Hrm, where's the pricing? Oh, it's based on "Messages per day" and "Folders / Labels"...
This doesn't detract from the meat of the article, but when user activity is involved in the pricing, you clearly can't claim 'no activity monitoring'.
17,701 karma · joined November 12, 2010
Hrm, where's the pricing? Oh, it's based on "Messages per day" and "Folders / Labels"...
This doesn't detract from the meat of the article, but when user activity is involved in the pricing, you clearly can't claim 'no activity monitoring'.
> but the rate is still up more than 20% since 1975. 18.5% for adults in 1975 vs 21.8% in 2016
Nitpick: a rise of 20% on that 18.5% would make it 22.2%
Edit: I'm also not sure why the 20% marker seems to be your cutoff for "having an obesity problem". Ethiopia's famous famine went from 1983-85, yet their obesity rate for '85 is 18.7%. That seems to be an awful thin line to walk, where 18.7% marks a famine and 20% marks obesity problem.
Similarly, the Second Congo War went from 1999 to 2003 and almost 4 million people died, mostly from famine.. yet throughout that, the Democratic Republic of the Congo maintained obesity rates above 20% in your link.
It doesn't say much for 'being easy' when you have to pad out your list of six with two non-citations, two irrelevant citations, and a difficult-to-source one.
> When you eventually provide evidence for your claim that people exercise their willpower less, I won't require citations for everything.
"When I give you evidence, you won't require evidence"?
> I hope this is enough evidence for you.
It's worth noting that I didn't demand evidence for the original claim; I only demanded it as an illustrative point to people that were demanding it of me.
Of course, the disadvantage is that it'll be harder for you to crack the lucrative American market...
Cool, it's easy: then provide some, please. Provide some citations for it rather than just accepting the common knowledge, since common knowledge is often wrong.
> asking for evidence means giving you the chance to show that you have convincing reasons for your opinion.
No. Asking someone for more information, or asking someone to round out the idea more is giving the chance to show convincing reasons. Asking bluntly for a citational proof is mere dismissal.
I made no claim about greater moral fiber, but if you think that past generations didn't "make do with less", you're now making an extraordinary against-the-grain claim. So, "give us a citation proving why you should be suspicious of that comment". See how annoying that is?
I'm getting tired of this new fad of dismissing someone's comment by demanding evidence for it.
I doubt that peoples' capacity for willpower has changed, but that the exercise of that capacity has. There's a lot less personal discipline than there used to be, across the board, and the less you exercise your personal discipline, the harder it is when you try to.
Holes appear in the story in the article when things like "seven straight hours" - do kids not get lunch or recess breaks anymore? It's clear the teen is overstating the case to make it sound worse. That doesn't mean there's no problem to address, but I wouldn't take the statement on face value. I'm also not sure I'd take that letter as typical (for an adult, let alone a young teen), given the quality of the prose.
They look like they have only had half a dozen bugs lodged in the last six months. Doesn't seem too vibrant for an actively-developed desktop.
I am playing a little fast and loose with the definition of charity, yes, but so is the OP. "Charity" isn't "free money for you to play with" (that's "philanthropy"), it's "giving help to those who need help". Governments in the developed world have significant welfare costs, so it is just plain wrong that charity isn't the role of government.
Isn't this what "their clients often have no other choice" means?
Charity is the raison d'être of government. A government is there to run your society. That means doing things for people, even if it's just printing passports and employing a police department.
They both have their pros and cons, but the actual experience of digital textbooks falls far short of their promise.
#2: But you don't have to solve it now. Go travelling while you're young, healthy, and presumably have few significant commitments. It's not guaranteed, but you'll likely get more insight into what you want to do next while travelling as well.
Yep, stop focusing on the movie-style end-of-the-world apocalypse, where it's just you and your guns versus the raiders. Instead of planning what you're going to do when it all turns to crap, do stuff now. In short, fix the world you're in, rather than planning for a world which really isn't going to happen.
Talking to politicians is the first thing you can do - if they don't hear the noise, they're never going to do anything about it, and they're the decision-makers. Change your behaviours as other commentators have stated. Talk to your friends so they at least have heard the issue.
But don't pretend that you're going to go off into the woods and survive like in a movie - if society ever did go that far, then you're fucked anyway - no doctors, no hospitals, no emergency services, no entertainment, no travel, so on and so forth. Few of us are actually comfortable with the idea of living permanently off the land (those survival rations won't last very long).
This is one thing that is so often overlooked. Someone who is violent at 21 and gets a long sentence doesn't come back out at age 21.
> and all of us harbor the potential for violence under the right circumstances.
My mother said she could never hurt someone, in response to some article or other on the news. I said "yes you would - if I was about to be killed by an assailant, you wouldn't hold back". She then amended her position to outside of that situation, she could never hurt someone... :)
The world changes, and adaptation requires maintenance. 10 years ago is almost half the age of the web ago. This is more a business decision - do you let those accounts rot - than it is a technical decision. Because the business decision needs to include support time for user interaction.
When it comes to actual messaging activity, both graphs show a 'belly' of preferring to message younger partners (except near the origin); it's just that the men's one is considerably more pronounced. Both genders are sending a lot of messages to people younger than their own minimum settings, too.
In general I liked the OKC data articles, but this particular one always seemed to me like they were forcing a story onto the data.
On how many of these vastly cheaper alternatives is it possible to simply spin up a fleet of a thousand machines?