It sounds like one of the steps in making wine.
161 posts • joined 7 May 2013
When are we going to see a backlash against the trend of removing every possible useful feature from a phone in order to make internal room for 7 inches of screen covering 99% of the surface, which will shatter into a beautiful glass spider web the first time it slips out of your hand?
I could really, really use a sequel to the Galaxy S5.
IANAE, but I don't see why you couldn't have some push-button type mechanism in a screw-on lid that releases the seal and allows liquid to flow. Accidentally knock the vessel over, no problem, the button isn't pushed and the seal remains intact, with the screw threads keeping the lid securely in place.
In fact, I'm pretty sure I _have_ a receptacle at home that is almost identical to what I just described.
2000 was stable, intuitive, and incredibly fast, but software and hardware compatibility was bad. Then XP came along which hit the sweet spot perfectly, and (glossing over Vista), Win 7 took everything great about XP and made it better. And that was the final chapter of the glory days of Windows.
Windows 95 was a dramatic improvement over Windows 3.11, and users everywhere were thrilled by the upgrade.
By the same token, Windows 10 was a dramatic downgrade from Windows 7, and users everywhere are desperately pining to go back to Windows 7. So your analogy doesn't hold.
I like how your distinction between a fee and a fine is that a fee is something that a bunch of people pay for some particular thing that they shouldn't be allowed to do without paying for, which goes to provide funding for some greater good, and a fine is, well, let's stay on the topic of fees. A fine is something else.
The mobile search widget is still inseparably linked to the proprietary DuckDuckGo browser, which unfortunately is very bad at basic features like ad-blocking and preventing HD videos from autoplaying, thereby eating up half a month's worth of mobile data if you aren't quick enough to back out.
Both are bad. Your argument supports mine, not contradicts it. If we already know that the US engages in political imprisonment, and we already know that China has a far worse track record on human rights than the US, then that's all the more reason we should be skeptical of this entire story.
Why does everyone automatically assume the prosecution of this man was legitimate? China has a well documented history of railroading people into being convicted of certain crimes on little to no evidence, when the actual crime they committed was mild to moderate dissidence against the government.
The fact that they went to these lengths to find this individual makes it seem more likely, not less likely, that this was the case.
I haven't downloaded or installed any Windows updates since 2016. Everything seems to run stable and quiet, CPU idles at 0-1%, and I haven't had any mysterious logins, or unexplained charges to my credit or bank accounts.
Why exactly should I change anything?
I notice that this study made no attempt whatsoever to measure the effects of emojis on men and women separately.
For all we know, cutesy emojis make it 500% easier for women to get laid, and 400% harder for men to.
"Emojis make it easier for the average person to get laid!"
We all know the industry is going to respond to this with even more aggressive efforts to make it as intolerable as possible for people to continue using their perfectly good phones. Removable batteries will continue to be banished from the industry. Non-refusable, non-reversible software patches will even more aggressively slow down older model phones. Rooting will be rendered impossible on more models of phone. Apps will continue to balloon in size, with even very simple ones occupying hundreds of megabytes, to force users of even 32 gigabyte models to upgrade.
Still using my Galaxy S5, literally the most recent phone that has the features I want.
Let's assume she's right. Let's assume 2 consecutive employers massively dropped the ball, wronged her, and she wins several years salary as compensation.
Then what? What employer in their right mind would ever hire this person again? A simple Google search, from then on, will reveal that this person sued her most recent 2 employers. Those radioactivity levels are rarely found outside Fukushima.
Unless you're rapidly approaching retirement age, you're simply better off in the long run not doing this, no matter how right you are.
Once again, AI reinforces its stereotype as the delusional wet dream of marketers, who continue to tell themselves that end users will abandon all human instinct and start opting in to voice-activated advertisements. Even Indian tech support workers continue to be on the order of 1 million times more intelligent than our most advanced AI. When will journalists drop the notion that this underdeveloped technology is of any meaningful value to any but the tiniest minority of end users?
"Plants, all of them from the algae in the seas to the forests ran out of capacity to absorb the extra carbon a long time ago."
You're assuming there's a fixed supply of foliage in the world. There isn't. CO2 is to vegetation as vegetation is to gazelles, as gazelles are to lions. As the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the overall "greenness" of the planet increases. Forests, plants, algae grow thicker and faster in a warmer, higher CO2 environment. How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?
1) Take the SIM card out of your main phone
2) Pack your main phone away in your luggage
3) Pop the sim card into a cheap, empty, unlocked phone
4) Enjoy your flight, and if they decide they want to search your phone, let them, knowing how disappointed and underwhelmed they will be.
Alcohol doesn't prevent dementia. Dietary cholesterol prevents dementia. People who are willing to indulge in alcohol are more likely to be willing to indulge in red meat.
A causes B and C. C causes D.
B doesn't cause D or have any connection to it whatsoever, but B and D are correlated, so journalists start reporting "if you want D, consider trying B"
This is why "correlation isn't causation" needs to be hammered into people's heads nonstop. Even people whose full-time job it is to conduct these studies don't seem to have the foggiest clue what the concept means.
"While D’Elia's death is a first, injuries from electronic cigarettes are surprisingly common."
The article goes on to provide numbers showing that fatal car accidents are _thousands_ of times more common than non-fatal vaping injuries.
Why do "journalists" have this irresistible urge to inject opinion-enriched, highly contestable words into their sentences?
"How? There are going to be OLEDs or LEDs in the way. Turning them off won't make them miraculously invisible."
I guess you weren't aware that OLED circuitry is actually invisible? The image itself obviously is visible, but if you look at the panel itself without any of the plastic casing they tend to put them it, it just looks like a plain old piece of glass.
"GM is saying it's OK to take your hands off while using its system – although it will still require you to look where the car is going. Glance away any longer that five seconds and LEDs will flash green, then red, then your seat will buzz, and if you still haven't responded, it will start slowing to a stop."
Can we please stop pretending that there's anything remotely desirable about this useless garbage technology in any way?
I just purchased a factory-new Galaxy S5 just a couple of weeks ago, for the exact reasons you listed. I was afraid the horsepower and memory would be too far behind the times to make it a pleasurable experience, but I turned out to be delightfully wrong about that.
You could have slapped the S5 innards in the form factor of the S9, given it to me for free, and I would have legitimately believed that I was using the newest available phone.
Phone design reached peak quality several years ago. Now it's on the downswing. At some point in a major product (or industry's) lifespan, it reaches a point where the the remaining room for improvement represents a smaller psychological difference to the consumer than the psychological cost of paying for said improvement, which represents a hard brick wall for the producers.
At that point, the producer is faced with two choices:
1) Bring the innovation phase to a close, begin scaling back production, and prepare for the long-term sustenance phase of the product, which focuses on competitive pricing, marginal improvements, and cultivating a reputation for product quality.
2) Start introducing vast changes to the product that result in a net decrease, rather than increase in the value of the product. Exploit the fact that consumers tend to falsely assume that differences in newer versions of products must be improvements, or otherwise they wouldn't be made. This creates an artificial psychological benefit in the minds of consumers, motivating them to pay more for a newer but overall inferior product.
In my observation, most industries that encounter this crossroad choose to go down path #2 for a number of years, until a disruptive competitor eventually comes along and undoes most of the damage done in path 2, and establishes itself as a long term player by following path 1.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020