Adding just one application (Xephyr) is a whole lot easier than replacing X, though. It's probably worse for isolation, but it's also probably good enough.
I wonder if at some point it will just make good business sense not to offer your service / product in the EU? I imagine the cost of developing and running software to comply (plus the fines for anything but perfect compliance) would exceed potential revenue from EU customers in many cases.
Depends on your service. Something like Wechat could pretty easily decide to just not service the EU. It would be a much tougher choice for someone like Google or Amazon.
Do you mean as someone not living in the EU? More than 500M people live there and their primary market, when offering a service or a product, is indeed the European market.
Perhaps eventually they'll invent and patent their way back to a usable laptop keyboard :)
IMO, declaring bankruptcy on the current design and reverting to the previous chiclet keys would be welcomed by most users, but it seems unlikely that Apple will actually admit a mistake for a few more years (e.g. what happened with the Mac Pro).
The 2015 MacBook Pro was the last piece of great hardware from Apple, in terms of their laptops. The newer MacBooks with their gimmicky touchbar and useless keyboards, for the sake of being thin, just show Tim Cook and his advisors have no ideas other than taking advantage of Facebooks privacy disasters and trying to get consumers to keep buying Apple products because Apple is supposedly on a higher moral pedestal.
2015 MBP was great, but I also immensely enjoyed my 2013 MacBook Air. The Air's battery life, form factor and performance made it hands down the best laptop for its time.
I'm actually in the process of wiping it to give to a friend and feeling a bit of sadness. I use a 2017 MBP now - the screen is what finally got me - but you're right, todays hardware just doesn't compare to how it felt back then.
I consider myself lucky that the store still had a few 2015 MBP left in stock when I went to buy mine. Definitely much better than that stupid touchbar stuff, and the fault keyboard.
> Lewis-Kraus’s critiques are based on incomplete facts and largely anonymous sources whose motivations are impossible to assess. Curiously, he did not ask me about the great majority of his concerns. Had he done so, the evidence underlying his thesis that my work is “indistinguishable from the racialized notions of the swashbuckling imperial era” would have fallen apart.
Well, yes. For those wondering why the author did do the simplest possible due diligence — asking the subject of the article about the thinking used to frame it — it's because it likely would have resulted in a less-interesting, less-trafficked story. Accuracy isn't the objective, reach and audience is. Corrections can be packaged up and slipped in later.
"My flippant tweet began to pick up traction. My intent wasn't to claim that the meme is inherently dangerous."
He spun an offhand comment into full-on opinion manipulation, because we're now reading his article on the topic that not only has a clickbait headline, it seems to imply there's something more to the story, when in fact there isn't.
So now we've got all this digital ink spilled on the (entirely hypothetical) topic, and plenty of eyeballs buying it with their attention. But all of it is vapor, even at the admission of the authors.
The issue with internet nowadays to be honest. As soon as you got a bit of traction with a tweet or with a blog post people try to milk it in order to market themselves or other narcissistic interests.
It's not the internet. It's media in general. They need to create an artificial story to make a profit. Now that the internet is a profit making center, the media and its tactic has found a welcome home in the internet.
Hence the "arctic blast" about to "ravage the east coast". Or as someone who has lived in the northeast, just winter. Or any other superlative clickbait. Everything is a crisis, everything is a disaster.
You are replying to an article written by someone named "Kate O'Neill", in which they include a photograph of themselves via Twitter, and you are referring to them as "he"?
And media outlets like the NYT manipulate our opinions. An endless parade of articles written by non-experts with no incentives to get anything right, but plenty to keep the story going and traffic coming in.
I can't remember who said it, but someone once compared the outrage over how tech companies use data to Yellowpages. There used to be this free book that had everyone's name, address, and phone number and the only way to opt out was to pay. This is much more egregious act than Google and Facebook; the only difference is the scale.
At least Google and Facebook only take what you give them.
Horrendous analogy. Yellowpages never tracked your real-time location, served hyper-targeted political ads, or tested emotion-manipulation on its readers.
Is it more reasonable to think that this is the beat of a baseless drumhead conspiracy, or that influential people are genuinely changing their minds about very large issues, despite the profitability of keeping silent?
I don't think that makes it less relevant in general, but there's nothing "new" here. There doesn't need to be anything new for the point to still be interesting, but it does reveal something about our bias towards the "new" in our political conversation and analysis.
I had a similar experience: I went to a very good, Catholic college prep school and I wrote a lot of papers well before setting foot in college. In some ways, it was more challenging than any subsequent education.
However, this is not the normal educational experience of many in America. Outside of private and (good) public schools, what's described here is probably the rule, not the exception.
So: I know this is true. My kids were privileged to attend one of the better large public high schools in Chicagoland, and I'm not indifferent to that situation.
But that's not really the argument this little piece is making, because it's arguing that incoming college students are underprepared by high school, and demographically, college students as a cohort tend to come from the better high schools anyways.
I think your scope of college students is too narrow. You do not have to do well in high school to get into some kind of low tier college. Low tier colleges will take anyone with a pulse who can get a loan.
According to The Directory of American Philosophers, 1980 edition [0], he taught at Franklin and Marshall College at that time. Probably with a little more digging, you could come up with his academic CV. The school is a small, expensive, private liberal arts college that's (currently) well-ranked in the US News rankings[1].
So, what's the likelihood that the incoming freshmen at Franklin and Marshall (a) had trouble with "cats/cat's/cats'" and (b) hadn't written any papers in high school?
Wait, you mean I could get something almost as good just by adding in two additional technologies to the mix? Amazing!