The author has given an iPad to a one year old, and even taught them (read: nudged them into) getting adicted into phone games. This is terrible parenting.
This article is not about parenting or restricting the use of mobile devices, it's about regulating the software industry. For example: what Apple should/shouldn't allow developers to do when creating a game.
It's very easy to loose track of the real problem, which is technology. Kids between 2 and 11, like it or not, spend an average of 5/6 hours per day in front of a screen and see an average of 25,600 ads a year.
The solution is not to remove technology from the equation, but to regulate it.
"authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy"
Pretty much spot on except "ultranationalism". The amount of nationalism varies from time to time depending on the current needs. When dictator needs to get something out of Russia, he would either claim nationalism, or goes other way, depending on circumstances.
It's a shame really. Reminds me of how whenever there is a right-wing terrorist attack/mass murder everyone, including tech companies, try to hide manifestos and other media as much as possible.
> If they keep growing at
And that's where the falacy is. Nothing keeps growing forever. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
You don't need great analysis to see that something that has appreciated 131 times in less than a year is a bubble, unless they cured cancer or seriously undersold at their IPO. And no one undersells by that much.
I'm not sure what it means to count up the number of times a stock has appreciated in a year. A stock with steady, reasonable 2% annual growth could in principle appreciate on every trading day.
Definitions shift over time. Yes, C targets an abstract machine. Yes, C doesn’t give you direct access to hardware. But in the range of widely used languages C is much “lower level” so it gets that name. Quibbling over the definition doesn’t add to a conversation but just exists to make somebody look smarter than the room.
I never understood when Americans threaten people with court expenses in TV series or real life. I was under the impression that no matter the case, if you are unable to afford representation, a state lawyer is appointed and does a barely passing job. Wouldn't a barely passing job be enough for a judge to throw a case like this away?
I've actually been in court and it has never been an expensive experience.
I suppose from one comment I read that patent law is different, and you have to actively defend your patent, but I see this theme in many different types of cases; for instance someone starting directing a documentary about something someone didn't like attention drawn to. How can this possibly be expensive to defend.
You're only guaranteed representation in a criminal trial in which case you're opposing the government. In a civil case between two private parties there is no such right.
The right to have an lawyer provided by the state only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases like in this one. In civil cases the burden of funding a defense is on the defendant. Even if it’s initially thrown out, the appeals process can take years and even more money.
re: "free lawyer" - many times you get what you paid for. Hence people with incompetent representation (purposefully or otherwise) ending up with bad plea deals and/or lengthy sentences.
I suggest you consider reading a book called A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr. It's about a lawyer suing a large company over the deaths of children. Hint: He was vastly outspent and crushed. Don't watch the movie, the book is much better.
You could say that plaintiff has to pay for a crap lawyer for other side (there are complicated consequences, makes it harder for the little guy to access the legal system, etc). Or you could say the state has to provide one always (if the state pays for my doctor [i am not an american] than its in theory possible for them to do this.
Whether or not they should is a different question.
None of those things was solved in the last 3-4 years though.
Some might now be done via AI, but is it done any noteceably better than 3-4 years ago? I certainly don't trust my camera to adjust itself, or the sleep analysis to be any good, or the article recommendation to not recommend based on outrage, or the spam filter to work at all.
That's the whole point. If you are still using classical solutions for these things that are years old, you are far behind best experience and the competition. As an example, noise removal in low light images has advanced tremendously each year with stunning gains. Same goes for grammar correction and auto-correct. You can see the difference in Siri and Google Assistant that is literally an order of magnitude. Siri even has trouble doing proper voice recognition and as Apple does not even know how to do search, its question answering skills shines only for highly curated tasks. First thing I've always done on my iPhones is to turn it off. However, Google had been amazingly improving these stuff every year. The end result is that while I do use iPhone, I tend to use mostly Google services and when something is only available on Android I get a tremendous itch to switch.
It sounds like you are just advocating the corporate tech transfer model of advanced research in a nascent field, but maybe Apple is philosophically opposed to doing that. Indeed, it's not that they don't have funds for scientific research. It's easy to say Siri is inferior or whatever but that contains such hidden assumptions about what really is valuable for consumer tech.
On the other hand the USSR allied itself with the evil Nazis so they would both invade Poland. The USSR was clearly an expansionist and imperalist power and given the gulag system reached it's peak well before the start of the war, we know Stalin did not care at all about human life.
