Moral of the story: If you're going to jump from an airplane without a parachute make sure to aim for something soft like pine trees in snow or a building with a glass ceiling.
I found the reading and especially watching experience to be sub par on the iphone. No way to pause/rewind the clips, no complete videos to review, just carefully prepared "analysis" for digestion in a certain way.
> I found the reading and especially watching experience to be sub par on the iphone.
Don't complain to the NYT, go complain at Apple. It's Apple's fault that in mid-2017, there is STILL no way for inline videos in ordinary HTML5 web sites.
But, I admit, there's one single huge advantage: iOS devices are not hit with sometimes dozens of megabytes of traffic due to news sites auto-loading/playing videos, or worse, ad videos...
I can't speak to its behavior on iDevices, but regarding the complete video: As far as I can tell all the clips analyzed were from the video footage in the original NYT report[1] of the incident, which is linked in the very first paragraph of this article. Personally, I think this is a rather good example of reporting on something that perhaps entailed a bit of a judgement, but providing ample and well-documented evidence of how they reached that conclusion. If you disagree, you're more that welcome to go to the source material and come to a different conclusion.
It's like WhatsApp; but with PGP and you're in complete control of your keys.
They basically provide the public key exchange and verification services with an appealing UI akin to your modern chat application.
Let's say you hook up your reddit account or HN account to your Keybase account, and we want to chat. One of us simply has to look for the other on Keybase, start up a chat like Twitter DMs -- but it's PGP encrypted and seemingly as flawless as exchanging PGP emails without the hassle of exchanging our public keys through a key-server. This is arguably the hardest thing for non-tech savvy's to grasp.
It's arguable that it would be a reasonable trade-off; how ever there's no evidence any or all of these 42 suspects were ever arrested, let alone convicted. As you said: who knows.
The 'Uber Driver' may not be at fault, however the car failed to prevent or avoid an accident. It suddenly appears self-driving cars are no safer than human driven cars. Of course these are purely speculations but valid points.
Interesting to see it's flipped itself somehow, too, I wonder what the computer decided to do that it maybe shouldn't have done? I suspect Uber will keep very quiet on this one, as there's all kinds of assumptions to be made.
There's also a difference between the other driver being responsible for the incident because they failed to yield and pulled out in a dangerous and illegal manner and it not being possible the Uber vehicle could have responded better to the other car's dangerous driving.
One would need to know more details. Yields in particular is one area where, under many conditions, you have to expect drivers to do reasonable things. Of course, you don't expect a driver to just blow through a yield sign. But maybe the driver with the right of way slows down a bit or changes lanes to let someone in or because they see someone edging out into traffic.
During the behind-the-wheel test, I slowed down toward the 4-way junction in which I had the right of way.
The examiner marked it as a minor mistake; He told me that I could get rear end for that. I didn't argue with him as he was the examiner. But I'd prefer 10 rear ends over one t-bone.
When implementing a self-driving car, I'm not sure if we can explicitly write code that is against the DMV guidelines. For example, human seems to slow down at the junction even with the right of way and drive 5mph over the speed limit.
"It suddenly appears self-driving cars are no safer than human driven cars," says the guy who just read an article about a crash caused by a human while a self-driving car was not at fault.
This. Also, most people just plainly do not understand the new TLDs yet; and sadly I don't think they will ever become mainstream anytime soon.
Deviate from .com .net .ca .org and most people become clueless. Especially when users are sending an email, try explaining name@newyork.times is simply the address when a user insists there's a typo and it's missing .com or equivalent. Unfortunately adding a www. before, say on a business card, to denote it's a web address is counter-intuitive in most cases as that just lengthens the domain when typically the reason why one would get/migrate to a new TLD is to shorten it/make it easy to remember.
Made worse by the fact that non-technical people DO make such errors with some frequency. I don't know how many times I've seen someone's email address as "www.joe@example.com" or "joe@example," even on printed material that you'd hope people would carefully proof-read.
My personal email is me at james aust.in, and its constantly a pain to read to people, especially over the phone. I started saying it as me at "me at james austin with a dot before the in", but eventually settled on "me at james aust dot in". Only way to get it on the first try.
IMO the latter sounds clearer to me. I think I'm pretty savvy but if I listened to the former on the phone I would have to take a second to parse it and then I would read back something like the latter to you to confirm I got it right.
I'm amazed so many people are fine with the other ingredient being soy; I could go on for hours as to why that's among the worst things to be substituted with.
-95% of soy in the US is GMO, lacking any genetic variance and little make-up of microorganisms (good bacteria.)
-It's also a horrible source of fats, and more in particular the omega-6 to 3 ratio is incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level. There's also next to zero amino acids. (Think cancer risk, immune diseases, hormone disruption.)
-It's basically a carbohydrate. Considering a significant number of most of these soy-containing foods are carbs to begin with, it's just another contributor to our diabetes/obesity, cancer and most importantly, MENTAL HEALTH health epidemics. (Mental health pertaining too the poorly balanced diets, poor fats and lack of good gut microflora.)
