Listening to podcasts on my computer, I want to go and do some cleaning, so I switch it over to playing on my phone seamlessly so I can walk around the house listening. Spotify is the only solution that I know of for this.
The free market would have allowed those banks to fail and their customers would have lost all their savings. Personally I'd prefer if they'd bailed out the customers instead, but that still counts as a state intervention.
Yeah I think that's a better term. It's something that can be applied to both state and non state actors, and doesn't make implicit judgments about the legitimacy of either.
When I say "calling out" I'm referring to labelling acts as terrorist acts. I probably could have used better wording.
But this argument is all about trying to provide an objective description of the facts. I agree with the BBC here - calling a group a "terrorist group" is an editorial choice, even if we do have government list of terrorist groups. I'd say that the attacks on the music festival and villages near the fence easily qualify for the term "terrorism", but so does Israel's retaliatory bombing of civilian targets. We're still quibbling over definitions (which is IMO inevitable), but at least we're talking about actions, rather than entire groups.
One thing I've been thinking about is how we use "terrorist" to describe groups rather than tactics. Governments maintain lists of "terror groups" which, as the article mentions, and everyone has a different idea of who belongs in there.
But terrorism is about tactics: indiscriminate killing/maiming of civilians to inspire terror in a population. Lots of groups, including governments, have used these tactics. And they should be called out when they're used, no matter who by. Hamas and Israel have both used terror tactics at points in this war, and they should both be called out for it. But calling one group "terrorists" and the other group "just trying to protect their country" is just pure propaganda.
I'm from the UK and noticed similar labelling in the Troubles. The Provisional IRA were a terrorist group, but when the British Army massacred a load of civilians, they didn't become a terrorist group.
China and the US would never allow foreign troops on their soil, even if they're from the UN. As superpowers and permanent security council members, they're the ones who dictate where UN peacekeepers go.
If you're talking about a non-militarised observer, I'd say that role is supposed to be filled by journalists. But all of these countries go to great lengths to keep journalists away from their atrocities.
Doing something without a profit motive is itself a left-wing act, that's why unpaid volunteers maintaining a site like Wikipedia might themselves have left-wing views. There's no shortage of profit-driven outlets available to balance it out.
This makes me very optimistic about Godot: lots of people will leave Unity because of this (even if they're not directly affected), and Godot is in a good enough place right now that most projects can be ported over without too many problems.
I feel there will be a split: larger companies will move to Unreal because of its tooling and reputation as the industry standard, while indies and solo devs will move to Godot, because it's (imo) easier to use for smaller projects, and its open source nature protects us from bait-and-switches like this. (For what it's worth, I don't think Epic will pull anything like this with Unreal, because so many big studios already rely on it and they're probably making a killing on it as-is).
I think it'll be similar to the 3D modelling space: big shops tend to use Cinema 4D/Zbrush/whatever they're using nowadays, and everyone else uses Blender.
Do you have a link to the video? In your description it sounds extremely irresponsible - he had his hands off the wheel because he was filming a selfie video? Sounds like he wasn't driving with due care and attention.
I disagree about continuous delivery. Small, regular releases mean less risk in each release. Basically every company I've worked for has used CI/CD, although 'release daily' seems arbitrary (you release when you merge - that's the whole idea. If there's nothing merged today, we have nothing to release).
My guess is that they're skimping on support, like every other tech company. Having good customer support with human support workers costs money, so some companies have taken the calculation that losing some small accounts might be worth it if they don't have to pay to provide proper support.
I'd argue: no. There's more to life than money and academic achievement, and good parents will convey that to their kids. Nobody needs billions of dollars to be happy. I taught myself programming because I enjoyed it, and now I have a job that I enjoy (that happens to pay really well as well).
I'd argue that, if Apple wants to claim it cares about its users' privacy, it shouldn't be collecting huge amounts of data from users. A company doesn't need to do everything that's profitable all at the same time, and I believe that this will compromise Apple's well-earned image as the privacy-focused hardware and OS maker.
Couldn't they launch a paid ad-free tier that grants API access? i.e. the user pays for the ad-free experience, and the 3rd-party apps would only work for those users who have paid. I can't think of any companies who have done that but it seems like a reasonable solution.
If the holodomor, the great leap forward, and all the other horrible things that happened under communist regimes are part of the 'death toll of communism', I'd be interested in what you think the death toll of capitalism is. I'd argue the Atlantic slave trade, the Bengal famine, the Irish famine and the genocide of native Americans would count for a start.
Yeah this article only has this to say about Netflix:
> Netflix—a child of the 1990s but a streamer only since 2007—turns a profit but its revenue growth was down to 6% year on year in the third quarter, compared with a historical average of more than 20%.
So its revenue is still growing year-on-year, but not quite at the breakneck pace it was in the past? I wouldn't call that a dying company. Most of the other companies have never turned a profit, no idea why the article is putting Netflix in that category.
This is really interesting, and for me it highlights the problem of tech/business people trying to solve a social problem. In their mind everything can be solved by tweaking the software architecture or monetisation model. Nothing is proposed to change how users actually interact with each other on the platform, which (IMHO) is the main problem.
One glaring omission from that article is any mention of per-capita emissions. The author keeps asserting that US-based measures to combat climate change are ineffective because China pollutes more, but the US (and all Western countries) have a far larger per-capita footprint than China. Policies to reduce this footprint could have a huge effect on emissions globally, even though the US isn't the total biggest emitter in the world.
The UK doesn't need to block Facebook, they can just ban advertisers from buying any ad space on there. FB could still provide a service in the UK but it wouldn't make them any money.
US/NATO have military all over Europe, and that hasn't prevented this either. The reason the threat doesn't work is because Ukraine isn't a NATO member.