> In that case "make your profile private if you don't want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.
If someone is harassing you on twitter, then blocking them still stops that, modulo them making a new account. Stalking, in the sense of looking at your public posts, can't be stopped, because it's trivial for them to open your posts in a private window, or create a new account just for stalking (which of course they wouldn't tell you about, hence you couldn't block it). So in fact the only option you have to avoid such stalking is to make your account private, period.
"Can be seen by anyone in the world except for tom because fuck tom" isn't a different "level of public", it's just caprice. As the GP mentioned, if you want to restrict who can see your tweets, set your account to private.
There are two >100 comment/vote stories from them in the past two weeks, according to algolia. Maybe the others are being unfairly treated, but that seems pretty good to me.
Natural language syntaxes universally suck. A faux english syntax isn't easier to use if you don't know which english in particular will be accepted. A complex cli interface fundamentally can't be easy to use. A GUI can fix that by making things discoverable and by integrating the documentation into the UI, but the ffmpeg devs presumably see that as someone else job (and there have been people to step up).
> Guardrails are intended to keep cars from careening off the road at critical areas, such as over bridges and waterways, near the edges of cliffs and ravines and over rocky terrain, where injury and death in an off-the-road crash are much more likely. ... “Guardrails are kind of a safety feature of last resort,” Brooks said.
From what I've observed this is wrong. Guardrails seem to be used semi haphazardly along roads in places where it wouldn't be the end of the world to go into the ditch. On a bridge, or a median, or elsewhere where going outside the road boundary could be particularly dangerous, they use much better reinforced walls.
Is it a head on collision? The first angle in the video makes it look like it is, but the second angle makes it clearer that its actually hitting from an angle. It seems to be close to a 45 degree angle, which is slightly closer to a real world scenario.
These people are customers of both beeper and apple. Both beeper and apple made a set of decision that led to their own customers being hurt. Somehow the resolution is that beeper is uniquely responsible for course correcting. Maybe they should have put language in their ToS to the effect that if your device id is banned, they disclaim all responsibility. Surely that would have smoothed things over?
The difference is in trying to highlight the "policy" as being fundamentally just and fair, versus arbitrary and capricious. If I have a "policy" of beating up anybody who looks at me funny, that doesn't make it any less retaliatory. On the other hand, the justice system has a habit of avoiding the term "punishment" because they don't like the connotation.
Beeper would have to have agreed to the ToS for them to have broken it. It's apple's users who agreed to a ToS, and apple users who got the boot. The lesson is that apple doesn't treat their users very well, not that some no name company who's fifteen minutes of fame are done isn't responsible enough.
The only relevant browsers on mobile are google's and apple's, and (modern) web standards are created by enough popular browsers implementing them. Literally all it would take for this to be a reliable web standard would be apple choosing to implement it.
i only visit twitter because somebody's linked to it. i'm not interested in opting out of a large number of discussions just because they take place in part on twitter.
It basically just says that version numbers are meaningless and purely marketing. "Pragmatic" yes, but in need of standardization, no. The project comes across almost as a satire, so its odd for you to treat it as serious here.
The odd thesis here seems to be that the lufthansa flight has to bear the entire burden of the delay. Eventually there will be a gap when you have runway space free. Rather than shove the lufthansa flight in right away, then cause every further flight to be delayed until that gap appears, lufthansa has to wait for the gap themselves. "No visual approaches" is treated as a sort of deviance which the ATC won't allow the effects of it to cascade to anyone but lufthansa. This added context makes it clearer exactly what the OP article is criticizing: the ATC had the complete ability to let the lufthansa flight land whenever they liked, but was choosing not to, and there are certain negative effects which that choice could have.
If someone is harassing you on twitter, then blocking them still stops that, modulo them making a new account. Stalking, in the sense of looking at your public posts, can't be stopped, because it's trivial for them to open your posts in a private window, or create a new account just for stalking (which of course they wouldn't tell you about, hence you couldn't block it). So in fact the only option you have to avoid such stalking is to make your account private, period.