I feel that this is an odd way to deal with the problem. What about trying to fight age-based discrimination, among many other types of discrimination all-together? That's what they should be trying to change, not coming up with yet another way to easily commit frauds in so many different fields.
My only question is: why? I mean, those are going to be so much more expensive to produce, less reliable and harder to replace. There are some upsides regarding overall visibility, but I think that it's one of those cases in which the ups don't make up for the downs.
Improved fuel economy, improved visibility (especially at night), blind spot coverage, better visual warnings. It isn't really going to be too much more expensive considering cars nowadays already have rear view cameras/screens and all sorts of sensors.
I'm not against all those cameras, nor am I rejecting evolution. I just think that traditional mirrors are doing the job well enough for this to be a question now.
Is it safe to assume that you've never used a car with cameras? I'd be very interested in a camera feed from my front bumper when I'm pulling out on a difficult bend, for example.
I've never driven one without regular mirrors, which is the point here. I'm not saying that it's not a nice extra to have, but it shouldn't replace anything.
Why would a tiny digital camera be more expensive than an entire mirror assembly? My side mirror is full of servos but my backup camera is all solid state.
I'm surprised this doesn't happen way more often with many other pages. But we were all warned not to take Wikipedia as a single source of credible information. If bold statements or dubious information is not properly linked to credible sources (and even then...), don't take it as 100% true.
Best way I've used Wikipedia is to find the source of whatever sentence I'm on and see how ridiculous that source is...a lot of Huffington post and trash mags stuff for example
Also worth noting is the GFW bans Wikipedia, limiting its popularity in China (most prefer Baidu’s equivalent, and those stay are comparably more liberal). So things don’t get that bad unless there’s an outside trigger to make average Chinese users take extra efforts accessing Wikipedia.
Often bias on Wikipedia is more easily revealed by what was removed rather than what was added. If you really want to see what's been covered up, check the edit history and the talk page. "Wikilawyers" are good at invoking whatever community guideline they can to get things added or removed.
It sounded sketchy from the moment they asked for a pin code that they sent to your phone. It's easier to talk from the outside, but that should always be a red flag. What exactly would they be confirming by sending a PIN to the same number they were already contacting?
But that's a great heads up. Phishing is not just about obviously fake e-mails to hotmail accounts.
There's so many outside circumstances that might even make a technically adept person like the original poster fall for this: bad day at work, fight with the girlfiend, getting called in traffic, having loud kids playing at home, not feeling well, etc.
Like you said, spam and phising used to be obviously bad but I'm afraid I'm going to fall for it some day now.
There are proved benefits of using PWAs in specific situations, but it's not near the wonderland that companies like Google are making it seem.
I believe that they have secured a place in mobile development and are very worth considering at this point, but it's very soon to say they're a good solution for everyone.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there is no role for PWAs at all, although I think the main beneficiary is what the article is talking about -- for marketers.
Imaginary Cloud | Web Developer / Web Designer | Lisbon, Portugal | Full-time | ONSITE
Imaginary Cloud is a successful and fast growing company, working to design and develop cutting-edge web and mobile products.
We are looking for a Web Developer who is highly driven to push their technical knowledge to the very edge, and a Web Designer who is passionate about designing remarkable products.
This is why I refuse to play the Discover Weekly playlist. I strongly believe that Spotify is getting money out of made up artists, with songs put up by algorithms in some way, and that's the best way to get them to you.
Regarding the 'hacking', it never happened to me, but it's easy to see how troublesome that may be. But that's what we get for trusting an application that promises to get us free music forever. It had to have drawbacks, eventually.
> This is why I refuse to play the Discover Weekly playlist. I strongly believe that Spotify is getting money out of made up artists, with songs put up by algorithms in some way, and that's the best way to get them to you.
Flesh this out for me, because it's hilarious. How are Spotify making money from that, exactly? I listen to Discover Weekly most weeks, and if Spotify is generating them, then:
A) They're creating some amazing music, so more power to them
B) They're putting a hell of a lot of work into creating back stories for these bands
They are not making money from Discover Weekly, but they make money from made-up artists, since they don't have to pay anyone to have that music up there. It's easy to do the math from there.
The work they have in making a few artists up is nothing compared to what they would have to pay for an actual artist to have their albuns there.
I wouldn't be afraid of the Discover Weekly playlist. I think it's Spotify's best feature. For me, it surfaces great songs & artists I hadn't heard before, and sometimes it's almost spookily accurate.
For Discover Weekly to work though, it helps to feed it good data. It's based on a PageRank-like system, but instead of webpages it's based on user playlists [1]. If you create some of your own playlists, it will go and find other songs that appear regularly on similar playlists. Personally, I've made a large 800-track playlist of music I listen to while coding ([2] if anyone else is interested), and another with every song ever played at a goth/industrial nightclub I used to go to.
I rarely see "made up" artists, but I often like the ones I have been recommended - I really like "Time" on Nowi's EP called Reunion. It's actually made by Firefly Entertainment [3], a Swedish music production company that usually makes film & TV show soundtracks.
Do you have any proof whatsoever to support your bold statements? My Discover Weekly is usually great every week and I've discovered many (real!) cool artists that I like through it.
It's possible there's a lot of low quality filler music on Spotify and that your account got algorithmically lumped in the bucket to get there recommended, but to say Spotify is "in on it" seems like a very big leap.
I just can't trust it when an instrumental song by a band
that I can't find anywhere else kicks in. I'm not saying that Discover Weekly can't provide you great artists that you don't know, but I can't trust it. It leaves me with the sense that I've been tricked and I'd rather avoid it all together.
Isn't it possible to rig Glassdoor by using multiple accounts? It may be harder to achieve in huge corporations, but for small companies, it's way too easy to make the bad reviews seem meaningless.
In any case, it's easy to spot when a review isn't honest, good or bad. They often seem scripted, pointing out some bad aspects that aren't really bad, and highlighting the same upsides over and over again.
It's just a question of filtering those and getting to what really matters. As for the companies that are forcing employers to write good reviews... how can they be sure of which review was done by who? Can't they just give a bad review instead when asked? I can see that backfiring really quick.
This was such as nice read. Being the same age, I also feel the same way about arcade games, and more than that, the physical arcade machines. I can't, however, seem to get the same satisfaction from watching or even playing the games on emulators or in their console versions. It's about all the environment in which the Arcades were involved in that we can't replicate now in any other way.
Exactly. It's not that I don't see value in online alternatives, but in this case, if the main point is to access it offline, I don't see how different it is from a physical journal.