It's alright to look at these foods as an once-in-a-while treat, but when you consider that nearly every processed food item is 'enhanced' with soy to make it cheaper and still some-what satiating is a concerning thought to just have these every so often. Rice's from Uncle Ben's, Kraft peanut butter, margerines and nearly all processed meats and cheeses contain significant amounts of soy("Vegetable Oils."
This is the current state of food created by the lobbyist-run FDA and various companies like Monsanto controlling the market for their own greed under the excuse of 'feeding the growing population.'
Smacks of conspirology and pseudo-science. Who cares if it's GMO? All food we eat is GMO. Non-GMO animals and plants hate to be eaten (well, most of them, some use being eaten as distribution strategy, but even those aren't targeting humans), and take measures to avoid it. That's why thousands of years ago humans started the project of genetically modifying them to make them more eatable. And we were spectacularly successful.
Not sure what genetic variance of the soy I'd eat would make for me - the genetic material would be destroyed anyway once I eat it.
Also not sure what it has to do with micro-organisms.
Phrases like "incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level" again sound like pseudo-science - what it actually means? Which function? How hostile?
The total content of the following amino acids were quantified in the soybean samples using NIRS: Glutamic Acid (Glu), Aspartic Acid (Asp), Alanine (Ala), Arginine (Arg), Phenylalanine (Phe), Glycine (Gly), Histidine (His), Isoleucine (Ile), Leucine (Leu), Lysine (Lys), Methionine (Met), Methionine and Cystine, Proline (Pro), Serine (Ser), Tyrosine (Tyr), Threonine (Thr) and Valine (Val).
Etc, etc. - in short, I'm not sure what you're talking about here except for evil Monsanto capitalists being out to kill us all.
> And if all "food we eat is GMO", why are some labelled non-GMO and other, GMO?
Because enough people believe - without compelling evidence - that foods which have had their genomes modified using modern methodologies are somehow more hazardous than foods which have had their genomes modified through millennia of selective breeding.
But what they're really saying, though, is we don't know enough about the GMO foods to introduce them into our diets. That using us as guinea pigs is not a good idea.
As if you "know enough" about other things you eat or drink. When was the last time a craft beer got FDA approval after 20 years of careful safety testing? When people stopped drinking sugary soda because that is poison fir you? When you had your steak dinner rigorously scientifically tested?
But no, you choose one thing that you can attach scary label to, and declare that because you didn't apply levels of scrutiny to it that you never ever had applied to your food, it is unsafe despite now decades of usage without any evidence of any trouble.
None of the bullets you list seems like a credible reason to not use soy. GMOs are perfectly healthy, as are carbohydrates. Lacking fat isn't a big deal either.
I suppose you might suggest there are healthier alternatives, but chief among those alternatives would be to not eat at a fast food joint.
I agree with you about GMO, however a better substitute for soy would be more chicken. Also, lacking fat is a big deal when it is substituted for carbs, and you are on a low carb high fat diet.
Tough crowd! I'm not going to get too detailed here, I'll let you do your own research:
-Hormone disruption from the lack of useable amino acids and 'bad cholesterol' from which your body cannot properly create/maintain cellular function (immune system, endocrine system, gene expression.) Alternatively, with healthy fats and saturated fats from unprocessed red meat, including the good balance of proper amino acids, for instance, your body can create the required hormones more efficiently and in proper form. Your endocrine system (HPTA axis) is incredibly important (and sensitive to disruption) to so many aspects in your body and controls the basic cellular function in any mammalian being. Huge contributor to neurodevelopment, mood and subsequently mental health.
-Hormone disruption from pesticides commonly used in todays farming (especially mega-farms specific to producing for these restaurant chains/grocers.) I encourage you to do your research on these specifically.
-Microflora, more specifically good gut health, is incredibly important in mood regulation and neurodevelopment. Your gut is commonly referred to in the medical world as the second brain -- over 90% of serotonin alone is produced and stored in your guts.
1. Yes, bad things happen when you don't have enough of all the amino acids. That's malnutrition. That would only matter if you ate soy and only soy.
2. Not all pesticides, just some, but yes that's true. But that's not specific to soy, it's specific to all crops. And crops are washed, you generally don't get significant doses of pesticides in your food.
3. The whole microflora mental health connection science is in it's infancy. The entire thing reads like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon: some microfloura produce neurotransmitters, which can affect the gut, which can cause an immune response, which can cause inflammation, which is associated with certain psychiatric conditions. I'm not saying there's nothing there, but we're years away from having a more complete understanding. Of course, I have no idea what this one has to do with soy.
The larger point-of-view I'm coming from is the fact that more and more of our foods (and food options) are becoming processed in irresponsible ways contributing to a more widespread malnutrition issue not far in the future. The population is overworked and sleep habits are becoming increasingly worse, both contribute to a reduction in neuroplasticity, for example; ultimately having a significant impact to the populations health.
All things considered it's very possible our medical science innovation falls behind the rate of increase of many diseases. This, in the future, may be directly attributed to irresponsible food industry practices happening right now. Throw that on-top of a huge unemployment wave that may happen in the future from automation, and you have significant increases in socioeconomic costs to any given country.
