Displays are frequently binned based on quality. They are probably just buying the cheapest they can, and end up with a lot of prematurely dead pixels.
This is exactly why I anticipate every grade school teaching kids Esperanto any day now
As someone who uses both but mostly metric, neither one is difficult to use. Metric relationships between volume and energy and heat are cool - but they are linked to the present day earth at sea level, which in the future might be just as archaic as Fahrenheit being linked to an erroneous human body temperature measurement
Are you saying we shouldn't continuously improve our scientific systems just because one day we might need to rebase it on Martian or some other physical constants?
There are two aspects to the metric system - the physical constants that the base measurements are derived from, and the mathematical relationships between different measurement scales, from microscopic to macroscopic.
The latter aspect will remain useful and sensible even if we need to rebase the former on something more appropriate one day. But that day is a long way off, realistically a century or more. Not a great reason.
This is such an overly simplistic take. Depending on where you are in the country, you could easily suspend some combination of power, water, heat, road access, banking, or internet connectivity to individuals purely by restricting access to private property somewhere down the line. Simply accuse them of violating the terms of service. We collectively agree that is unacceptable, because those things are basic utilities.
We’ve let only a half dozen websites more or less completely control the internet on the front and backend - far fewer than the number of utilities it would take to turn off someone’s electricity. That kind of power is not just a free speech issue, it’s a national security threat and it’s only being celebrated because it’s being wielded, for now, against people we don’t like.
Imagine a future election where one candidate wants to classify social networks as utilities, and the other candidate wants to do nothing but set puppy orphanages on fire. Candidate 1 has her social media pages cancelled for nebulous violations to a labyrinthine TOS, and she loses the election - because that is how people are reached in the modern world.
If you can't get banned for inciting a coup against a democratically elected government- can you get banned for anything? His conduct was arguably illegal.
In your ideal world of free speech, is Islamic State allowed to post recruiting videos or call for generalized action? If not, is that 'censorship'? Can you openly call for violence? Can you post revenge porn? Can NAMBLA have a Facebook page and sign up underage members?
The only overly simplistic take is imagining that the world's largest communications platform isn't allowed to have rules or a Terms Of Service. That's just incredibly naive- one can't realistically run a planetary scale (hell, even a small town-scale!) platform with no rules on speech. You seem to be advocating that rules themselves are impermissible. This is an unrealistic take, I'm sorry.
I think that Facebook & others would be best served by having more explicit rules and an independent arbitration system- which they've begun with the Oversight Board- that can make common-law style precedent that gets expanded over time. In your example, the banned candidate can apply to be reinstated- hell that's the case right now, Facebook has lost every case brought to the Oversight Board other than the Trump one!
If something is “arguably” illegal, then that is what the law is for. We in fact have a very complex and refined branch of government designed specifically to decide whether something is illegal or not, and it works far better than a bunch of underpaid Facebook employees answering to shareholders and in the case of speech that is actually dangerous, it has the authority to go and arrest people.
Can Facebook remove Islamic State recruiting material- yes or no? If so, why isn't that 'censorship'?
Also please answer- threats, revenge porn, the North American Man Boy Love Association- can they be removed from social media? Wouldn't that be censorship as well?
I'm a bit fascinated by this argument that we should be relying on the government to remove bad speech- that that's somehow not censorship
Yes, a free and legal exchange that meets the definition of censorship. Many famous censorship schemes operate entirely in the private sphere. The Hays code, for instance, censored movies for decades and existed purely in contracts between movie distributors.
The Hays code might not be the best example, since it was "self-censorship" but done in direct response to imminent threats of government censorship all over the United States. Several states had just created censorship boards in response to a Supreme Court ruling which declared that freedom of speech didn't apply to movies.
But again, it’s weird to see this painted in partisan terms. How short is our memory? I would have sworn just last year that those tech companies were painted as strict censors of right-wing content who needed to be strongly regulated. Apparently now it has switched again? But of course this is just partisans playing the victim (at least until someone can show evidence of some actual partisan bias in their censorship/moderation).
Hate speech does not have a definition in the US, and barely has a definition in countries where it is banned. I am sure almost everyone who has ever been banned for political reasons has had hate speech given as the official cause.
Car prices in America are among the lowest in the developed world though. It’s difficult to compare education as you’re getting a wildly different product depending on what specific university you go to.
They pretty much have to be. The infrastructure of the US is such that if cars cost what they do in Europe then a massive section of the population would be entirely locked out of the economy unable to hold a job.
1. The average American is considerably wealthier than the average European.
2. Cars are so expensive in Europe relative to America due to regulations/taxes/etc which are applied by governments (the alleged protectors of the people's welfare).
3. You've got causation backwards in regards to infrastructure, the US infrastructure is the way it is BECAUSE cars are cheaper, cars aren't cheap due to the needs of infrastructure.
People will step on the path when they are walking on it. Rubber wears down paths, as does any sort of abrasive sand or rocks between the shoe and the road. There is a significant amount of wear even on stone paths from foot traffic. There are some plastics I would be willing to try, like UHMW, but wear resistant plastics like that are also very slippery and not cheap even in recycled form.
She is essentially making composite decking but in brick form. The sand filler will probably take a lot of the wear. Solid blocks of plastic last a long time so the degradation will be minimal compared to the waste plastic it is being made from.
