I think trigger warnings have been exaggerated way too much by a lot of people. Really, they're something that a lot of people complain about and speak out against, but aren't something anyone really deals with on a regular basis. I've only remembered seeing maybe 2 of them (that weren't pointed out to me) on the internet in the 4 or 5 years I've been using it heavily. I've never once seen anyone ask for them either - just people complaining about someone using them.

I've spent a lot of time on Reddit, and I've been fairly exposed to the backlash against them. If you even maybe kinda warn someone about the upcoming content, then all hell breaks loose as it's some liberal conspiracy to censor people or something. It's at the point that the warnings almost need warning themselves to keep safe of the amount of ire they bring.

If a person really wants to add a content warning to their post, then they should be able to without any backlash, because it's something meaningless to the non-affected. If this post had one, I probably wouldn't even notice it. However, I'm not the one looking to stay away from certain topics either. There's just too many people that want to have a say in the use of trigger warnings, that have no dog in the fight. They might as well get upset over wheelchair ramps or something.

Dems, many of the staunchest supporters of gun rights and or ownership belong to your very party. They will vote against you if it becomes a choice of either or. This is my opinion from years of interaction with gun owners of every ilk.

I don't rely on phone surveys or polls, to which most gun owners have instinctive distrusts. Hell if anybody but known friends ask me about gun ownership, I'll deny even having fired one. Call it paranoia, but most gun owners share it to some degree, with some just cause. Not a day goes by without someone leading an agenda to further control or even erase gun ownership/rights.

Libs get off your high horse and accept the fact gun ownership regulation is not a political issue, but a rights issue firmly embedded in members of both parties.

No he's not, just ask Putin.

It's really weird how different internet and real life time is.

A lot of the videos are from 2007, which is 8 years in real time, but are in a completely different era on the internet. There were different titans at the time, and a lot of the current trends were unheard of back then. Netflix streaming just came out, and wasn't the monolith that it is now. Facebook was just about to surpass Myspace in unique visitors. Youtube still used star ratings. Smartphones weren't really a thing, as the first iPhone wasn't released until mid 2007.

I remember being new to the internet in that time frame, when a lot of these people were huge deals. To the internet, it was ages ago, but if you ask anyone over 25 a memory of something 8 years ago, they would have no problem going that far back. Shit, this article made me feel out of touch. It's acting like "The Man with The Golden Voice" was forever ago, but I still remember that post hitting the front page of Reddit. I remember the same with the ASL person, as well.

It's just crazy how the timeline of something, invented in the real world, can have such a different time dilation effect from that of the rest of the world.

Not sure that discretion about the use of DDT amounts to genocide.

Nor is it clear you’ve been waiting for scientific consensus either. Seems like when you are confronted by the reality of ongoing man-made climate change, or science around it, you start in with your usual demands for “a yard stick, a rock or anything that has been under human observation for the past hundred years” that, if I can make any sense of this, somehow proves a negative to your stern satisfaction. What is that you’re asking for in those moments, anyway? I’ve got to ask. Everytime you go into that spiel, it gets to be like when adults talk in Charlie Brown specials.

Here, when a stalwart conservative scion of environmental policy mentions the elephant in the room, now you’re pining away for the advice of scientists and scholars? The same people you call “climate mongers?” The same ones you say are faking weather extremes so’s to gin up grant money? That’s who you demand to hear from, here, instead?

I'm taking this quote, ironically from someone in the yahoo comments quoting to defend Apple, that is apparently from Apple:

What to expect at the Genius Bar. Before you come in for your reservation, be sure to back up the data on the device that needs help. When you get to the Apple Store, ask a team member to check you in to the Genius Bar, or check in using the Apple Store app on your iPhone. During your session, your Genius will gather information about your system and answer your questions. If your product requires repair, the Genius will discuss repair options, explain any applicable charges, and prepare your equipment for repair. Most sessions last about 15 minutes, but some may take longer, depending on the issue.

While the data may be your responsibility, and even Apple warns you to back up the data, the "Genius" in charge of fixing his phone obviously didn't follow protocol. I think that's what could make Apple liable, that they didn't uphold their part of the service agreement.

I think the hypothesis that we're not listening to the right things makes the most sense. Radio isn't efficient and unless highly boosted doesn't really work at a distance useful to interstellar civilization. At best, you'd be able to do a local broadcast to the next stars, so about like expecting a modern company to conduct business via pony express. There are no ponies, so obviously national chain companies don't exist. Amazon has no ponies.

I would like to see a reliable source on this, this is a blog post which almost directly admits 99% of the content is pure speculation.

