1,547 karma · joined June 16, 2011
I'm sure that people like the root of this thread mean well, but at the same time that attitude is exactly what kept me from receiving treatment or care when I was younger.
Nat and [name redacted] were always exceptionally close, which I always found confusing. [name redacted] was intense, passionate, charismatic, but also had troubled and troubling relationships with people, _particularly_ women. [name redacted] was, if I remember correctly, let go from Ximian when he failed to arrive to work every day by noon for one week straight (we lived a 5 to 10 minute walk from the office).
Even after [name redacted] was let go, he and Nat remained fast friends.
> "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto.
> Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.[1][2][3][4][5] The original motto was retained in Google's code of conduct, now a subsidiary of Alphabet. In April 2018, the motto was removed from the code of conduct's preface and retained in its last sentence.[6]
I know saying Google removed Don't Be Evil is something of a trope, but the truth is a little more complicated. And, of course, the presence or absence of this phrase has no necessary bearing on the degree to which they are perceived as evil or not!
* Split version number into version numbers separated by non-alphanumeric components (e.g., 3.10.2 becomes (3,10,2) and 3.2 becomes (3,2)).
* Compare two versions item by item numerically (in this case, 3==3 but 10 > 2 so 3.10.2 is newer than 3.2).
This is a massive oversimplification, and if you're curious you can read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Archive:Tools/RPM/VersionComp... for the gory details.
Source: long ago I worked at a company named Ximian that shipped a software update product that worked on systems using both RPM and dpkg, and I had to deeply understand this problem space.
BFR isn't a name that's still in use. Poster you're responding to was correct in calling it Starship: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)" (from https://www.spacex.com/starship).
Starship projects to be significantly less expensive than Falcon Heavy _or_ Falcon 9. With total reusability of both stages and a construction built toward little to no refurbish or rehab, the cost per launch is nearly completely dictated (order of magnitude) by fuel costs, and project to be ~$2 million. This is an order of magnitude reduction in $/kg over the Falcon 9.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-...
That is a factually incorrect statement. You lose access to any games you claimed for free as a benefit of your Stadia Pro membership if you cancel your membership; you regain access to those games if you renew, but you will not gain access to games that were offered for free during any interval where you were not a subscriber.
You retain access to any game you paid for, _even_ if you paid a discounted rate as a result of being a Stadia Pro member, even if your subscription is canceled.
I'm not sure they have quite the history you're implying.
As sibling points out though, we may just not be the target audience.
Worse for me than the Android dessert names were, since at least those were ordered.
> In this century, we urgently need to undo some of the consequences of the last great boom by developing affordable zero- and negative-emissions technologies. That's another hard problem—and to solve it, we'll need to recapture some of what made the “special century” so special.
> Anaxagoras was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, ostensibly for breaking impiety laws while promoting his ideas about the moon and sun.
This provides the context to understand that while the title is true at a surface level, his claims around the moon likely served as pretext rather than true cause.
You write:
> Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA.
I disagree. An exact analogy would require that James Watson was actually attacked for his belief in the structure of DNA, which served as a pretext for the real claims against him. James Watson was attacked directly for his views on race.
Doubly applicable in this case, as it talks about the perils of a single study _and_ discusses this in the context of minimum wage research.
That's either very quick turnaround to fix, or a deeper mystery!
For a large number of people, Google's ability to answer the underlying question, rather than explicitly identify pages where all search terms appear, means it works better. If you think of Google as a way to get answers, this is good.
If you think of Google as a search engine, and particularly if you have historical experience with (and expectations of) search engines, this is very frustrating. And the workarounds of clicking the "must contain" link (or surrounding all of your search terms with quotation marks) are a seemingly unnecessary inconvenience.
As a personal anecdote, I was an early adopter of smartphones (particularly relative to a non-technical audience). So I was excited when I could speak to my phone, then disappointed when I discovered that I had to structure my queries and instructions very carefully.
A few years ago I was on a road trip with a very non-technical friend. We decided to stop for Chipotle. Had it been up to me, I would probably have pulled out my phone, opened Google Assistant (or perhaps Maps directly), and told my phone (speaking as clearly as possible) "navigate to the closest Chipotle" or something similar.
But I was driving, so she just pulled out her iPhone and half-shouted "I want a burrito!" at it. And that worked just fine.
Point being, I had expectations for how things should work based on interactions with earlier iterations of an interface. She didn't.
BE-4 is not full flow, but oxidizer-rich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Oxidiz...).
Compare that to a POSIX system where a directory has an actual child which is a reference to the directory's parent whose name is always '..'.
The talk about resolving '..' is merely a demonstration that the behavior of "cd .." can be supported/emulated in a context where you have both an open directory and corresponding path, without requiring that '..' literally exist.
To make a case for this particular instance, as others have mentioned, this is a magazine article, not a newspaper article, or a scientific publication. The article isn't _just_ about bug population in decline. There are a number of major and minor themes woven throughout. I feel like the narrative frame works to support that.
I don't think modeling Google as a surveillance company is a particularly good model. If you need to pick something reductionist, it's probably safest to model Google as a corporation that seeks to make money, although that's not particularly unique or (obviously) a sufficiently refined model.
I use a lot of Google services, own some Google hardware (phone, smart speakers and the like). But I also have reservations and concerns about Google, and I try to regularly reexamine my relationship with Google to see if I'm still comfortable with everything!
One step I took was to really dig into the My Activity dashboard that Google provides. I was really interested, after letting a Google Home into my life, to see what I could learn. The most obvious step I took was to listen to the recordings Google keeps of every interaction I have with the Home, and ensure there weren't things presented that I hadn't intended Google to be listening to.
But! What if Google is actually recording everything, and then only presenting me with the things that were actual instructions to my Google Home in the dashboard? (Let's disregard network traffic analysis and the like for the moment.) If Google were up to this kind of shenanigans, they would have to be very, very careful to have an appropriately conservative filter in place to ensure none of the secret recordings were ever presented to me.
So, to test this, I proceeded to independently record every interaction I had with the Google Home (just took a quick note on paper) for a couple days. I later went to the My Activity dashboard to see if every interaction was present. (They were.) At this point, I am reduced to a narrower set of options: Google is actually doing what they told me they would, or their super-AI is so advanced that is is capable of covert monitoring and reporting on my activity along with _perfect_ filtering such that there are no false positives or false negatives.
This obviously isn't exhaustive or comprehensive. But I find myself coming back to "why?" The things that Google tells me they do with my data, up front, are sufficient to explain their business activities and revenues. The disincentives around doing anything more nefarious are rather large. I reevaluate the relationship periodically, but I am generally comfortable looking at the terms of the deal (I share some data, they provide me a lot of value) and accepting them.
Honestly, the thing I find far scarier is their absolute shit-tier support and draconian account suspension policies. I found myself entertaining becoming a Google One subscriber even though I have no need for more cloud storage. I was literally entertaining the notion of paying them a nominal fee every month so that I might be somewhat less likely to lose my account and all of the association information for some minor (possibly merely perceived) transgression. That's a bit scary!
That eliminates at least some avenues of avoidance. That's still no guarantee the fine is actually paid, of course, but if they do avoid it, it'll be with the complicity of the city.