You'd be hesitant to trust a brand if it can't keep consistent styling. Branding helps users identify a brand and believe it or not the aesthetics of a brand make a great deal of impact on consumers.
As others have said, your point comes across as "let's remove design who cares" because design and human computer interaction roles stopped where your understanding ends. Everything looks the same to you after all (it doesn't, you just haven't noticed it affecting your decision making).
Interesting how you seem so sure about what matters to other people, when the reality is that anything matters that people say matters to them. If people care about fonts, they do care about fonts.
If I follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, nothing matters. Which is correct, but sort of pointless to state. On top of this nothingness, we typically stack personal preferences.
We do in terms of acreage. A lot of that is reclaimed farmland. Old-growth hardwoods are still down overall, and will remain so; that can take multiple hundreds of years to recover, since cleared forests regrow in phases.
Right. And tree coverage is not the be-all-end-all. My family visited the plantation where a few of our ancestors were enslaved; it had been turned into a state-run forest preserve (partly as a bid for the prior owners to hide the extent of the operation). Unfortunately, the farming practices employed back then have scarred the land; near where one of the slave cabins had stood, we were shown a large anthropogenic ravine that had been created by farming-related soil erosion. These places aren't quite the same forests as they were before European settling.
There's also the case of the near-loss of the American Chestnut.
Any ballots that are cast under same-day registration are cast as provisional and will go through the full verification process if the election is close enough where those ballots are necessary.
Source: actually ran a fucking election precinct. Non-citizens aren’t casting ballots illegally.
I'm not talking about same day registration. If you are on the rolls and proof of citizenship is not required to register, then how do you as a poll worker know the person on the rolls is a citizen?
You don't, but also you don't have to. Voter rolls are cross referenced with other sources of data to verify citizenship. ID is required to submit a non-provisional ballot even during early voting if you're not in your designated precinct.
Also just generally it's a severe federal crime to vote illegally, so people who are here illegally aren't out en masse publicly tying their identity to federal felonies.
They literally just charged someone in Philadelphia for illegally voting in every federal election since 2008. Non-citizen, ordered deported back in 2000 but still in the country.
There's not been a reliable audit to show the extent to which this happens (probably not enough to affect even local elections), but to say that it isn't happening is just a lie.
One of voter ID's biggest advocates, the Heritage Foundation, could only find 68 cases of non-citizens voting since 1980. Even if all of them are repeat offenders, that's a few hundred bad ballots out of billions cast. As you said, it is also possible to catch these people. Our election integrity is not threatened by non-citizen voters. It just doesn't happen on the scale that Republicans insist it must be happening, and the fact that they keep repeating it doesn't make it true, it means that they have an agenda that benefits from making you think it's true.
The Heritage Foundation's database on fraud was explicitly described as not exhaustive, but merely demonstrating that the potential (and reality) is there. It's not like they've got exhaustive access to both voter registration rolls and votes cast.
In states that bother, millions have been removed from voter rolls who weren't eligible in recent years, but the DOJ hasn't done anything with the data either.
If the Heritage Foundation's goal was to merely demonstrate the possibility of voter fraud, then they should have saved themselves the effort. Of course it's possible, and of course it happens; and when it happens, it tends to get discovered and handled. They have a much higher bar to clear to convince me that the issue warrants any greater scrutiny than it already receives.
As for the removal of millions from various voter rolls, you'll have to be more specific; most of these are administrative tasks being performed as they are meant to be performed, and very few of the millions removed are non-citizens. Most are removed because they've died, or moved, or failed to respond to inquiries, etc. Oregon, for example, recently moved to remove 800,000 voters from their rolls, but again, this was an administrative move; the voters were already marked as inactive and inactive voters in Oregon do not receive ballots. Removing them wasn't a priority, but now it is, so they're doing it. The point is that millions being removed is not really a cause for alarm or a sign of fraud; it's just a sign that you're unaware of how the system works.
If you listen carefully to the "ballot access" side of this argument (actually informed people and politicians, not random on the internet), you will see they don't ever say it does not happen.
What they say is that it does not happen enough to plausibly come close to affecting the outcome. And this is widely supported, including by right-wing organizations (as a sibling comment observes).
As with most issues, there is a trade-off here. As you tighten controls to prevent improper voting, you prevent some people from realistically being able to vote (it's just too hard, time consuming or expensive for them to meet the documentation requirements), and discourage others. This is particularly bad for the 1-2 elections after the rule change, which most people won't know about until they show up to vote. IMO, this is really the point of the changes.
And you have to weigh that negative against the supposed benefit. But that benefit is really hard to find. It's very clear that intentional voter fraud (fraud in registration, or in-person impersonation) is extremely rare, and does not come anywhere close to affecting outcomes. It's already a crime, and we seem to be pretty good at catching it.