Excellent article. I've come across alot of insight into WBC. My favorite documentaries are those done by Lewie Theroux. He goes inside and can ask some difficult questions. As they struggle to answer, you see a look of cognitive dissonance sweep across their faces. Priceless.

Thanks. I always saw people selling them for a lot of money so I thought I would try it myself to see how hard it was. It is not master level leather craft but it looks decent, it was cheap, and it holds rum. Who could ask for anything more?

Sure, until everyone turned on him after like a week. Just ask Reddit how they feel.

Your rant is better that the writer's blog.

It seems the title is overly sensationalist, almost flamebait (what a shame for the CBC!). When you read the article, you learn that, by law, health related signage is exempted from the French only rule, and many staff of the hospital are bilingual, and clearly identified as such to accommodate English monolinguals. So the only thing they could remove legally is signs that don't have to be understood in a case of health emergency, i.e. directions, which, if anyone has already seen how a typical human behaves, doesn't change anything : almost no one reads the direction signs, no matter the language they're in. People will ask staff about directions when these are written in 20 feet high letters with flashing colored Christmas lights in the shape of arrows pointing to them less than 4 inches from their face.

No one will have a harder time receiving service in either French or English in that hospital. Someone tried to make a scandal about an (almost) non-issue.

But, I still don't agree with that decision. I mean, what goal does it serve, honestly? Isn't there any better way to spend the taxpayers' resources? What harm does a bilingual direction sign really do? Did the OQLF do it on purpose to be shat on by media and people all over the world (including the very people they think they're trying to protect : Quebec French speakers)? It seems to me like a moronic executive at OQLF wanting to justify their position and salary by being overzealous, despite their utter incompetence.

Here's some helpful advice for when you want to ask questions about code/code snippets.. Never post a screenshot. Put the code on pastebin and post a link to that.

Later on, questions we regret we never asked become familiar, even comfortable, like old leather shoes. Some questions maybe, though, it’s merciful we never thought to ask, and nobody had to answer.

Dr Ray Stantz: [holding ghost trap like a rat by the tail] We got it!

Hotel Manager: What is it? Will there be any more of them?

Dr Ray Stantz: Sir, what you have there is what we refer to as a focused, non-terminal, repeating sanction, or a Class Five full roaming deterrent. Real nasty one, too!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Now, let's talk seriously, now. For the missles, we're gonna have to ask you for...

Dr. Egon Spengler: [holds up zero fingers]

Dr. Peter Venkman: ...zero big ones. Zero large missiles for that. But we are having a special this week on centrifuges...

Dr. Egon Spengler: [holds up six fingers]

Dr. Peter Venkman: ...six thousand centrifuges, fortunately.

Hotel Manager: Zero ballistic missiles and six thousand centrifuges? I had no idea it would be so little. I won't do it.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Well, that's all right, we can just put it right back on there.

Dr Ray Stantz: We certainly can, Dr. Venkman.

[turning back to ballroom]

Hotel Manager: No, no, no, no! All right! I'll pay anything!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Thanks so much.

The only plugin that I was aware of to cause user problems was Oracle(TM) Java(TM). Basically, Chrome stopped using NPAPI, a good number of people freaked whenever their Java enterprise apps started dying. I'm assuming that Oracle has released a PPAPI plugin by now. Hopefully. The number of browsers supporting NPAPI just decreased by one.

"Extensions" and "Plugins" are a murky sort. Here's a quick blog post on the differences between them.

I'm not in the market for a Surface 3 Pro, so don't ask me!

Exactly. Lo and behold - here are guns! Our last mass murderer used a shotgun, for which he had a licence I believe. Sort of gun you can actually still get in the UK if you have the right reason and a nice locked cabinet in which to store it. Gun control doesn't stop people shooting people, it just makes it less likely that the sort of person who will commit such a crime can obtain a legal gun in the first place. They may not get an illegal gun either. You can't just walk up to the nearest dodgy looking person you see and ask for an AK47.

Funnily enough the UK doesn't quite well without guns - and our policemen are pretty good at unarmed combat.

I expect to see a lot more stories like this in the coming months. Silicon Valley has a lot of "tech darlings" that hemorrhage cash and barely offer any solutions to obtain revenue. It's only now that investors are starting to ask where their money is going.

Honestly I'm impressed the industry has maintained this delusion for so long...

