately what matters to Mark Zuckerberg more than any single other thing is money, and any hope that he'd feel a sense of duty to encourage truth in politics is... completely laughable. He clearly doesn't care where his money comes from.

Excellent! Unemployment and disability insurance are there for a reason. It's not like Ubers and Lyfters are safe from unemployment or disability.

Just put a neat rectangle of electrical tape over it. There, and inside on the battery, with its slogan you can see through the translucent back.

No. Probably neither of those. Read DrYak's (informative) link first, or you don't deserve any +1 Insightful for sniping about it.

With the support of Arima, we have calculated how much of an additional unit price Fairphone would need to pay as a bonus to allow employees on production lines for Fairphone to earn a living wage. This is 1,50 Euro per Fairphone 3, which will be paid as a bonus directly to Arima’s employees.

Note that's per phone, not per day. It's also not per employee. But still it's not peanuts (over there). It's certainly more than daisies.

Your suspicion/perception of sensationalism is understood. But so is the legitimate concern of the authors, because our global plastic problem is neither imaginary nor exaggerated.

Further reading (article published less than 1 hours ago): https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...

Spoiler alert: They did not use plastic collection vessels.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Flexagon was dismissing Mozilla because of this. That was in response to other comments, elsewhere!

The best I could do was to enable "display URL on hover" in my favorite browser, and hope that the URLs were at least somewhat self-identifying.

Yikes. I can't imagine a browser being my favorite if it didn't already display the URL on hover, by default.

I'm so glad that they've focused so much attention on Firefox (still my favorite browser by far, though it was painful there for a while). It sounds like the criticisms of this web site are reasonable (I haven't bothered to look), and that's a pity.

But wholesale dismissal of Mozilla--a company which has really picked itself back up and has been doing great things again for the last couple years--based on one crappy web site isn't right (though perhaps understandable if you had poor experiences with some past versions of their browsers), and it seems strange that they would produce something of the sort. https://developer.mozilla.org/ (MDN) is a counter-example of a fantastic web resource that Mozilla provides, which is why you'll often find it at the top of the results when searching for things related to web development.

I'm so glad we have such a good, free (in every sense) browser that isn't backed by a major data-mining company. Thanks, Mozilla!