Good luck driving this thing in the snow. I suppose having only 3 wheels may benefit it in terms of its low weight, but still....if an inch of snow cripples my Fiesta, I bet you'll have to buy snow tires for this at least.
It might feel like this, but if you boot up an old Windows XP machine and edit some text, it's still going to feel slow as hell in comparison to Atom on a modern machine. We get used to what's "fast" to do on our computers, and anything significantly slower than that feels "slow". And sure, the software is much less efficient. But compare it on hardware from the time it was developed, and it's not as bad as it seems.
And it's not just about money. With Discord as an example, they are able to quickly develop and deliver a great product, iterate on new features and integrations, and support all major platforms including web browsers. Their choice to use a web based stack helps A LOT with this.
There is little to no evidence to support this claim. Whereas what I'm talking about was done after the great depression and developed a lot of infrastructure, especially in rural America, that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
We shouldn't just accept a future of joblessness. It's a terrible waste of human capital. Rather than simply paying people to be unemployed, we should find work for them to do that benefits society in some way. To an extent we need to be investing more in our people, especially in the U.S., but there are also things we could do like large scale infrastructure
projects that could help fill the gap for people that don't have the knowledge/skill for many of the jobs that can't be automated.
UBI is the opposite of a post scarcity society, it props up a society of scarcity and exploitation by maintaining the current economic structure with an increasing unemployment rate.
A lot of people are into UBI as a solution to this, but I personally don't think that will work. The social issues that would come from having that high of a level of unemployment, even with a UBI, would be enormous. I think it would be valuable to consider a more drastic departure from a capitalist system rather than applying yet another band-aid fix to it.
Hypothetically let's say you raised taxes by a third across the board. Only people who's taxes went up by more than that 560 a month would be paying more than they received in UBI. So it's a little bit deceptive in terms of how much taxes would need to increase by. The tax increase and monthly UBI amount should be tuned together to have the desired redistributive effect.
Well alternatively you could get a corporate job, stay there for a long time, and use your position of seniority to block anyone from using technology you haven't learned about ;)
I wouldn't necessarily say that opposing opinions aren't wrong. Sometimes they are, and a lot of the time it's because of some form of institutional inertia. In general though, you'll have great ideas, people will politely tell you to fuck off, and you have to be able to get over it quickly or you'll make yourself hate your job.
This somewhat depends on the technology you're using as well though. Writing Java in vim is a pain in the ass in comparison to something like IntelliJ that has auto-importing, go to definition, etc
If they hadn't been chasing thinness so aggressively they could have avoided some of the negative side effects of battery degradation by just increasing capacity.
This article doesn't even seem contrary to scientific consensus as far as what factual information is presented. It's just about how it's packaged in order to form his argument. It's sort of a lawyer-y manipulation of terms with some added hyperbole and even appeals to fashion sense that are misrepresenting what IQ is and what the consensus actually is.
Do you really need a better argument than that? Or do you just need to repeat that it's racist until a substantial part of the population both believes that and would also treat challenging that belief as racist?
Consensus is a fundamentally social mechanism, and while scientific consensus ought to be as close to factual as possible, the people forming the consensus are potentially prone to exploitation via outside social forces.
In my experience even things which are explicitly prototypes can be dangerous, as it can appear to be in the short term interest of the business to take a prototype and modify it as little as possible to get it shipped. I've seen this result in massive headaches and thousands of wasted man hours, and for what? Shipping an "MVP" that can't be effectively iterated on 2 weeks sooner? The worst case of this I saw, the technical aspects of this were bad enough that it was (in my opinion) what caused the product to fail.
Businesses in the U.S. for the most part can discriminate however they want as long as it isn't on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition in the United States that I am aware of. If it does, it's still covered by the first amendment and legal. So its not a question of Patreon determining what is legal, they're determining what is acceptable to them.
If you can't stop authoritarianism just because authoritarians have access to targeted advertising, then there's a bigger problem at hand than just Facebook or any particular ad platform.
Aside from vaping being less harmful than cigarettes, kids were vaping long before Juul was popular. They are not responsible for this trend; they're just an inevitable improvement upon semi-disposable e-cigarettes.
This argument also completely ignores the beneficial aspects of Juul. It is far more effective at helping smokers quit than most other products. To focus in on "save the children!" fear mongering while ignoring the primary benefit of vaping is dishonest and helps no one.
We're also going to have widespread gigabit fiber and 5G soon, probably prior to significant adoption of technologies like this. So even if there is a period of time where these optimizations don't exist yet, rapidly improving internet speeds will help mitigate some of it as well.
Microsoft no longer sees Linux as a threat because it isn't a threat to their business anymore. Any damage that Linux can do has already been done and can't be changed. So few people use Linux on the desktop that they have no reason to even be worried in trying to prevent people from using it. All that would do is push developers back towards Mac, which is the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.
Microsoft has seen huge growth under Nadella, and that was accomplished through selling cloud services. Linux does not threaten this business model or the future of the company in any way. There's nothing to "Embrace, extend, extinguish".
Because almost nobody uses it so they don't care. The only reason they even made WSL was to compete with Mac, and make devices with odd hardware that didn't easily run desktop Linux (like Surface) more appealing to developers.