Which is funny to say because Star Wars is actually the Western version of samurai movies (especially but not exclusively Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress).
That's the movie that Lucas is pretty open about heavily drawing "inspiration" from (all the way down to specific characters and plot beats) but Hidden Fortress is itself part of a larger genre of similar stories.
> To be honest, I feel like this is where iOS and Android are failing us. Why is every app allowed to embed a bunch of trackers? Only blocking cross-app tracking on user request as iOS does is not enough (and data of different apps/websites can be correlated externally).
Even if Google and Apple both want to commit to fighting this, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole, because there are all sorts of different ways to track users that the platforms can't control.
As an easy example: every time you share an Instagram post/video/reel, they generate a unique link that is tracked back to you so they can track your social graph by seeing which users end up viewing that link. (TikTok does the same thing, although they at least make it more obvious by showing that in the UI with "____ shared this video with you").
How are they not arbitrary? Apple tells you a specific key to press, which is a choice. It is by definition arbitrary.
Edit: perhaps you're making the case that the user doesn't choose which key. This is true—but the important point is that one of the two parties did choose the specific key to press.
Edit2: For those downvoting, perhaps you could articulate why.
they are not random requests. they are keys known to have different locations depending on the locale. by seeing what the values sent when the requested key is pressed, they know how to map the inputs from the keyboard.
Arbitrary and random are basically the same in this context. The person you're replying to is pointing out they are specific keys for specific reasons because those specific keys can be used to figure out which kind of keyboard it is, they are not random or arbitrary, they are chosen with a specific reason in mind. If they were really chosen arbitrarily, they would not be able to accomplish the goal.
There's a big difference between doing a day trip to those altitudes which is normally ok, and sleeping that high which causes problems if not acclimatised.
> There's a big difference between doing a day trip to those altitudes which is normally ok, and sleeping that high which causes problems if not acclimatised.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. People regularly experience AMS at the heights far below what OP mentioned, whether on the day they arrive or on days 2-4, and that's not even accounting for strenuous physical activity.
> Of course Google is going to back door their browser.
Aside from the fact that other browsers exist, this makes no sense because Google would stand to gain more by being the only entity that can surveil the user this way, vs. allowing others to collect data on the user without having to go through Google's services (and pay them).
> If the biggest flaw of a OS is the border radius of its windows, you've got yourself a pretty decent OS!
There are loads of other flaws with the OS. It just so happens that people care a lot about the design of Apple's products, so people talk about these details.
> It's a $3 million verdict in compensatory damages. Even if reduced on appeal, that's a lot of money.
Where are you seeing that?
The article says:
> Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That’s less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.
> Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion and the company’s stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news.
> Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta’s platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.
> What structural change would permit a worker to take initiative and say "Hey, these working conditions are wrong/inadequate and I will not safely do my job today unless proper changes are made", without risk of getting fired by higher-ups?
Well, what you are describing is a strike, and it is currently illegal for ATC to strike, so in theory one possible structural change would be to make it legal for the workers to do what you're describing.
That website presents an unconvincing argument and uses it to arrive at a conclusion that is at odds with the extensive academic research on this topic.
> Academic research concludes that ranked-choice and vote-for-one both result in a center-squeeze spoiler effect.
No, it's more complicated than that.
All voting systems have the potential for spoiler effects (in the broadest sense of the term). That's a core and long-proven theorem in social choice theory. What's more relevant is how those actually play out under the conditions in which they're used. And it turns out that, while pathological cases are still mathematically possible, in practice, under the conditions that typically apply to our elections, RCV is actually less likely to produce these effects than other systems.
The idea that approval voting, STAR voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current.
(Also, the website linked above is not a correct demonstration of the effect you linked, although I can see how the confusion happened).
Can you share some actual evidence for your case? I really don't believe it. The anti-RCV story about Alaska 2022 holds that Palin spoiled round 1 of the instant runoff by splitting the vote with Begich, causing Begich to drop out. RCV only beats vote-for-one, unless you can make a convincing case otherwise.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04764v3 (Yes, I agree with the conclusion of this paper, but I argue that we can do better with Approval or STAR.)
Basic modelling on a 2D political compass gives a Yee diagram, demonstrating RCV's counterintuitive results. Yeah, that's theory, but Alaska 2022 demonstrates a real case of it. And the list of center-squeeze cases on the Wikipedia page, too.
> That's a core and long-proven theorem in social choice theory.
Do you mean Arrow's theorem? Doesn't apply to STAR or Approval.
> The idea that approval voting, STAR voting, or Condorcet voting is superior to RCV for this reason is a misconception based on decades-old research that is no longer current.
The First Amendment does not explicitly mention campaign spending (or political campaigns at all), and until 2010, the First Amendment was not considered to apply to monetary spending in political campaigns.
The right to petition the government is explicitly protected, but that doesn't apply in the case of IL-9, which was an open race and therefore none of the candidates were actually elected representatives.
Even still, this is money on how a private entity decides who its going to support for a future election.
None of these people are even running for government yet.
If the democratic party wanted to so something about it, they could, but the freedom of expression and association guarantees that a party that wants to have lots of money spent on ads an such can do it
Which is funny to say because Star Wars is actually the Western version of samurai movies (especially but not exclusively Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress).
That's the movie that Lucas is pretty open about heavily drawing "inspiration" from (all the way down to specific characters and plot beats) but Hidden Fortress is itself part of a larger genre of similar stories.
reply