I don't entirely understand the linked chart here.
But best I can make of it, has 1/4 the # of impressions as MSM and almost half the impressions for either partisan left or right.
This is a minor issue that is showing impression numbers the equivalent of entire media organizations. How is this evidence that Youtube's algorithm does not promote radicalized content?
It doesn't appear this app is trying to be a straight up Photoshop replacement.
If that's what people are looking for they can go to GIMP. So I don't see how that answer specifically indicates why people would be unhappy with the situation on Linux.
>It doesn't appear this app is trying to be a straight up Photoshop replacement.
It isn't. It's an illustration tool.
Which is why this article is kind of weird: An (excellent! I love krita!) adjacent tool exists, so why do people want the tool that fills a different purpose?
Not in the article body, but titled an article 'Linux doesn't have Photoshop' and then talking about something that isn't attempting to be Photoshop is really clickbait-y.
Then your complaint is about Apple locking iMessage to Apple devices.
Which is a legitimate complaint especially since Apple had said they would be opening it up (or was that FaceTime...I'm not sure).
But that's a wholly different complaint from the fact that Apple, like nearly every other messaging service, does not allow you to export groups to other services.
Apple was going to make the peer-to-peer video call technology they were using for FaceTime public. Then they got sued by VirnetX over a patent related to that technology, so they had to rework the service to run through a central server. With that change, there was no longer anything worth open-sourcing.
By that logic WhatsApp isn't free. I have to spend hundreds of dollars upfront to buy a phone, and worse, hundreds of dollars each year to maintain a phone line to use WhatsApp.
WhatsApp doesn't provide an API so I could use it on my existing laptop over WiFi for free (the WhatsApp web requires it to be setup on a phone first).
> ...WhatsApp isn't free. I have to spend hundreds of dollars upfront to buy a phone...
WhatsApp works reliably on a staggeringly broad list of devices. You can get a supported phone for, like, $20 and stick a $5-per-month prepaid SIM in it (many of these plans in low-income countries specifically come with WhatsApp allowances) and be connected.
WhatsApp is as effectively free as it can be within the segment of the population that needs or wants it.
This is like arguing that free Wi-Fi isn't "free" because some people only use ethernet. If you don't already own a compatible device, you aren't their customer anyway.
That's what my employer also did. In addition to a lot of metrics on which they base performance and awards. In other words easily and frequently gameable made up numbers
Even if that's the case, it isn't elitist to suggest we privilege cheaper modes of transport.
Your scenario cannot scale by definition (used)
Your scenario has no answer for the externalities.
Essentially, the only reason the scenario has any sort of standing is because it's based on the idea that commuting by personal vehicle is inherently better than public transport. Which is true for most of the US but is not true for most of the places which actually don't a priori assume personal vehicles are inherently significantly better for transport.
The only people supporting nuclear are also on the left.
Nuclear's demise has nothing to do with the liberals blocking it (if they were so powerful their efforts against coal and fracking and oil pipelines may have been marginally effective) but rather the terrible economics of it vs solar/wind as well as natural gas.
Solar and wind beat out nuclear for generation without regard to intermittent production. If you counting the cost of actually replacing fossil fuels, that has to take into storage and retrieval costs which drastically increase cost well beyond nuclear. Well, to be more pedantic nobody really knows the cost because the technology to store energy effectively and at the required scale in a manner that is not geographically dependent does not yet exist.
They can. Uber added nothing to market other than an app, which everyone was doing for every potential business at the time anyways.
Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about trampling about each and every law they could. To the point that they would break laws that they didn't even need to.
But asking for forgiveness when you have a ton of VC money is obviously better than not messing up in the first place.
Only good thing is thst, I hope, the market is seeing through these criminals (at best).
> Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about trampling about each and every law they could.
It's nice to see European bureaucracy at work and actually enforcing rules. Seems like it's much more resistant to regulatory capture than the US where, looks like, you can just flaunt any laws if you have enough money.
Extreme cold that is abnormal.and consistently abnormal can also be reflective of the effects of climate change. It's only the people who think snow disproves it that think this is an argument.
But I don't know. Perhaps you're more clever than NASA who examines the historical data and their fancy apparatus that carefully measures these things.
In terms of correlates to other historical measurements over longer time spans, it's pretty clear that our times are exceptional:
I'm not sure what personal insights you have here to back your skepticism, but it wouldn't match the science, which is our best way of knowing anything.
It still doesn't make sense. If this is the better approach, then why isn't it the default.
Why is it enabled (in a way that is extremely difficult to reverse) by copy pasting something in the Terminal?
I'm pretty sure this is a bug that will likely be resolved in a couple of minor updates.
Edit: Also, this is extremely user hostile. And it is security hostile. The user and securoty hostile bit isn't giving access when the user pastes a ___location in the terminal. The hostile bit is completely ignoring the users action when they subsequently try to disable access through the File Access dialog. And it's security hostile because the OS is making it difficult to remove access, not enable access.
It's enabled by copy and pasting because the pasteboard carries capabilities.
I agree it's a bug that these cannot be removed, but it's not user hostile. You wouldn't say Linux is "extremely user hostile" because it allows Terminal to access ~/Downloads without prompting.
This is an extra layer, it alone does not give the app access. Apps which retain this permission are still governed by sandboxing and filesystem permissions, just like on Linux and Windows and Mojave.
It's hard to imagine how this could be accidental behavior. It is much too specific. The only way I could see it being a bug (or incomplete feature) is if maybe there's supposed to be a prompt asking if you want to grant permission first that isn't working. And maybe some sort of permission manager that lets you add/revoke said permissions without a laborious reboot into a diagnostic tool.
But best I can make of it, has 1/4 the # of impressions as MSM and almost half the impressions for either partisan left or right.
This is a minor issue that is showing impression numbers the equivalent of entire media organizations. How is this evidence that Youtube's algorithm does not promote radicalized content?