Apple does not advertise their streaming service as "family-friendly." It's surprising that they didn't make a single bid on a show as big as South Park.
I made the title that because it was the part of the article I was most interested in.
I changed the title to "Apple won't bid on 'South Park' streaming rights fearing controversy and China" in order to better reflect that Apple doesn't want to hurt its brand with controversial programming, as you mentioned. I would rather make the title "Apple won't bid on 'South Park' streaming rights fearing controversial programming that could hurt its brand and China," but that doesn't fit withing HN's length limit.
Edit: Apple has a history in cooperating with China's censorship, so it's not much of a stretch. If so, Apple wouldn't say that's the reason they didn't bid, for obvious reasons.
Edit: I know that South Park's controversial/adult nature could be a factor in their decision. It says that in the article, and it's why I decided to change the title to include that.
Edit: Alright, I suppose I am in the wrong here. I'll change the title to more closely match the original article.
Apple isn't specifically turning down South Park because of controversy/China. They never said why and to be honest it could be just as simple as it doesn't fit in with the rest of AppleTV+. Which IMHO it really doesn't.
Cherry-picking one detail from an article is editorializing. If you want to say what you think is important in an article, please do so not in the title but in a comment, where your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
For one, pacemakers have to enter the race and start the race with him. You can't have pacemakers enter partway. They all have to be eligible to hit the record too if they are capable. Per IAAF rules, pacemakers are basically just competitors that you pay to go out too fast and drop out partway.
Also just not a sanctioned course, not proper testing protocol for doping, not open to other competitors, and so on.
(Former USATF apprentice official, though stopped officiating once I started grad school)
The article mentions “Not open conditions”. Other words, this course was chosen for the record.
Also, per the linked Wiki reference “and meet other criteria that rule out artificially fast times produced on courses aided by downhill slope or tailwind.[8] The criteria include:
"The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance."[6]
"The decrease in elevation between the start and finish shall not exceed an average of one in a thousand, i.e. 1m per km."[6]
I don't think the course itself breaks any criteria. It was just a big loop, so any slopes or tailwind would not help the runner. "Each lap of the course featured two 4.3-kilometre (2.7-mile) out-and-back stretches... There is only 2.4 metres (7.9 feet) of incline over the entire route."
This reminds me of the time when stack exchange updated their terms of service to include an arbitration clause. The community was in uproar over this decision, yet the clause stands to this day.
That hardly seems fair. For 99.99% of users everything they do on the site is publically available. There is no private messaging, no private anything. The entire history of everything on all sites being public is one of the explicit goals of the site. So "sharing with 3rd parties" means absolutely nothing. Those 3rd parties could scrape the site or they could download the archive.
It doesn't seem like they should be marked as having a poor TOS for at least half the things listed as those things are basically the known purpose of the site.
This simply isn't true - your most sensitive information is not public, yet is shared with 3rd parties. From their privacy policy:
"We collect location information about you including your IP address, your location, browser information, and how you came to the Stack Overflow Network."
(SO also collects your email address, interests, and employment status upon registration - this is not mentioned specifically in the privacy policy)
"This is the case for individuals who have registered for an account, and non-members who engage with the Stack Overflow Network by visiting our website(s) but who have not completed an account registration."
"We share this information with certain third-parties (e.g., talent recruiters, payment processors, and advertising providers)"
It doesn't matter how they are using the data, what matters is how they can use the data. We shouldn't trust that they will always do the right thing for citizens' privacy.
tosdr.org (Terms of service; didn't read) is a website that simplifies website's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to make it easier for people to read.
Stack Overflow is given the lowest rating (class E) in terms of user rights. (For reference, even Google has a class C rating.) Here are the worst points taken from SE's privacy policy:
* This service allows tracking via third-party cookies for purposes including targeted advertising.
* You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the service harmless in case of a claim related to your use of the service.
* This service forces users into binding arbitration in the case of disputes.
* Many third parties are involved in operating the service
* The service may use tracking pixels, web beacons, browser fingerprinting, and/or device fingerprinting on users.
* Blocking cookies may limit your ability to use the service
* You waive your right to a class action lawsuit
* This service can share your personal information to third parties
* The court of law governing the terms is in a jurisdiction that is less friendly to user privacy protection.
* The service can sell or otherwise transfer your personal data as part of a bankruptcy proceeding or other type of financial transaction.
* The service uses your personal data to employ targeted third-party advertising
* This service retains rights to your content even after you stop using your account
Apple profits from iPhones; Apple conforms to censorship to keep their biggest (population-wise) customer.
Companies are driven by money, not goodwill. Apple only pushed for privacy because it was a selling point.