The other argument for a benefit is that it improves voter confidence in elections. I reject this, since the only reason the public at large has any real concerns is because of intentional misinformation by the right. You can't lie to people to convince them there is a problem, and then use that to justify your heavy handed solution.
> Source: actually ran a fucking election precinct. Non-citizens aren’t casting ballots illegally.
So, you can see people are actually claiming that it doesn't happen. Further,
> It's already a crime, and we seem to be pretty good at catching it.
How can we be good at catching it if it is too hard for our own citizens to actually get proof that they are citizens? We hear about the cases that happen, but we don't hear about the people go go undetected, because they go undetected.
Ok? And yet, they were caught. Dude's a shithead, swung zero elections, and got caught. They catch people all the time voting illegally. I would make a strong guess that they counted zero of his ballots as they were all provisional.
He should go to jail and yet his existence is not proof that there are hoards of African deportees voting in state and federal elections.
The early aluminum MacBook systems used a hinged trackpad. The "click" was a physical button under the trackpad, and you couldn't click on the top of the trackpad (because the hinge was on that side).
The MacBook Neo is a return to physical clicking, but they're using some sort of new mechanism which allows clicking anywhere.
Not really, not exactly. The older “clicky” MacBook trackpads couldn’t quite be “clicked” anywhere. They were levered at the top of the trackpad, so if you tried to click on the very top edge then they wouldn’t really click. Anywhere else, it felt fine, but maybe the top inch didn’t feel good. Not really a problem in normal use cause most people don’t try to click on the very top edge, but perhaps this new trackpad fixes that (I haven’t tested one myself). The current gen haptic ones have the same exact click feeling no matter where you press, of course.
That’s because PC manufacturers compete on spec sheets and how much does the trackpad suck isn’t one of the numbers on the spec sheet so they don’t care.
I'm kind of surprised that Apple hasn't full throttle on foldables. I'm more apt to spend $2500 on a foldable iPhone than I am $1500 on an iPhone and an iPad. I don't think I'm alone here.
When they introduce their first foldable device this year, keep in mind that Apple has been ideating on and prototyping concept devices with foldable displays long before working prototypes of foldable screens existed. The first Apple patent related to devices with flexible displays was filed in 2011. The first Apple patent related to hinges for foldable devices was filed in 2015.
Foldable device prototypes were publicly demonstrated in 2013. It took five years for the technologies required to enable foldable devices to become mature enough to ship bad products. It took another five years for them to mature enough to meet Apple's scale and quality requirements.
This isn't a "moonshot" (which take decades to build), but hardware innovations like this regularly take a decade to properly productize.
They're quite scared to take risks I think, from what I heard it seems it was meant to be released already but they've delayed it a bunch, I wonder if in part due to AVP failure.
This is a bizarre way of saying “if they ship it and it has reliability problems, they know they’re skating on thin ice”.
Apple’s brand has taken a beating (I’m as aghast with the latest macOS as the next nerd), but people love that when Apple ships a product, it generally works and the hardware doesn’t break.
Butterfly keyboards are a terrible stain on the hardware team’s reputation. “Scared” is the wrong word for how these things work.
It's expensive (though largely comparable to business machines) so people dunk on it being low value for money,
People dunk on them for not taking risks, but when there's a reliability problem that would be sort-of acceptable for another product it becomes international news.
When they do take "risks" (like USB-C only) people dunk on them for taking away choice.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, I'm one of the people dunking on them a lot, I was not a fan of the headphone jack removal, butterfly keyboards, discoverability of 3D touch, change of UI paradigm away from Skeumorphism etc;etc;etc -- but I feel like a lot of the other manufacturers seem to get a comparative free pass, which feels unfair.
But the leaks I've seen of the size, makes me less excited about it. The phone when folded looks a bit wider and squatter than my Pro Max. And when open, it's smaller than my 11" iPad.
I see the promise of this concept with the tri-fold phones, where when expanded is closer in size to an 11" tablet.
Problem with recreational marijuana is that it’s so insanely strong. It would be like giving a child 190 proof azeotropic grain alcohol and being shocked that they immediately vomit. I can’t smoke pot - it’s just too strong.
I’ll admit to feeling a bit dumber and foggier after a few weeks of ingesting cannabis nightly though. That’s a real thing.
I've heard that the reason why marijuana is so strong is because it was illegal. The sellers wanted to have stronger weed to make it easier to transport; much like how during prohibition, people would prefer to import distilled alcohol, instead of beer.
It's weird that people argue it's better for you to consume extra burned plant material to get to the same level of high-ness. If it's stronger, people just use less.
reply