>it sometimes feels that our current Governments cannot bring forward decent legislation on complex tech issues.
No, the issue is not advanced technology but special interests. When the later take priority over resolving troubling consequences, you get results like those two articles.
Politicians are not meant to understand the areas they regulate. Even if they were IT professionals, they still would not understand all the other professions.
>With colleagues at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Broniatowski looked at 899 vaccine-related tweets sent from mid-2014 to late 2017.
If there were either hundreds or at least several tens of thousands tweets like that, or if all of the tweets they've screened were highly popular, then I could take that study seriously.
As it is, however, this appears to be a targeted evaluation failing to qualify the significance of those tweets' impact.
Uh, this post sounds like an ad. The pricing model of that service obviously targets businesses instead of consumers, so it's kind of obvious from where the demand would come.
>For one, it's not as accessible to all of Mozilla's users. Remember, their goal is to help the poor and the young as well as SV programmers.
What nonsense is this? How is a free account inaccessible, and how are Mozilla's(??) users specifically affected?
>(...) there are lots of great businesses out there — but it creates a greater possibility of mismatched incentives than something like Mozilla. (...) The best way for them to achieve their goal might be helping me achieve my goal as efficiently as possible, or it might not.
So, you don't have an argument against them. Just a bunch of maybes.
...
I don't like Feedly, so be my guest if you want to hate it. However, both services list all the features of every plan once you're in. A lot of per account or freemium services do that, it's nothing new.
When RSS was created is irrelevant, when its age does not hinder innovation in its implementations. It's like saying email or phone calls are obsolete because social media has taken over.
>A third-party for-profit business with sketchy monetization
What is exactly is sketchy? What is bad about a for-profit business?
>though they don't tell what you'll have to pay up-front
Where did you get that? You're registering for a free account. If you want to upgrade, you select a plan. All information of the features you would unlock are available upfront.
Uh, what have notifications anything to do with RSS? Practically all all web services and mobile apps for it offer them.
Social media, on the other hand, is an alternative solution to the consumption of information, not inherently a better form of aggregation.
It is mainly the addiction to social feedback that attracts people to social media, while RSS is a boring stream of data you've specifically decided to process.
Really disappointed in Mozilla. After all, it's quite obvious, if you don't modernize and even continue to hide a feature for years, its usage won't improve unless external events drive the demand.
And since RSS readers counter the interests of both ad- and subscription-driven media, it's unlikely there will be any demand generated by anyone else other than RSS aggregators themselves.
>but the people crafting his campaign messaging were not
Yeah, many people would dispute that. In particular, you can't forget that he rarely followed scripts. His team definitely observed and measured what people and the press responded to, and brainstormed how it might benefit them in the future. But it certainly all started as what he could think of or remember best.
The success of campaign slogans and buzzword relies heavily on creativity, luck, and your own success. The work the campaign teams invest is usually more about damage control than profound strategies on how to rule society.
>So, I guess there is a sense in which it connects to his legacy, but not the way you seem to think.
What are You talking about?
Fake news had been a trivial phrase, used in different contexts throughout the years but without any grand emphasis on its own existence—hence the lack of an entry in dictionaries. Even throughout 2016, it had no explicit connection to Trump. Hillary also used it shortly before Trump famously called CNN out as fake news. [1] Even then the term was an unnecessarily misleading trivialization. But Trump redefined and weaponized that afterwards as his own catchphrase.
Off-topic: Why is everyone adopting the term fake news, thus leaving a linguistic legacy of that illiterate mafiosi? He obviously used that neologism due to his limited vocabulary, and popularized it further as a buzzword of his campaign.
>In the second-quarter results, Intel said that its 10-nanometer yields are "on track" with systems on the market in the second half of 2019. Krzanich's previous perspective wasn't specific on whether they would arrive in the first half of next year or in the second half. On the conference call with analysts on Thursday, Swan was more specific and said products would be on shelves in time for the holiday season.
>Murthy Renduchintala, group president of the technology, systems architecture and client group, said on the call that the products that will become available in 2019 are client computing products, whereas products for data center use will come "shortly after." The stock fell further after those comments but later rebounded as executives talked about ongoing research and development for next-generation 7-nanometer technology.
Really? For me it is, together with Emoji One and Twitter, part of the bottom three. It looks like an embarrassed smile. Twitter's version looks even more forced or mechanical than those from FB or Apple, and Emoji One's eyes give an impression of sadness (probably because the arches of the grinning eyes aren't horizontal).
Imho, on a more 3D blob (2.5D or isometric) Google's version would be best. But as they are, Samsung offers the most convincingly, emotionally happy one, but it does not really fit the 'grinning' theme. So the HTC's example is probably best, especially in the usually small format, though it isn't the most artful one.
It is an evaluation. He is not impressed so he doesn't look further into it.
Unfortunately, the over-hyped cyberpunk community is on a bandwagoning trip of dismissing all criticism as gating or ignorance, even elevating the remarks of a handful people on the internet as the main criticism against the game, e.g., cyberpunk on a day is not cyberpunk.
Personally, I find the direction the developers are taking refreshing, but that doesn't mean they haven't missed opportunities or made no mistakes.
The main argument of those happy with the trailer's cyberpunk style is that the later is not a mix of cyber with outrun or vaporwave, but as the term states cyber and punk. Hence it is not limited to the dusky, rainy scenes of Blade Runner.
They forget, however, that ironically cyberpunk is also more than the sum of its parts. Even if you wish to progress this very visually demanding genre into a new direction, we still have to able to experience the feeling of low life, high tech that is so essential to cyberpunk.
So to claim that you can't do cyberpunk on a day does indeed make no sense. But to imply it is of no concern how you present your day scenes and the color pallette doesn't matter, that is even worse.
No, the issue is not advanced technology but special interests. When the later take priority over resolving troubling consequences, you get results like those two articles.
Politicians are not meant to understand the areas they regulate. Even if they were IT professionals, they still would not understand all the other professions.