The descriptions of the "Serious FYT Suits" that the Culture has are pretty cool but as most Culture tech is basically magic they probably don't count.
Along the same vein, the armor from The Golden Transcendence series is incredibly cool, but basically magic. I remember there being a pretty cool mech suit in The Expanse too.
Interesting to note that C.S. Lewis and Tolkien met Arthur C. Clarke and a BIS colleague in a different bar - must have regarded it as neutral territory:
'Needless to say, neither side converted the other, and we refused to abandon our diabolical schemes of interplanetary conquest. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis' parting words were "I'm sure you're very wicked people - but how dull it would be if everyone was good"'
It means they haven't updated their website since summer when the European football championships were on :-) (and that, as the sibling comment says, they're advertising themselves as a pub where you go to avoid the coverage rather than a pub where you go to watch it).
LOL. Pubs in the UK tend to fall into roughly 2 camps... with TV, and without. And the with TV ones can be quite extreme, and conversation can be difficult when people are distracted by a TV visible whichever way you look.
During the European football championships, lots of pubs have wall-to-wall football coverage (as in soccer, not Rugby in drag) which serious drinkers might want to avoid ;-)
(And for the more sports obsessed, it also makes, avoiding seeing the scores before you get home and watch it properly on catch-up much easier...)
Thanks - that's exactly how I felt after watching a view videos - I came away feeling a bit disturbed - largely because the things I watched were very wholesome but also very private.
We don’t know that. As per the webpage, this could’ve been uploaded directly from the Photos app on an iPhone, by people who didn’t really understand the consequences. Maybe they uploaded it and thought they’d get a private link to share with one specific person. Most people are not tech savvy and don’t fully understand the possible ramifications of their sharing.
Yeah I just got a video of an infant taking a bath. I have small kids my self so nothing new, but not something I would want on the internet for everyone to see. And I doubt that the mom, and now the teenager who was the kid, would want broadcast everywhere.
The entire point of this webpage (and the article that inspired it) was to wonder and suggest that many of the people posting these things may not have realized they were posting it publicly, thinking that "Post to YouTube" meant that they were putting it somewhere online where it would be easier to -- privately -- share with specific people they wanted to share it with.
Given the time frame and the newness of the iPhone and that entire model of interacting with media and the internet, I think it's pretty likely that many of those videos were published without the understanding that anyone would be able to view them.
Regardless of my guess on this, you can't assume to know what anyone's intent is, especially someone you don't know who posted something on the internet over a decade ago.
The world was a lot different 15 years ago, both YouTube and iPhones were new and not full understood by the average person. Anyone who has designed a UI knows that not all actions are explicit.
In addition to the other replies, I've seen a few videos that we obviously created by very young children playing with a relatives phone. I can't easily imagine an informed adult choosing to send these nonsense random videos to YouTube but i can easily imagine a 5 year old poking around and just following the prompts. Some had 0 views as well so likely no one knows these were uploaded at all
More likely: uploaded with the intent that a very limited audience would see it, thinking it would drown in the pool of videos uploaded to YouTube or maybe not even aware that other people could stumble upon it.
I wonder what percentage of iPhone users in 2009 knew what "upload to YouTube" means. I doubt that there was a huge alert disclosing that this makes video publicly available.
"Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community."
How does this make sense when some people intentionally do things that cause illness?
And it’s not just Americans either, for example some Japanese like to intentionally eat fugu, meat from super poisonous puffer fish prepared in a very specific way.
Surely there’s no expectation for society to pay millions to treat someone who ate the 99.99th percentile fugu slice…
Loads of people do things that might result in a visit to hospital - my wife was hospitalised after a climbing accident (with a mountain rescue team and separate helicopter based team), I've been treated for cycling accidents and because one of our cats bit me...
You can either accept the vast bureaucracy of evaluating risk and paying for each bit of treatment or the much simpler and cheaper option of paying for it in taxes and giving everyone the same level of basic care and not worrying too much about the fugu eaters...
I live in a rural area of Scotland and I don't really have a problem with headlights - 99.9% of drivers dip their full beams when they are aware of you. Now if we could only get people to indicate correctly on roundabouts.... - that's a far bigger peeve of mine than headlights!
https://bjgp.org/content/54/503/415