smokingManhole

There is nothing wrong with this news. In fact, it is good news.

We develop technologies, and then we are not supposed to use them? It was obvious that certain jobs had an expiration date, and dubbing is clearly one of them.

If we had to stop progress, we would still be having silent movies, otherwise the person writing the intertitles would lose its job. Or even no movies at all.

Healthcare, infrastructure, and education for you? You, that don’t even understand how this money works?

Trust me, they are better spent in this way. I would be curious to know where in the US you are from.

Volkswagen’s return to physical buttons is long overdue. Imagine causing a car accident because you’re distracted by a touchscreen, unsure if you pressed the right thing. Touchscreens became popular in cars because the market blindly follows the majority’s whims. Present the touchscreen versus button issue to most people, and they’ll choose touchscreens, misled by a lack of technical understanding. In their minds, old equals buttons, new equals touchscreen, and therefore, touchscreen must be better. They fail to see the bigger picture or care about this crucial design flaw, dismissing it as trivial.

This is just one of the many ways a market driven by majority preference results in mediocre solutions, never reaching the best possible option. And those who genuinely seek the optimal solution are left suffering the consequences, outnumbered by the masses who don’t realize the impact of their uninformed choices.

deleted by creator

Animals, not teenagers. Throw them and their families in a hole, where they belong.

I believe in evaluating a tech company based on its technological merits and customer service quality, rather than its political connections or decisions.

However, if the boycott shifts to a political basis, specifically regarding Israel, it aligns the act of boycotting HP with the stance of supporting Hamas/Palestine, a viewpoint that is definitely not universally accepted. This politicization could render the boycott ineffective, as it then appeals only to those opposing Israel, not those focused on HP’s technological and service shortcomings.

I believe that the grounds for boycotting HP should not be linked to its association with Israel in any manner.

The legitimate reasons for boycotting HP lie in its substandard customer treatment and the gradual decline in the quality of its products and services.

When individuals boycott companies due to their ties with Israel, it only intensifies my inclination to support those companies.

We should focus on HP’s bad technology, not politics. Bringing politics in just confuses the main issue.

Tech journalism has always been like this.

To avoid the terrible feeling of cringe, I always tried to steer clear of this kind of article, especially when it’s written by someone who doesn’t know shit about the content but still decides to talk about it.

This is probably the most stupid and useless article I read in the last months. It feels like it was written by a 6 year old with access to DALL-E.

Your comment made me sad.

Is this a “World News”?

The timing couldn’t be better. For me, the only thing missing from Firefox for Android (or, even better, Mull) was a translation feature; otherwise, it was perfect. The lack of translation was the only reason I found myself opening the Chrome app, and I am eagerly looking forward to no longer needing it.

I was once a fervent supporter of Google, but now see it moving towards Apple’s approach. This shift doesn’t feel like the result of malicious intent on the part of Google’s engineers, but rather a change driven by non-technical roles (business, marketing, …) aiming to boost revenue margins. When these roles lead a company’s direction, you can already hear the ticking clock of its fate.

He doesn’t identify as old.

The demo is showing some cherry-picked examples, but it is definitely on a good track. I can’t wait to see future releases with more consistency.

I’ll stop using Internet before I even consider whitelisting YouTube.

Okay, then let’s hypothetically say Israel forms a terrorist organization that doesn’t overlap with the Israeli government itself, would they then have the right to attack Gaza? This organization would essentially be in the same position relative to Israel as Hamas is to the Palestinians.

The way you debate reminds me of someone who might have abandoned their education prematurely. Are you going to complain to the teacher because you cannot acknowledge that your reasoning is flawed, incomplete, and biased? Your approach to this discussion is quite frankly, absurd.

Your narrative would hold if it weren’t flawed; it’s an oversimplification. Let’s take your perspective where Hamas is the bees that stung Israel, and now Israel is retaliating against the land harboring the bee nest. (I use ‘bees’ here to distinguish from my earlier wasp analogy).

If your neighbor disliked the bees as much as you and agreed the nest was a problem, then certainly, destroying it with care to avoid collateral damage would be wise. However, the situation changes if your neighbor is a beekeeper who shields the bees in his home to protect them from you. If those bees become aggressive and harm your family, naturally, you’d first request the neighbor to remove the bees. Should they refuse, you’d have every right to seek external help. But what if the authorities do little, leaving you to suffer the stings while your neighbor faces minimal consequences? Rather than passively endure this, you might feel compelled to act independently to prevent future stings and deter the beekeeper from maintaining this threat.

Are you focusing solely on the casualties involving children? Does that mean any location with children is off-limits for retaliation, providing a shield for adversaries because children are present? This is not a simple game of hide and seek, nor is it your idealistic world where a slap is met with a turned cheek.

It’s a common misconception that supporters of Israel are indifferent to the death of children or any civilian, for that matter, and you seem to be perpetuating this narrative. You choose the most objectionable point about an opponent to make an accusation, and, much like someone obstinately arguing without listening to reason, you consider yourself morally superior and in the right.

What, in your opinion, would be a suitable response to an attack from Hamas? Would peaceful protests, international condemnation, or sanctions suffice?

If you’ve discarded your spine, don’t assume everyone else has done the same. An entity without the ability to react appropriately can only succumb.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

What did you expect? Do you think that hitting a wasp nest with a rod just once means you’ll only be stung once because you only hit it once? There’s no rule stating that the wasps must respond with equal magnitude. If people are now getting hurt, it’s because someone provoked the wasps. The notion that reactions must be proportionate to the offense is quite naive.