> Nobody cares because we have something better. It’s called paramotoring.
It is still very bad if you want to use it for something useful and not just entertainment... It is very susceptible to malfunction when it is a bit windy...
You bring up a good point, IMO: the "Open in Data Viewer" button is far-too obfuscated. If I hadn't used Enigma before, and hadn't already known what was contained in a previously-visited dataset, I too would have assumed that I hit a dead end because the button was the last thing I noticed on the page.
The horizontally-flowing layout is problematic overall, but placing that "Explore Data" button much higher in the right-most column would be a decent compromise:
http://imgur.com/a/lS7ks
You can also order them in some sort of plastic container from Walmart: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Discontinued/37620615 (the URL says "discontinued" but it appears that you can still order them)
The mail has to get to you somehow. The way SMTP works is that there are two places your email address is usually used during email delivery:
1. Before the actual sending of the mail data, the sending server connects to your mail server and after a polite introduction sends 'RCPT TO: xxxx@yyyy.com'. This is where your unique-for-that-site email address is used.
2. Later on during the transmission, all the 'real' mail headers are sent, and this is where the To, From, Subject, and CC headers are set. If you were BCC'd there is no 'BCC' header, so the 'To' header normally has the mail address of the original 'To' recipient. Or in a lot of cases the 'To' header is omitted entirely. Depending on your mail client, you will either see your name in the To field, or something like 'Undisclosed Recipients'.
Spammers typically shake it all up, so that the 'To' header rarely matches the 'RCPT TO:' value.
In my bespoke anti-spam system, I re-inject the 'RCPT TO:' and 'MAIL FROM:' into the mail headers (prefixed with X-) so i can easily see in my client what is actually going on.
The difference is, when those cuts happen, they'll just focus their blame and discontent on "those cheapos" who aren't tipping instead of Uber itself. The service industry has already perfected this tactic.
This seems a bit of a stretch. Plenty of industries have tipping, but I haven't heard of a company leader blaming low pay to lack of tips. Do you have any sources to back this statement?
You see this sentiment ALL the time in food services. Wait staff or pizza delivery guys always bitch about "cheap" customers instead of the reality that their boss lies about prices and then skims it out of their paychecks when people don't pay the "real price" of the food.
Not relevant. The software may not be patented but also just not published. You would have to reverse engineer it to get at the algorithms, and the car is surely heavily encrypted.
It's like Musk said with SpaceX: publishing patents is just like putting out a recipe book for China.
But not their "trade secrets". It's striking how little is publicly known about how each vendor's self-driving technology works. This is a technology that's grown up since the anti-patent "America Invents Act", and, as a result, there are few patents and much mystery. On rare occasions, someone gives a technical talk, but papers are seldom published.
It is still very bad if you want to use it for something useful and not just entertainment... It is very susceptible to malfunction when it is a bit windy...