Elessar

Your comment begins with "except", but the content agrees with the GP.

GP would like aviation users ("passengers") to not be the ones doing the testing. You state aviation users historically tested -- it's why flight regulations and rules are written in blood. I suspect the blood of passengers is exactly what the GP would like to avoid.

I can't tell if you didn't make the connection, or if your commenting style is just to naturally start negatively. My suspicion is the former, given the throwaway account.

Toronto has a history of planning to do something with its waterfront (Port Lands / Quayside etc), and then never enacting those plans due to short-term politics vs actual vision. This is just more of the same.

This article is reading far too much into Google. I suppose it is the trend to get eyeballs by hating on tech giants.

Enjoy this article about a monorail - from 2011. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-mayor-unveils...

Canadian here, and I'm asking "What's the threat vector they're concerned about?"

I see the following listed in the article:

* Data Residency - Canada and US (CBSA and Homeland) have plenty of data sharing agreements, including exit records being passed between the two (see Entry/Exit initiative - https://www.canada.ca/en/border-services-agency/news/2019/07...). Why are they so focused on 'applicant' data when there is literal tracking of movement going on due to other, existing acts?

* Applications being online might be exploited by criminals - one can already apply to them via mail, so things are already done remotely. The process of validation is no worse digital than by mail (though with the caveat that one executes competently)

* Public vs private tendering - This has nothing to do with privacy or data

All this noise, and the trade-off is to make it harder for individuals to get passports by forcing them to do things in person. Even if there wasn't a pandemic, lineups at Passport offices are frequently 1+ hour and are a burden to those without flex time at their jobs. Alternatively, they could pay to courier their passport in the mail to the Passport Office in Ottawa, which is a cost (on top of the passport fees) that is wholly unnecessary given the Internet.

I see this as those with privileged office jobs attacking a convenience, all the while the Entry/Exit initiative continues without mention.

Government censorship is significantly more impactful than what companies can do. One makes the rules. The others operate within. It’s best not to equate the two.

And yes, HN has a diverse audience and you’ll always find someone celebrating a story.

Regardless, as a westerner, I feel sorry for the people of Pakistan.

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people.

And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice.

I don't know if expunging records is the right thing to do, but it's worth discussing. There's no guarantee that searching a criminal's name will bring up the recent history where they've done their time, shown contrition, and is contributing to society. Instead it'll be the most highly cited -- likely news about their crime.

As a society, we approve of jail being the mechanism to "forgive" a person's crime. As such, isn't it horrible that Google's pagerank will only turn up what they've done wrong in the past? Again, I don't know if expunging the records is the right thing to do (in fact I believe it's wrong), but I do think it's worth debating.

Demand (ie. Customers) is easily one of the hardest parts of business. You're suggesting that supply is the cornerstone of a market, but thanks to the Internet, owning supply is nowhere near as important as owning the customers.

See: Facebook, Google, Amazon.

Magnetic platters keep advancing as well. I loved this article that Ars did covering WD's latest advancements in MAMR: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11925/western-digital-stuns-s...

That said, most of the projections there are from WD, so there's automatically a grain of salt needed. Still, they predict to keep the gap for cost per GB fairly large out to 2028 (!).

This is a click-bait headline, as the conclusion of the article is "we'll compare the two prediction methods tomorrow and find out which has done better".

I'll go so far to say that the article itself is lacking content, and does little more to say that two popular models don't agree on percentage probabilities, even though they both agree who has the advantage. Apparently that they both agree on Clinton having an advantage is not sufficient for the author.

I'd love to be able to start at higher levels. Depending on your WPM, the first few minutes are somewhat boring... but if you keep grinding for long enough, it's quite challenging.

Especially when the capital ships start shooting!

I caught this hint from HN comments, so I thought you might enjoy it. The bookmarklet Kill Sticky Headers restores your ability to read using the space-bar, removes annoying fixed objects etc. Once I started using the bookmarklet, I couldnt stop:

https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/

It's not a bad comparison.

The question is why is Apple not diving into a "productivity machine" like the Surface. The answer is that the iPad Pro is selling better than the Surface. That is: Apple isn't building the Surface because they built something that sells better.

This 'elusive' property is the idea that taxes are an indirect method of funding the police (as it is re-proportioned via much bureaucracy), while seizures directly fund the policeman's wallet.

Obviously the latter is much more dangerous, because there's a self-reinforcing cycle where the police spend their entire time stealing, instead of doing their government-defined jobs.

Indirection is important. It allows someone to give you goals that are productive, otherwise you would just steal from your employer instead of working for them (so they would give you money).

Don't be baffled. Engineering is driven by business direction, and the creation of an upgrade cycle is beneficial for the entire Android ecosystem.

You are not the customer they want.

Have you ever travelled to a foreign country where you don't speak the language?

You really need to put yourself in the tourist's shoes. If I booked a tour and the host drove me to a different place to stay, that's all I can do. You rely on their ability to communicate, and if they're being kind and doing their best to make your stay comfortable, then that's fantastic.

What you're suggesting is that you're going to start making international calls with some website's support staff while you have luggage on the street, no place to stay, in a foreign city and completely on your own. You're also going to blow off the only person (the host) who cares at all about your situation. Are you kidding me?

If it makes you feel better to knock the author down a peg, by all means.

