Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.
the EU's goals is to serve the collective best interests of all and every single member-state
That's clearly not what it's trying to do right now. For one the UK is still a member state and still paying its dues, but the EU is acting in an extremely hostile way. Unless you reflexively define the best interests of the EU Commission and related institutions as "the best interests of all and every single member state", it is certainly not the case.
Consider: The EU is setting things up such that in just over a year trucks will start to pile up at ports, costs will rise across Europe and the UK, many European firms will be cut off from the financing they receive from London, airplanes will be grounded, Irish politics will destabilise due to the introduction of a hard border and that's really just the beginning. None of this is in the interests of any person in any EU member state at all. And it can all be easily avoided.
Your spa analogy is very badly off by the way. Trade isn't something countries sell like a product itself, despite the EU's attempts to package it that way. Countries that strike free trade deals do not "buy" them, they negotiate and agree to them. Think about neighbours cooperating more than a consumer buying a product.
I think he means that there's a lot of debate when you peel back the covers on how much modern trade deals really impact economic growth. And quite a lot of evidence that they have surprisingly little impact.
If you go read press releases made about trade deals they always have apparently huge numbers but spread over a very large number of years. Modulo what's said elsewhere about the uselessness of economic predictions, the predicted impact is usually very low. Probably because tariffs are already quite low and falling globally, most trade barriers are now regulatory in nature and those tend to be relatively unaffected by trade deals.
A lot of people derive enormous comfort and security from the belief that there's a social class who can predict the future. In the past they were shamans and oracles reading goose entrails, nowadays they're analysts and economists reading Excel entrails. In the Foundation trilogy they were psychohistorians, basically economists on steroids.
I think it takes a certain amount of bravery to accept that there are no "experts" when it comes to predicting the future.
More or less any numbers you see about the predicted economic impact of Brexit come from exactly the same sets of economists who have been proven 100% wrong so far about everything, so have no credibility. They predicted a massive recession in the wake of simply voting to leave, not actually leaving, which never materialised. Then there were claims it would be triggered by the formal notification of leaving - that didn't happen either. They also liked to claim that immigration had no impact on wages, but there have been quite a few stories since about industry leaders complaining about having to increase wages (suspect in and of themselves because immigration hasn't really fallen).
There simply aren't any economic projections of a trustworthy nature right now.
Anti-immigration sentiment in the UK is to a large extent driven by lagging infrastructure.
As just a single example the housebuilding industry has been consistently able to build fewer houses than there are people arriving by a large number, and the statistics over how many people are arriving are themselves deeply suspect - they don't correlate with any other population related statistics, and are based on airport surveys that ask a subset of people whether they plan to stay for a long period.
If politicians allow immigration at levels significantly above the speed at which infrastructure can be built out to support the new people then infrastructure reliability and availability will decline. It is reasonable to be concerned about that if you rely on that infrastructure.
The idea of Brexit voters as incorrigible racists isn't supportable, no datasets of any integrity show that and the brief spike of "omg britain is so racist" died down very quickly after the referendum, simply because the UK is and remains by far the most racially diverse nation in Europe.
The very fact that you are using the phrase "rape culture" in this case shows you are totally unbalanced, sorry! Touching somebody's knee isn't even remotely the same as rape! It's insulting to people who have actually been raped to even make the comparison at all.
I don't believe any mental or emotional distress was suffered. I also don't believe there were any "victims". Being hugged does not make you a victim, sorry. These people who are complaining need to toughen up.
I mean where does this end? Accidental contact in a corridor as two people pass each other ends careers? That sort of thing now seems entirely thinkable.
Who knows, without such stress, some of these women could have been even bigger than Lasseter himself.
Someone who can't tolerate the "stress" of being hugged is never going to be able to pull together Toy Story.
So a hand that might have travelled but didn't 15 years ago and the fact that he likes hugging is proof of what, exactly? Only the insanity of our era. Don't research how the Queen of England met her husband or your head might explode.
A former Pixar employee requesting anonymity says Lasseter's leave of absence statement is "ridiculous" and "trivializing this behavior." The employee adds, "To sum this up as unwanted hugs is belittling and demeaning. If it was just unwanted hugs, he wouldn't be stepping down."
I am baffled by this bizarre logic. Belittling and demeaning who, exactly? And how on earth can you derive guilt from observing punishment? In today's Hollywood culture it is easily believable that the man who built the company could be forced out - even if only temporarily - for simply hugging people. Or is this anonymous person trying to imply Lasseter is actually a horrible rapist and nobody is willing to anonymously say so? Seems deeply unlikely at the moment.
How many successful companies are going to self-destruct by giving in to this sort of collective madness? Lasseter liked hugging people? 15 years ago he put his hand on a woman's knee? What message does it send that vast success for huge numbers of employees counts for nothing when put against people who are offended by this?
Lasseter's crime is apparently hugging people. That's not a "bad actor". This is far beyond witchhunt territory. Damn I'm glad I don't work in Hollywood. The entire industry appears to be disappearing up its own backside.
CPI is fairly useless anyway. It ignores where the huge money displacements are actually going: hint, not bread and circuses. The money the ECB is displacing is institutional investors money and causes inflation in things like housing, stock markets, VC funds, and yeah, probably cryptocurrency.
It's only crypto that uses the term "market cap" to mean "outstanding crypto-tokens * price". That isn't what the term means in conventional finance. It's normally applied to shares.
That's not clear at all. Do you think the Twitter founder's goal was literally written down somewhere as "manipulate users to engage with it"? Or for Facebook? None of these companies will agree with that assessment, so it's entirely your own subjective opinion.
Surely all news publications filter? That's a large component of their bias, if not the largest: what information they choose to highlight and which to suppress.
Note that the Intercept meets most of your criteria when it can, and Breitbart meets all but the "no ads" criteria. Both cite and link to sources at least sometimes, when those sources are citable.
You can't really know what the impact is. You probably can't even come up with a crisp, uncontroversial definition of what "social media" actually is. Most people seem to use the term to mean Twitter, but Twitter is garbage and lots of people don't use it at all. Is Hacker News "social media"? Is Slashdot? Is the comments section of the New York Times? Is IRC?
The moment you start down the "we are weak and helpless and we need the smart benevolent geniuses in Government to help us" you're just gonna lose a whole lot of people. Because there's no reason to believe there is even a problem here, let alone a problem that needs to be solved with regulation.
I'm not arguing that x86 will ever really be secure. However you handwaved a hypothetical "secure processor architecture". Realistically the way you do that is by making a very simple CPU, however, that would then be too slow to be usable for many applications. As a consequence nobody is doing so.
SGX is at least a middle ground - it integrates the memory access checks very deep into the memory access circuitry, sufficiently deep to block all other privilege levels on the CPU. Whilst there may well be implementation flaws in SGX itself so far most attacks have been mounted via side channels, not directly exploiting CPU bugs.
In this sense my original statement was correct. Intel is pushing secure CPUs forward more than any other vendor.
"Teaching my child to cook does not make me a bad feminist"
"Why do women lie more than men? Because we're 'nicer'"
"Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did"