If the person I will report to can't code, I pass on the contract
I get this, it's really frustrating to have a clueless manager. But to me, a bigger problem is the reverse.
I'd rather have a manager with no technical ability and excellent people skills, than a manager with excellent technical ability but no people skills. The latter is all too common in my experience.
This is awesome, I think I'd add to this:
Ask questions. Strike up conversations. Listen attentively. Be genuinely curious about people and ask about their lives. Do this to people of all genders, whether you're attracted to them or not.
That's why I only buy games on discount. That way I only have to play the inverse percent of what I paid.
Bluesky has 20x the user base (and the gap is growing wider every day).
Aww, lay off Jonathan. He's a pioneer for gay rights, which is much more than can be said for any of you lot.
Due to his advanced age, Jonathan spends his days doing almost everything with his mate, including eating, sleeping and mating... The sex of Frederica, ... his companion since 1991, was cast into doubt in 2017 when island veterinarian Catherine Man indicated that due to a deformity of its plastron its sex could not be verified,[4] and is now known to be male, being renamed Frederik.
Telling advertisers to fuck off works if your goal is to create a niche product tailored to people who care deeply about privacy already. But Mozilla is very much all about trying to make things better for everyone on the internet, regardless about their opinions (or lack thereof) on privacy and ads.
Mozilla has recognised that advertising isn't going anywhere, so there's two options:
What other major player would ever push for privacy preserving attribution? Hint: no one. While I get that many people here want 0 ads (myself included), PPA is a great step in the right direction, and could have a huge positive impact if it's shown to work and other companies start adopting it.
And guess what? You can still turn it off, or use adblockers. Unlike Chrome, Firefox won't restrict you in that regard.
The show is not high art. No one will be winning an Emmy for acting. It certainly doesn't warrant the high rating on RT. But it's entertaining, engaging, visually stimulating and a fantastic adaptation of the games.
If you're expecting a Last of Us calibre deep dive into society and the human condition coping with an apocalypse, you'll be disappointed. If you're expecting a fun romp through the wastelands with body parts gratuitously exploding into red mist, then look no farther!
I'm not American and I almost never read the Times, so I don't have first hand experience. But I hear the same rhetoric about outlets here in Canada.
My take is that yes, outlets can have bias on certain issues, but that doesn't mean we should write them off completely. Trust in media is at an all time low, journalism is struggling to survive. There's no media outlet in the world that doesn't make the kinds of mistakes that you outline here. The key is how do they respond to them after the fact. Do they issue corrections? How quickly? Where do they put them?
Some of your 'evidence' also doesn't seem like journalistic malpractice. For example, are they obfuscating poor sources, or not revealing an anonymous source? The latter is not malpractice. The former doesn't sound bad either.. Who decides if a source is poor? Maybe the source didn't have much to contribute so that's why there wasn't much detail on their background. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just that as an outside observer that point doesn't seem very bad.
Anyway, I do think it's important to be aware of any biases in the media we consume, so conversations like this are important. But my fear is that if the conclusion is to wholesale stop trusting the media anytime they make a mistake or a bias is revealed (I.e all media outlets), we're going to be even more fucked than we already are.
Here's my headline: Why obsessing over battery degradation is unhealthy and you should just do whatever is easiest for you
You can't give UBI to a subset of people. Then it's not universal anymore.
But if you did give artists a basic income, how much art would they need to produce to qualify? What qualifies as art? The law doesn't do well with those kinds of questions.
Better to implement true UBI. Give it to everyone, and afford more security to folks who want to focus on art.
Why bother even trying when you can be sure you'll be bullied by whatever monopolies dominate your industry while our politicians stand idly by.
Our governments are only interested in keeping the established companies healthy and strong. It's mind bogglingly short sighted.
Yeah, it's a tautology