But don't equate the two. The author built software and expected professional discussion about a business opportunity. Billy attempted to take everything using his 'existing' incorporation that was against the rules.

These actions are not equal, and the author highlights that there were plenty of warning indicators he should have, but did not pay attention to.

This is a silly article. At no point does it actually manage to prove that the niche features (removable battery, SD card, waterproofing) were important differentiators. The article just declares it so, and assumes you will agree.

Evidence and sales suggests that users in large do not care about these features. The inclusion of larger screen sizes in the iPhone 6 series is a huge piece of evidence to suggest that screen sizes themselves were the key differentiator, and that Samsung's previous success was due to that versus any of the other features (SD Card / Waterproofing / Removable Battery) that they recently took out.

Not to mention Google itself agrees that those items are unnecessary and in their own flagship Nexus line, pulled those features out ages ago. And those sales numbers are still through the roof.

A simple SWIFT transaction (wire payment) is generally enough, though in order for the actual transaction to move, there are confirmation and settlement procedures. All of which depend on the company and bank policies (for example, American Companies are all by law offered the option to use 4-eye verification processes to prevent a single person from making a tx, two to confirm etc etc).

Giarc's story is the confirmation process, likely being chased down by the back office at the bank as they go through the various procedures that minimize fraud and mistakes involved when moving large sums of cash.

If FX is involved, then they'll likely need to purchase the sum in a different currency (if they do not already have cash in that currency) and use the result to settle in another bank account. For example, an American company purchases 15 million euro to settle in a German bank account that belongs to the purchased.

Publishers are a dying species. With infinite shelf-space, online retailers can stock any and all books. They do not need to be curated by some value-added middleman in order to ensure only the likeliest successes will become books.

I'm a big supporter for Amazon on this one. There are plenty of authors that the publisher will deny the opportunity to even put a book on the shelf. Amazon is not doing that, and it is not a personal attack on any author despite what media spin they might try to put on this story.

Taxi regulation for safety reasons increases the trust in taxis for people that don't know the area: tourists.

Harp about personal freedom and responsibility of the state all you want, but the regulation is for people that don't know the area and could get hurt by stepping into the wrong car. Because when the day occurs that a tourist is kidnapped or hurt because of this service, it will ruin the local industry. Uber may not care about the locals once it is sufficiently global (what's one city?), but the municipality does and this is precisely the reason why they're stepping in.

Yeah, this variant forces you to clean up the (mental) heuristic you use you decide how best to combine blocks. With 2048 you could generally muddle your way through provided you ensured high blocks were in some corner. Here, because of the 3 combination, quite often I'll have a pair of high numbers blocking an entire row from shifting -- an issue you'd never have in the original.

It's possible I'm mistaken, but all the examples of 'abandonment' you've listed are free.

Here, you're paying. It's a business. You've got the same guarantee as you've got with Dropbox.

If you're aware of the feature, it's not a privacy leak. If you aren't, it could be very damaging.

It would have been nice if the first time the Calendar parsed and sent emails on behalf of a user, it would ask if this is what they wanted. It doesn't have to bug them ever again, but that's a single instance of training that would minimize confusion.

The reason for this (and the main reason I despise DDG after a month of using them) is that they only show one result per site, regardless of relevance. Stack Overflow being what it is, limiting sites of that kind of quality/focus to a single result is frustrating.

Hopefully someone will tell me there's a way to fix that, but limiting sites to a single result is a poor design choice. And forcing me to think "maybe this site has more relevant related pages" and act on that thought doesn't work, because I prefer to scan the results DDG has already given me.

benjamincburns was referring to a barrel with a tap "somewhere near the bottom". The point being that it's very difficult to get stuff out near the flat bottom of the barrel, especially if you can't move the barrel itself. The other option with buck/boost converters is if the barrel's bottom tapers into your tap, so that there's no way for any liquid to avoid gravity's call and leave through the tap.

Why is everyone jumping to blame Spotify for maliciousness? All I see is that they have a bug where they instantly assume emails = Facebook login. Then they try logging in using that email, and because this user reuses passwords, it works.

It takes two to Tango, but I see incompetence on both sides rather than maliciousness.

The ability to upgrade phones is also in there.

The 2 year lock in includes MSRP hardware amortization (at least on my provider), so if you attempt to break the contract, you're paying not only the cost of cancelling the contract, but also the remaining 'cost' of your hardware. That could add up to quite a bit, given that I've seen carriers state that a Galaxy S3 is worth 650. Breaking the contract halfway through its term might result in you paying 300+ for hardware that you actually wanted to get rid of.

Is this international? I would recommend the service to friends but can't find any list of which retailers are supported from the FAQ or About pages. I suppose I could create an account and trudge deeper but honestly, I can't be arsed to do that much work just to find out if Canada is supported and advertise this to my friends.

It already ended in defeat. Now they're dragging it back up, gaining headlines that make people ask "why doesn't double jeopardy apply", all for what?

There might be no evidence of corruption, but this stinks.

More likely they went with it because an Android port already exists.

I find it telling that for a big company, their major successes (as a big company) are typically software that do not need an installed base to add value. Mail and Maps are both applications that stand on their own and it is irrelevant what application your friends are using.

However, the cases where installed base is relevant is a serious failure. Wave and Buzz come to mind.