Portal 2 was great, but I'm not sure I see it as particularly influential. I guess the Portals left a bunch of widely known memes, but other than that?
Exactly, I'm surprised this post is even being upvoted here on HN. It sounds like NYT did their job, and did it well (considering so many people got pissed off).
We can not tolerate tiptoeing around subjects simply because someone's "faith" might be offended.
You don’t have to tip-toe around a sensitive subject in order to give the reader a meaningful look at what’s going on. The article does a good job listing information that was important to help understand Monson in context. You can do that and also address the issues the obituary talked about. But judging everything in terms of a narrow set of political issues doesn’t educate the reader. It’s not good journalism. (I’d love to read the New York Times obituary of the founder of Bangladesh. I wonder what it would be like, viewed through the narrow political lens of a liberal New Yorker. Would it lead with his views on abortion?)
I had the same knee jerk reaction as you. But I think the question is not “should we tiptoe around subjects”.
The question is about framing and notability.
Pretend you have to make your own headline about the life of this guy. How do you frame his life?
You could focus on his achievements and his significance to Mormons and not mention the controversy until later in the article.
You could do what the Times did, which is mention only his controversies and say nothing of his significance to your average Mormon.
You could do a mix of the two (“celebrated within the Church, but mired in controversy without it”).
Either way you go, you are making a big decision on how to frame this guy’s life.
Which one is more fair? Which one is more profitable? Which panders the most to your readership? Which one is the least/most controversial? These are all questions the editor has to consider.
I have no small amount of distaste for the Mormon Church and Mormonism. I would prefer that any headline about Monson’s death mention the controversies that the Times mentions. But I also agree with the author that the Times’ headline is an extremely one dimensional view that just reinforced my already former opinion about Mormonism rather than giving me an alternative perspective from which to see it.
Firstly, I don't know how you conclude Safari has the majority of market share on Mac.
> Chrome is convenient, but I'm not about to start using Opera or Safari because Google is making a better browser.
Chrome uses far more battery and processing power to achieve the same task as Safari. Safari animates content smoother and scrolls pages smoother. I would conclude Safari is currently the best web browser, despite it being slightly behind Chrome in standards support.
> ignoring standards like "filter: blur()"
This is false.
> implementing their own "backdrop-filter" that no other browser uses
This is false. Backdrop filter support is planned in all browsers except Edge currently. You can enable it with a Chrome flag. I should also mention it is a huge advancement for creating blurs on the web.
> Chrome and Firefox are the leaders in feature advancement
I don't see how you can consider Firefox a leader anymore. That browser is a mess, hopefully they make a comeback.
While of June 2016 - Safari is still among the top browsers I see for my website visitors.
Yes Chrome uses more battery - but Safari also has use of native API's that integrate tightly with the Apple Ecosystem. Chrome has its own sync, bookmarks, password manager, etc. Safari is great if you don't need Gmail or Google Calendar - but Chrome integrates better with it's other product offerings.
> ignoring standards like "filter: blur()"
> This is false.
Wrong again. Using "filter: blur()" with a background image will make that image disappear in certain circumstances. Instead Apple implemented its own "backdrop-filter" which is not cross-compatible between features.
Battery power matters a lot for thin/light devices (like Macs). There are cases when I'll refuse to use an app that only supports chrome, just because chrome takes up so much power.
I wouldn't say it's a glaring error. It's a stylistic choice, though I will agree that most style guides' guidance (yeah, I chose awkward wording because emphasis) is that you should use the 's after the word if it's singular and doesn't otherwise sound awkward with the extra syllable. Achilles' tendon, for example, would sound awkward if written as Achilles's tendon.
I think the argument could be made that business' sounds better, since business's could easily be confused with the plural form, and three consecutive S letterforms looks awkward. In fact, now that I think about it, I would've written it the same way.
