Can someone explain how they can detect if you are in incognito mode? I didn't understand the article's explanation. From what I understand, it checks if you can store cookies. But doesn't incognito store cookies until you close the window? When I just opened YouTube in incognito, I get generic recommendations. But after watching several videos, I get recommendations based on what I watched, which I presume, are stored as cookies.
It's a shame that thinkpads are becoming less and less modular and functional. Some of my favorite functionalities are:
* Red nub. I use it exclusively, the track pad is disabled and serves me no purpose
* Hot swappable battery. I have a spare battery and it effectively doubles how long I can use my laptop without without charging.
* 7 layered keyboard. It's great to not have to use so many keyboard shortcuts, but rather have a dedicated button.
* Hardware switch for WiFi. If only it had one for the camera, microphone and sound.
* Durable and modular. I installed a hard drive using nothing more than a screwdriver and a 5 minute YouTube tutorial.
* Linux support (or at least not hindrance)
Some things that I do not like about the leaked Thinkpads.
* Envelope widthed laptops. I'm planning on using the Ethernet port before I plan on mailing my laptop in an envelope.
* 1 gram lighter than earlier models. I'm not so strong, but I have no problem sticking my laptop in my backpack and walking around with it. If I really wanted to I could remove 1 gram from my backpack without having to make the compromises that Lenovo is.
* Soldered memory. WTF
Does anyone have a recommendation for a laptop that is still being built that have most of the features that I am looking for. Assuming that it is good quality, money is not so much of an issue.
So then what was the point of the heavily publicized hq2 search? If, in the end, Amazon chose a deal that was available to everyone, then what did they negotiate?
I guess you'll have to be in such a situation to find out. I have an ancestor who moved to America as an Orthodox Jew in the early 1900s. He would find work on Monday, and work until Friday. If the employer wouldn't let him take Saturday off, then he would quit and look for a new job. This cycle eventually stopped when he got hired by a seventh day Adventist.
The problem is that the taxes are zero for specific businesses. If I want to open a business in New York, I'd get nowhere near as much of a tax break that Amazon got. I agree that business taxes should be low, but they should also be consistent.
> Is the information on the snopes page false or incorrect? No, it isn't.
It is both false and incorrect. Saying that "every one with an x has since been voted out of congress" When not every one with an x has since been voted out of congress is false. I mean even the article quotes a tweet listing 10 people who were incorrectly marked. You should see what Snopes does every time a right wing person says something not 100% correct.
> "snopes occasionally makes editorial decisions I disagree with" is not the same as "snopes is fake and unreliable".
Again, the Snopes article is blatantly false.
> Sorry, I must have missed it the first time, tell me again why you continue to rely on an overtly racist blog to be your arbiter of "ethics"?
Sorry, I missed why you think that I continue to rely on a racist blog to be my arbiter of ethics.
Snopes claims that a meme (showing a picture of people, many of whom have red x over their faces, writing that everyone with a red x has been voted out of office) is true even though they admit
> Although memes are frequently grossly inaccurate, this one got the general idea and numbers correct (even if the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify).
Some of the people with an x were not elected people and some did not get voted out. This meme is clearly false, yet Snopes calls it true.
> Christy, who is a frequent critic of EPA regulations, said he will use his position on the 45-member board to question the results of climate models.
So do what scientists do? Question models and improve them.
The more information they have the better it is for me. The reason that I use insurance is to lower the variance significantly while only slightly lowering the expected value. Now, if they had an oracle that could see the future, then there would be no point in using them. But that is not the case now, nor do I expect it to be the case any time soon.
Currently I want the insurance company to know what my expected value is properly so that I can get a rate that is appropriate for my needs. Of course I would prefer that they make a mistake and assume that my expected value is lower than reality, but if they make to many mistakes like that then either they will go out of business or raise their premiums.
That's my point. How would you like it if you had to pay just as much in flood insurance as someone with a beach front property in Florida? If I had to, I would try to make beachfront properties in Florida illegal.
If that is what you want then that is okay. You can pay for that type of insurance. I prefer to buy life insurance from a place that will charge me a lower rate because I don't drink or smoke. I assume that most people who don't drink or smoke would join my type of insurance as well, leaving your type of insurance full of drinkers and smokers. That would make your insurance cost more (the insurance is paying more) while mine would be cheap.
Now, if you are talking about requiring everyone to use the same insurance for the same price (maybe a government insurance) then I would want to ban drinking and smoking. Because now their actions directly impact my by rasing my insurance cost.
It isn't adversarial, I am not going against Google. I can learn a new technique in web programming that would both make me more valuable to Google and make be more valuable to other companies.
You are right, it would have been correct for my comment to refer to mid level people. But regardless, creating minimum wage would not help you unless you are the type of person who would earn below "union minimum wage" without the union. Otherwise, you would be diverting part of your paycheck to low level employees and to union fees.
A union is a bureaucratic process for that problem A much simpler solution is to donate directly to those coworkers. Rather than paying union fees and getting the company to direct more of your salary to lower paid employees, you can just give them how much you want to.
> You appear to have no desire to build a more equitable work experience for everyone.
Correct. I do not want to work at a place where no matter how much I invest in improving myself (learning a new coding technic in my free time rather than going to a movie) I will earn the same (or similar) to that of the cleaners.
> Presumably you also don't mind that your elitism assumes a lot of upside benefit for a few and a lot of downside consequences for most.
Me upgrading my TV to a 50' does not make your 20' TV worse.
> It strikes me that your lack of empathy strongly implies you think you not only would do better, but that you deserve to.
I have a lot of empathy. I give more than minimum wage in charitable donations.
> Let me put it to you that you're wrong: you would actually do better long term fighting to get better pay across the board and incentives for high achievers actually do better long term (as in vesting) when everyone wins.