Why is debunking people faking stuff indicative of a pathological obsession with fame and status? Seems more like the fakers in the first place would be guilty of obsessing over fame and status.
Happens on TV relatively often. Bill O'Reilly got the boot because advertisers pulled their ads after he got caught up in sexual harassment claims.
TV just has also built up years of trust with advertisers and have legal departments reviewing all their content while YouTube was throwing up ads in front of ISIS recruitment videos.
I think it is equally intellectually lazy to throw up your hands and claim solipsism in a murder case, particularly when there is a lot of compelling evidence.
The real significance of the finger prints isn't that Syed's were there, but that they were there and no other suspects were. Someone with murderous intent was in that car, and the evidence shows that Syed was at least recently in car while all other suspects have no evidence that they were.
The mind can always come up with an innocent explanation if it wants to see that. He had been an ex-boyfriend for nearly a month, and no other suspects had fingerprints in the car.
Not sure how you believe people are too eager to see him as guilty when the only reason anyone knows about him is a campaign to free him.
Murder accomplices tend to be liars. There isn't any compelling evidence of police coaching. The "critical witness" the defense failed to call disappeared for 15 years, and came back with a cash in book deal in tow once the case was popular again. The timeline wasn't perfectly nailed down, but that isn't a prereq of a murder conviction.
What was poor about it? All my research into the case show that the prosecution was fairly above board and comprehensive. Syed had motive, means, and opportunity. There was physical evidence, a pattern of Syed lying to police and a confessing accomplice who had information the police didn't.
Real tragedy in this case how the justice system can be so easily manipulated by the media.
I also found them to be crazy accurate for walking directions. I always think "well, I fancy myself a speedy native New Yorker amongst all that gawking tourist data Google must have, I can cut down this half hour walk by a few minutes at least". Almost always arrive right on their estimate.
No, I don't think they are sub par. But I do think their exalted place in the Apple blog world is not earned by quality, but ad money. You don't see many of these bloggers actively using Squaresquare for anything but side projects, but they all push it as the go to platform to use even outside of ads. I would also contend that you can certainly buy your way in. See ads for stuff like Clean My Mac, which I am positive Gruber would never use himself.
I don't think there is anything extremely unscrupulous going on, just that there isn't much of a wall between editorial and advertisement with Gruber's model as some people claim.
Azure itself is pretty safe from Gruber's crosshairs. Google was less successful, but there is a common trend of companies paying their way into the good graces of Apple bloggers' inner circle (Squarespace, Backblaze, Everpix).
Sure, he does. But it is odd rhetoric to say "Android Wear is a limited device category without an audience for x and y reasons. Apple Watch, despite suffering from x and y as well, will be different because things change".
My impression of Android Wear is that it’s best thought of as a wrist-worn terminal for your Android phone and for Google’s cloud-based services. An extension for your phone, not a sibling device. Android Wear devices are almost useless other than for telling time when out of Bluetooth range from your phone. I don’t think that’s a device that many people want; it’s a solution in search of a problem.
I don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. Playing music via Bluetooth only and an interface to a nascent payment system don't really change the fact this is still the iPhone's $350+ wrist buddy for the vast majority of its uses.
Gruber knew this was coming for years (http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-future-of-markdown/) and had repeatedly made it clear he dislikes the idea and won't approve. Waiting for Gruber to do something regarding Markdown is an exercise in futility.
Selective quoting at work: Google telling the SEC "For example, a few years from now, we and other companies could be serving ads and other content on refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches, to name just a few possibilities" to avoid having to disclose specific revenue sources became "Google hopes to put ads 'on refrigerators, car dashboards, thermostats, glasses, and watches, to name just a few possibilities'" very quickly.
Just because contracts are difficult to get doesn't mean you have free rein to do whatever you want. There are plenty of meaningful solutions to this "problem". Don't play music at all. Play music you are allowed to play (be it paid or just music that allows streamers to use it). It may not be what people want to hear, but obviously the music is of value to shanelja's audience as they requesting songs.
Seems to be a disconnect where Chakmakian sees one Spotify/Pandora play as equal to a radio station playing a song when they are entirely different things. 14,227 listeners is less than some college radio stations playing a song once. But you won't see an article complaining about how little musicians get from college radio stations.
And 50 meters can be the difference between a tow and making it, which is my point. Yes, I am aware it is a small amount. But given the drastically different experiences between "make the charger" and "not make the charger", I would hardly compare it to a person saving fractions of a penny by unplugging electronics when they leave the house.
Given that every bit of energy gets the driver closer to their destination, your comparison seems a bit unfair. Sure, it may be a small difference in the big picture, but that small difference could be the difference between making it and having to call a tow.
What are the visible signs that "society is currently evolving in a direction of openness and transparency, and of holding those in power to account"? Sure seems like the public at large is ambivalent at best to my eyes, but love to hear otherwise.
I'm not seeing the strawman? Plenty of people are claiming the cost of university is more than its worth. Ariely is offering a counterpoint. Others argue that education is a right, but he isn't addressing that in this case.
But there's the rub: comments aren't that valuable to anyone in the game but the commenters. No major YouTuber are moving off YouTube for a different uploader. Or even considering it. The biggest moves popular YouTubers have done are disabling comments. Google own the monetization of web video, so content providers won't leave. YouTube comments were already shit, so converting that shit into Google+ shit will at least help Google+. And if people disable comments, Google still get the views and gets to move the headache of dealing with YouTube comments to someone else (obviously if done in mass to a single discussion site this may be a problem for Google, but it is currently far too disjointed to matter much). From Google's perspective, the new comment system is a win-win situation.