TheSageMage

Connecting the dots, if Airpods are successful in adoption, this could answer the awkward "You'd look silly holding a watch up to your ear" argument, same with "It's inconvenient to plug a 3.5mm plug into a watch". Maybe this is one motivating factor in Apple's decision to remove it the 3.5mm port from the iPhone?

IANAL, and I'm reading between the (redacted) lines. Did anyone get the sense that Uber's lawyers line of questioning was leading towards the possibility that Alphabet let this theft of their IP happen to catch Uber with their pants down?

There are questions about how Larry felt about Mr. Levandowski real contribution to Waymo/Chauffeur(p21 Line 15). They are asking about David Drummond's position on Uber's Board(p40 line 13). This leads to questions about when Larry knew Mr Levandowski was leaving the company(p45 Line 14). These lead to questions about Mr. Levandowski's attempt to spin off a team from Google/Alphabet (p64 Line 2). ... Setting up the dates on a redacted email, they to be talking about Larry's knowledge of IP and people taken by Uber for autonomous cars (p181 line 10).

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but what are the implications of Google getting sloppy with protecting itself at the risk of catching a competitor steal your work?

Not trying to throw salt in the argument for democracy, but isn't your argument the digital equivalent of "Why doesn't everyone do everything for themselves to overthrow the dependency on unstable corporations"?

It'd be great if everything was decentralized, everyone encrypted all their messages, used tor to mask their activities. At some point though, these would require the average person to learn a lot about the network and systems they use, otherwise they risk not using it correctly and invalidating the point. If these services are provided to them, they don't have to think about all these factors when using the network, they can specialize, allowing it to be more accessible. It seems that the people vote has been on more accessible, but it is starting to look like the foxes are running the hen house for the internet these days.

That being said, what Turkey is doing is scary.

> The government has not officially commented on the outage. But the Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications Ministry told the state-run agency, "Instead of coordinating against terrorism, (Wikipedia) has become part of an information source which is running a smear campaign against Turkey in the international arena."

This shows a profound lack of understanding of how a basic site like Wikipedia works, which is either ignorant or malicious, and the latter sounds likely in this day and age.

Is the argument here that if "net neutrality" goes away, carriers will provide service to "poor, rural area" because they are able to serve their content better than the generally available content on the internet? Not arguing for it, just trying to understand the argument for a less "equal" internet.

Also, I thought this was how it already worked, but it was just called home cable? Don't most homes in the US got a decent hookup to their home for "cable", that usually includes an internet package?

I'm very new to the single-payer idea, but Vermont rates 49th for population in the US, California ranks 1st. I thought one of the strengths of a single-payer system was to leverage the power of large numbers to help drive costs down. Would this not make it more viable?

Not trying to start a capitalism war, but would an Earned Income Tax Credit be a more viable alternative to higher minimum wages? I've not done the leg work, but the IRS has a lot more info to help determine who's making how much that could help make the EITC even out unequal pay.

Late 20's(mid 1990's as a kid) here in Northeast US. I had the same experience growing up, days when it was nice outside, we were expected to not stay in and watch TV, so we would go outside and find things to do. I feel like it's that last part though that may have changed over the years as well. There's so many compelling forces today that A) make kids want to stay inside and B) make parents want to want their kids inside.

In these discussions, I hear people say "I'd be charged if I let my kids outside today", but it doesn't also address the cultural shifts that have happened to both the kids and adults that make "outside" a worse off place to be.

How does the use of this technology fit in with the FOIA, etc?

I haven't seen an answer that actually addresses this beyond the political divide.

The state legislature fear regulation that would limit coal and force a quota of renewable that may be more expensive, while a "cheaper"(coal, gas, etc) resource exists. I try not to see this as a "Look at us we love coal" and more of a "We want cheap energy(and jobs) through any means necessary".

Side note: This isn't my personal view, just an argument I continuously see in this fight.