I read a lot of science fiction on my phone, and take any moment to share the fact that some are publishing their ebook copy under a creative commons license, like Stross' Accelerando, it feels natural, and it saves weight, and space while travelling. However, years ago, we already got House of Leaves, which as a book, pushed the boundaries on formatting, no matter your opinion on the work itself, and would be weird to read electronically. Same thing with tomes like Infinite Jest. Or even textbooks where highlighting, and making notes in the margin are extremely useful. It is why even printing out physical copies of electronic textbooks from a site like the hacker's shelf can be useful. And even with youtube, soundcloud, bandcamp, spotify, and all the streaming of music, people still go out of their way to get physical copies of albums. Physical books are a little bit more guaranteed to always have a presence, as libraries are a cultural institution, and while there have always been worthy attempts to spread technology devices, books just simply do not need to be powered, and are simply more versatile in the long run. And so, while I read a lot electronically especially to save on weight/space while travelling, there is no way they could replace print completely. Especially as there is a lot of people who just prefer reading a physical book.

Hmm. I don't usually talk about it too much in public, but since you ask: I worked on the Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon series for Ubisoft. :)

Also worked for BioWare, but alas that project never saw the light of day. :(

Similar opinion here. The only solid advantage to a college degree (outside of maybe some guided learning on a subject you're interested in) is the connections. You're with other people all looking at the same field, which attracts employer attention. I think that's the real reason college saw such guaranteed success for a while and people just assumed the wrong part was to thank.

And I have to ask, any big game hits? Something I've had a chance of playing? :)

I never said racism was okay at home, you will not twist my words sir.

You are right about that actually, I'm sorry. I don't know where I took that from, but I apologize for that. I realize now that you're defending their personal freedom, and not condoning their actions. I spent the prior 3 days running on about 6 hours of sleep total and I was not in a very strong frame of mind at the time I wrote that. I just woke up from a long and much needed sleep and am rested enough to think relatively clearly now :)

I still disagree with a lot of what you're saying both on factual and ethical grounds. For starters, if an employer wants to make what you do in your home life their business, that is their right and if you don't like it it's your own right to not work there. This is not only how it goes in the USA, but also how I feel it should work. Have you even known anybody that works on a police force? Police are basically constantly monitored and scrutinized by their employer, and if they slip up in many even small ways in their own private time, they can be penalized or even fired for it. And the police force should be able to do that. By your logic here, police should be able to go home after their shift, hang out downtown on the street smoking pot, drinking, doing lines of coke, and playing illegal poker, and then be protected from being fired from their job the next day because somebody reported them. In my opinion they should be fired for that, shouldn't they? Even though the events occurred on the police officers own time, and he wasn't in uniform, or acting under the authority of his workplace at the time, and it certainly doesn't impact his ability to do his job at all the next morning.

You seem to be confused as to what privacy or a private conversation is. You can't have a private conversation with your friend in the middle of a restaurant, because it's not a private setting. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. I would fully support an employer firing somebody if they did that in the middle of a restaurant, on the street, on Facebook, or in the bathroom urinal at the office. I would not support the employer if that same conversation took place between you and your friend, in the private setting of your home, or over the telephone, or something similar. Allow me to reinforce the fact that if you're in a public setting, anything you say or do is not private, it's public and therefore fair game for employers or anybody else in the world to use either for or against you. That's just how it is, how it always has been, and how it should be. What if the person that reported you in the restaurant was (unbeknownst to you) a customer of your employers, and you were just ripping them a new one with your friend at the restaurant because they pissed you off at work or whatever. Would you still support that employees right to keep their job? Remember, if somebody can hear you and you don't have a reasonable expectation that they absolutely can't, then what you're saying is public, and not private at all. Period. It's up to you to assert and protect your own privacy. If you fail to do so, it's fair game.

A quick side note: Because Facebook is public and not private, I would say that it should be an employers right to ask for your Facebook information if they wish, and it is your own right to say no. If that means finding a new job because you don't like the company policy of this employer, then keep looking because thi...

Would the person who downvoted mind telling us why? Is is barely because the article is in French and you didn't understand it, and couldn't bother less about asking in the comments what it was about? Is is because it's about Quebec and you've been told Quebecers are not nice people?

I actually don't really care that much, for all I know it can very well be a vary legitimate reason, but none was given with the vote. The only thing I know it that it came from the Canada tribe, and since the article is telling how AC: Syndicate is Ubisoft's Quebec City studio's biggest project yet, it most certainly concerns Canada.

Anyway, if anyone who doesn't understand French wants a summary of what the article says (besides what I've already said here above), feel free to ask in the comments instead of downvoting (assuming this is the reason for the downvote). And if the reason wasn't this, and none of the available preset options for downvotes fit your intentions, just explain it in the comments as well, to allow everyone to contribute their thoughts on the matter (either in agreement or disagreement).