And the founder of whatsapp is bitter about what Facebook did to it, and is funding signal now. And Moxie is no fan of Facebook either. These aren't some random kids and a VC.
That does not seem to account for most political and social issues that you can't do much for alone, but millions of people together can bring positive change with little individual effort.
If we really want higher prices, how about we at least get more features for it. Such as built-in privacy protection.
Or how about we restructure the whole relationship so that wildly excessive amounts of money don't end up in either Verisign or ICANN regardless of what the price is.
The current situation is sustained by a small minority of users generating the majority of the clicks. That was true before adblock became a thing too. As long as adblock is not pre-installed with any major browser, it won't reach 90% penetration, and these people will by and large continue generating clicks.
So, the effects might be less dramatic than we'd expect. The industry will adapt one way or another, not the first time a technological shift like this happens. Who knows, maybe we'll even get functional micropayments out of this. One thing that will definitely happen that you didn't mention is disguising advertisements as organic content. It's already happening with instagram influencers and even newspapers publishing sponsored content.
Scala's version is epoch.major.minor, not major.minor.patch. I though 2.12.(x+1) is generally binary compatible with 2.12.x. Or at least I personally never ran into that issue with Scala itself.
Is there an equivalent to "small claims court" in Colombia where you don't need a lawyer if you're willing to do your own research? Maybe threaten to take them to that court for disclosing private information without permission, and also for libel if they accompanied the photo with untruthful badmouthing. And then take them to that court if they ignore you? IANAL though, and I know nothing about what's legal or not in Colombia.
One other thing you can try is get more people to report that post. Maybe there's a threshold at which they will look into this more seriously.
Hey, nice! What kind of components are you using? Engine, batteries, etc.? Did you pick those yourself, or borrow the design from an existing system like the e-help for hang gliders?
I would say ram-air inflation of parafoil wings is very different – it's dynamic, not static like a bladder pre-inflated with a pump.
This Inflatoplane is more of a precursor to modern "tensairity" designs (e.g. some of Prospective Concepts designs). While certainly interesting, pressurized bladders in aircraft have so far been a dead end due to practical limitations (catastrophic modes of failure, wear, altitude pressure differences IIRC). The only flying wings where inflatable bladders are successfully used are kitesurfing kites. But those don't normally carry people up high.
Parafoil based designs on the other hand are now everywhere. Paragliders, parachutes, parafoil kitesurfing kites, even parafoil sails (SkySails).
I make (web app) components with only minimal regard for cross project reusability. I don't add any features to them that I don't need for the current project, but I do try to keep them small and decoupled.
I find that liberal use of copy-paste _across projects_ is way cheaper than building up a library of well thought out, generic components even in the long term.
If you have ten concurrent projects that need the same components at the same time it could make sense to build them up as privately published libraries. Otherwise it's unlikely that the overhead and rigidity of that approach will pay off if you only have one or two projects that you're actively working on at any given time.
In your original comment the second sentence is obviously reading as justification for your first sentence and for safety concerns mentioned by both parent and grandparent comments.
If as you say you intended to reference different, less related parts of parent and grandparent comments, that's just poor communication. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't own up to that either.
Your apparent judgement is that the pilots taking part in protests and talking about protests to passengers are a safety issue. Otherwise, nothing you said makes sense.
This is the Economist sentence that you're commenting on:
> When the Chinese aviation authority, absurdly, accused the airline of imperilling safety because its employees had joined the protests
If you didn't believe that pilot protests / speech is a safety concern, you wouldn't disagree at the use of "absurdly" in that sentence, and then wouldn't double down on that by giving an example of an incident which you think imperiled safety.
Otherwise, if you didn't agree with those fake safety concerns, there is nothing surprising about the usage of "absurd" by the Economist.
Speaking over the intercom about protestors is not a safety issue. You don't need the obviously politically motivated CCP "experts" to judge that. This has nothing to do with aviation safety and everything to do with (lack of) freedom of speech.
You have some anonymous user in this thread fantasizing about crazy scenarios that didn't happen, and you're propping them up with your own judgement, and then you're telling me to hold my judgement and trust the alleged "experts" that happen to agree with you.
No thanks, I'll take as much freedom in judgement as you afforded yourself.
The pilot talking about protestors at the airport he's landing, and supporting them did not imperil the safety of passengers. Claiming that is indeed absurd.
Yes well everyone has a different idea of what to include in the costs, that's all fluffy and can be twisted to suit whatever result one wants.
Which is why some people choose moral principles that are more rigid. And well scamming people into buying useless rocks is on the wrong side of mine, no matter what moral kickback it's artificially bundled with.
So you take into account the positive effects of mental health donations but not the negative effects of the promotion of healing crystals. No shit you'll come out ahead.
Promoting bullshit has real costs associated with it. Those bullshit crystals cost people money and don't do anything. People get dumber being convinced to buy them, and will use that dumbness in other parts of life. Promoting a market for delusion and false hope is the last thing anyone needs.
It might be hard to put a precise dollar value on second order effects like these, let alone on things like moral integrity, but that doesn't mean this value isn't there.
There is no shortage of people who will do whatever bullshitting it takes to earn more money, and that's not something to be celebrated regardless of whether it comes with mental health donations or another trendy atonement mechanism.
If you don't have a facebook account, facebook likely has a shadow profile for you. Which would carry your phone number, full name, and whatever else they could extract from your friends' phonebooks and whatever other sources they use. There is no opting out of that, and there is no opting out of facebook getting third party data that lets them connect your shadow profile to a cookie, or to information collected by third parties.
This isn't about your choices with mobile devices, this is mandated by the government, and the broadcasted data is literally open to anyone.