The ban on replaceable flavored pod vapes caused that. Such a bizarre rule and so wasteful. You couldn’t replace the battery on the pod vapes but at least you could reuse the recharge and reuse the battery.
>A problem for city kids maybe? My parents were smart enough to raise me somewhere more suited for children.
Implying that the only reason people with kids live in a city is because they're stupid? What in the world are you on about? I've read the below thread, and this is one of the most bizarre takes I've seen in a long time.
Tech companies are some of the largest and most influential companies in the world, and people are just now starting to understand what it means to have their lives influenced by wide-reaching algorithms. Sounds like a great topic for journalism to me.
Regardless of the motivation, NYT's recent algorithm-centric investigations (like the YouTube one a month or two back) are really interested and well-researched.
His point may be that devs that are constantly job-hopping for better pay will "experience the same year 10 times" and not grow in skills.
I'm not sure I agree with that viewpoint.
Not devs, but junior devs in particular. Jumping 10 times a year may be for different reasons for experienced people, although some may see it as a red flag.
There is a huge difference between devs that do development for the money and devs that do development because it's engineering. Nothing wrong with this, but it's not a recipe for becoming great developers.
Would you want to work with code monkeys that do whatever they are told to keep/get job or craftsmen that care about what they do?
Why is it either or? Yes I work for the money first and foremost. I don’t learn anything that isn’t going to either make me more money by being better at my job, keep me competitive in the market, or make more money in the future.
Yes I started programming in the mid 80s in my bedroom. But I keep up to date strictly for the money.
Of course not, they should be comfortable to be able to pursue this, but I don't think it's a recipe for becoming great developers. They may become great managers, CEOs, etc.. but not craftsmen.
Would you rely on someone that started their tech career thinking about pay instead of engineering challenges, problems and solutions?
The New York Times comments are free from trolls and spam, but it's a frustratingly obvious echo chamber when it comes to politics. I'm a liberal guy but I can't stand it. David Brooks wrote an interesting column (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/opinion/the-great-affluenc...) a week or so ago and most of the comments are just bashing him for being a Republican, as if that has anything to do with the subject matter.
i think your diagnosis is wrong. show me a conservative news outlet on the web with a high SNR of thoughtful and intelligent comments, free of frothing, conspiracy-laden bullshit. maybe the NYT is an echo chamber because modern conservative positions are so weak and contradictory, they can't stand the withering critique of a well-moderated forum. instead, they only survive in troll havens.
as for brooks' column, you might be missing some context. brooks has made a career of talking out of both sides of his mouth and (annoyingly) providing intellectual cover from the NYT for a plethora of bad conservative ideas. now that they're blowing up in his face, he's backing away from these stances.
"He should realize that we’ve been trying to bring the tribal ethos to the U.S. for a long time, with strong local communities providing the sort of help and social services that bind people together and take care of each other as we get older, or fall short in some way.
But He Who Talks with Forked Tongue likes to imagine an egalitarian utopia where 99 percent of us are quietly stitching blankets while a few get to hoard the vital resources. When the tribesmen and women protested and occupied Wall Street, Brooks nearly went on the warpath, and wrote a column in the Times entitled “The Milquetoast Radicals,” (10/11/2011) in which he castigated the unwashed hippies who dared to protest the insane degree of income inequality in this country."
I was not comparing NYT to any other news outlet. It's an echo chamber regardless of the fact that conservative news sites also have echo chamber comment sections.
The David Brooks article was just an example. When Bernie Sanders was still campaigning every comment on Hillary/Bernie-related articles was about how the New York Times is wrong and that Bernie is the best, people will learn about the political revolution soon enough, etc. I was a huge fan of Bernie and I got bored of those comments instantly.
neither am i comparing them. you're observing that the NYT comment section is free of trolls/spam but is otherwise a liberal echo chamber. that's another way of saying that it's lacking a counter-balance of intelligent conservative comments. i'm accepting that critique for the purpose of argumentation, and replying by asking you to look around and find anywhere on the web that has a majority critical mass of intelligent conservative commentary. once you realize that it pretty much doesn't exist, maybe that will lead to a different conclusion...
anyway, one of the few places i read that, for whatever reason, does carry an even mix of intelligent comments across the spectrum is interfluidity. for example:
Holy Hell, you are right. I actually have the distinguished privilege of having one of my NYTimes comments be a "Times Pick", meaning the ed. board actually read it and recommended it for insight, I suppose.
My comment was mostly meta, calling out people for missing the point of an op-ed. The op-ed was from a privacy/civil liberties person about why a "no buy" list for guns would be a bad idea. He wasn't arguing on the merits for or against gun ownership, just that these secret lists on which LEO acts are dangerous.
Every comment was something along the lines of "What about my right not to be shot in the streets?!" - I tried to point this myopic view out, and every reply to my comment was "What about my right not to be shot in the streets?!".
As a smallish-government liberal (Public services are well and good but government should be kept in check by a powerful and vigilant population) I get torn up whenever I defend gun rights or spending reductions on that website.
With all his talk about planting bombs, I'm sure they suspected that he was wearing a bomb vest to detonate when police moved in. I'm not sure how else they could have handled it.
Genuine question: how should streaming companies protect against their content being stolen/ripped/etc without DRM? What's the alternative? I'm sure it's in the contract of every streaming service that they have to protect the licensed content to the best of their ability. Saying "fuck the greedy media companies" doesn't help the streaming services that need to license content to survive. Considering almost half of all bandwidth (in the US at least) is used for streaming, I'd say it's pretty important to have a well-defined solution to enable streaming companies to do what they need to do.
> Considering almost half of all bandwidth (in the US at least) is used for streaming, I'd say it's pretty important to have a well-defined solution to enable streaming companies to do what they need to do.
Streaming companies don't "need" to do anything. If they truly "need" DRM to exist, then they should shoulder that burden themselves rather than coercing others into doing the work for them; especially organisations and structures governing the Web, which was created specifically to disseminate human knowledge.
If that's too much of a burden for media companies to handle, then they should bow to market forces and close down. Humanity has survived perfectly well for millenia without them. Perhaps that will help divert some of the entertainment industry's billions towards causes of some actual importance.
DRM is not about protecting content, its about lock-in and keeping users on a single platform. Security researchers (schneier) has written about it. Content creators has written about it (Doctorow's Law), advocates has written about it (EFF), and of course users has written about it endlessly. The only people who argue that DRM is about protection is the publishers.
There are a few schemes, which normally do not even count as DRM, that is intended to protect copyrighted material. Encrypted TV channels is a primarily example. A streaming service could copy that scheme, but delivery physical tamper-proof boxes that do key-exchange every few minutes is quite expensive. Alternative they could what YouTube/Twitch do, which makes copying a stream about as difficult as downloading a pirated version from a torrent site (ie, you need to use a third-party software). For movies, it is the best protection as you can get without having to distribute physical boxes.
> how should streaming companies protect against their content being stolen/ripped/etc without DRM?
They shouldn't because it is useless. DRM can always be circumvented.
> it's in the contract of every streaming service that they have to protect the licensed content to the best of their ability
This is the only reason why DRM exists: Stupid, greedy rights sellers. They don't care why or how people consume the media. They only see licenses and money. "Protecting" licenses equals protecting money for them.
DRM is not bad because I want to "steal" anything. It is bad because proprietary software with the main goal of restricting its users leads to a bad experience. Amazon Prime Video for example is horribly buggy and hard to use. If I could use a decent player, I would pay more money for the service. Both sides would benefit from no DRM, but greedy rights sellers don't have logical thinking in their toolbox.
