Meaning the specific use of vague terms.
I'm not even going down that old rabbit hole. Yes, it's their legal right. Nobody cares. But this is the part that gets me:
>> Twitter is not the only means of communication.
> That's... kind of entirely my point.
How does forcing them to use a different communication medium stop them from spreading ideas you disagree with? It seems to me that giving them the allure of being the 'stuff THEY don't want you to see' only helps promote it, instead.
Actually, if somebody writes an extension to put them back, it would be the best of both worlds.
The features are not available in the APIs, so no extension can re-implement it.
Weight reduction using batteries in airplanes is nowhere on the horizon. Compared to ground vehicle drive trains, jet engines have a great power to weight ratio, and they use no transmission. Replacing a modern jet with a motor and propeller is in itself a step backward.
On the other hand, airplanes spend a lot of time above the clouds and have a lot of surface area, so perhaps solar panels could provide a measurable range boost on day flights. But I kind of doubt it; solar panels have a terrible power to weight ratio.
This is dumb to even think about until batteries improve dramatically. In fact I suspect it may never actually work, because as technology progresses, it will become viable to manufacture carbon neutral fuel for use in airplanes.
The story says the engineers found it was used rarely, citing that as the reason for removal.
However, doing something rarely does not mean it is used never, nor does it mean removal is appropriate.
I rarely use a fire extinguisher, yet I keep one in my kitchen and my vehicle. I rarely use my window shutters, but I'm absolutely glad the house has them as they can save a fortune during a storm. I rarely print documents, but I still maintain a printer.
Just because it is rarely used does not mean it isn't useful, nor does it mean it should be removed.
> And actually, to deal with your question more directly, denying extremists a platform does help prevent the spread of that extremism.
So, you're saying that censorship works? Because for decades we've known that it doesn't change anyone's mind. And that it only makes people curious about these ideas you don't want anyone to see. I think more than a few people here have looked at things precisely because the powers that be told them not to look, whether that be an old MIT lock picking guide, 'zine or pornography, so it's odd to hear people suddenly decide it's worth a try.
Twitter is not the only means of communication. The internet still interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If anything, having the opportunity to engage with them gives everyone the chance to convince them that this is wrong and maybe they shouldn't wander off into the desert to die a violent death.
But maybe you're right. Maybe this time censorship will stop people from thinking bad thoughts. Just because it failed every other time, that's no reason to think it can't work this time... right?
The alternative offered? To "quit" his job and lose severance and other benefits. Why he (and them) complied? Because he's near retirement age and doing anything else would be end-of-life economic suicide.
That's an involuntary termination, not quitting. When companies try it generally it is a legal quagmire. If it is even slightly questionable companies will generally offer a huge settlement package rather than risk a drawn-out lawsuit fighting in the courts; and since they're leaving the state the drawn-out lawsuit would be in a state they no longer are local to, further increasing cost.
I'm curious, did you talk with a lawyer before accepting the deal?
Since the AC was good enough to post a Goodenough joke that was at least possibly good enough...
How do we know it's an imposter? No one else seems to have noticed. It would seem that if Goodenough is actually an imposter, that the imposter might actually be good enough.
A significant amount of America's 'greatness' is tied up in our scientific & engineering achievements, such as ARPANET or going to the moon.
Those are all good points. The execution was also terrible and I never meant to imply otherwise.
This would be reasonable in a controlled study, but this appears to have been a rogue clinic doing something that made no sense at all.
It provides insight into the laws of physics. We couldn't do the engineering we do without the basic science to back it up.
I'm sure sure that relativity seemed useless at first, but our GPS devices wouldn't work right if we didn't understand it.
We already know what happened here. Some people in Florida injected mesenchymal stem cells into the eyes of three people. Mesenchymal stem cells are multipotent, but we already know that they do not form eye tissue. There was a different Japanese study that used induced pluripotent stem cells, which actually showed some promise. Those stem cells actually can become any type of tissue and are much more difficult and expensive to obtain.
So, I don't know about you, but I have a lot of questions about how injecting cells that might turn into bone, cartilage, fat or muscle into someone's eyes is supposed to help prevent blindness. And I would expect a lot of good answers and prior studies before having them do that to people.
That's only the half of it. He's also figure out how to post in a
On the other hand, he's fiddling around on
Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.