I don't think there's a reading that suggests it's a good thing for 3D printers. The rest of the page confirms that.

It looks like you only use a tiny fraction of Teams' functionality. I agree, there's little to complain about when using it for IM/voice/video calls. When you start using it for other things, especially the enterprise features, it is bad. It is a resource hog, handles navigation poorly, has poor default settings, finding installed apps can be tough, etc.

> handles navigation poorly

My current pet peeve: I’m often going back to the previous week on Monday to fill out my time sheet. So, I open the chat for a meeting last week to see how long it took, fill it out, and hit the calendar icon in teams and I’m back on the current week. It’s a painful UX flow that I’ve now built in to my brain, so help me god if they fix it.

Note that teams does include a “back” button, and also note that it doesn’t give a flip about state - it knows you were just at the calendar but doesn’t care where, so you’re back on the current week

In addition to environmental concerns (including power and water usage) & noise pollution concerns, which are specific to data centers, local citizens are also against the tax breaks the owners of these data centers get. This bit isn't unique to the data centers, and we also saw similar pushback when details like this came out around Amazon warehouses. The fact is, the local communities don't reap the benefits from these despite having to shoulder the cost. Once built, they provide few, if any, jobs, little money goes back to the community, no new products or services are provided.

A state should work to ensure everyone lives in a desirable area, doctors & patients.

I don't see how this is possible with the use of the state or not. I mean, I can throw out some ridiculous sci-fi ideas like geo-engineering and megaprojects that give every region the perfect balance of temperate seasons, agricultural productivity and variety, access to functional and esthetically pleasing waterways and pastoral landscapes that would make them all equally attractive places for people to live but that's just the definition of a utopia that will never exist.

You're also just copping out by saying "the state should handle it", who and what do you think the state is? It may come as a surprise that it's just a bunch of people who are just as imperfect and limited in their abilities as the rest. They can't simply wave their hands and make everyone happy. It make about as much sense as saying "Microsoft should handle it" or "the Catholic Church should handle it".

There are lots of places that are "desirable" to a large-enough-to-be-relevant portion of the population, but not as large a portion as the portion of the population that wants to be doctors. And they may like living there for reasons that someone who is drawn to a career in medicine might be unlikely to share.

Waymo driver? The vehicles are autonomous. I otherwise applaud Waymo's response, and I hope they are as cooperative as they say they will be. However, referring to the autonomous vehicle as having a driver is a dangerous way to phrase it. It's not passive voice, per se, but it has the same effect of obscuring responsibility. Waymo should say we, Waymo LLC, subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc., braked hard...

Importantly, Waymo takes full ownership for something they write positively: Our technology immediately detected the individual.... But Waymo weasels out of taking responsibility for something they write about negatively.

> Waymo driver? The vehicles are autonomous

the "Waymo Driver" is how they refer to the self-driving platform (hardware and software). They've been pretty consistent with that branding, so it's not surprising that they used it here.

> Importantly, Waymo takes full ownership for something they write positively [...] But Waymo weasels out of taking responsibility for something they write about negatively

Pretty standard for corporate Public Relations writing, unfortunately.

I don't understand. What's the troll here? Are you offended? Why?

In another world, I guess bugs would be called mice. But then what would we call mice?

What's unconscionable is that people feel entitled to cherry pick stuff like this and then use it as fodder for shameless moral posturing. The damn near next sentence says this was not the case with her, it clearly wasn't her job, it was what she wanted to spend her life doing.

I don't wonder why public discourse is the way that it is.

I agree that it's unconscionable to consign a centenarian to unwanted labor, but the article says this is not the case for Ginny.

Also, wages in the US have not stagnated at all. Wage growth in the poorest quartile has outpaced inflation and that of the other 3 quartiles.

Perhaps this is a bit of projection by the British Guardian.

Violent crime plummeted throughout the 90s because abortions was legalized in 1973, 17-27 years before 1990 and 2000, respectively, roughly coinciding with the early adulthood period where a vast majority of criminal offenses are committed, the offender having the freedom of an adult without the fully formed prefrontal cortex of one yet.

The fetuses that were aborted were overwhelmingly from socioeconomic demographics (e.g. poverty, single mother households) where they would've been statistically far more likely to become criminals, so by allowing that generation to be aborted, we effectively aborted (for the first time) a large chunk of an entire generation of people that would've been statistically overrepresented among criminals, entering their peak criminal years right when Bill Clinton was president.

This is likely a myth; crime dropped all across the developed world in a similar timeframe, but dates of legalisation of abortion likely don't line up. One popular speculation is the phasing out of leaded petrol, but really this one seems to remain a case of "shrug, dunno".

The world is complex and most phenomenons are high dimensional.

It’s very likely: - criminal potential populations were reduced - economics lead to stable options for more individuals in the late 90s - lead was removed - a myriad of other improvements in society that generally led to Less crime

An assault weapons ban went into effect in 1994, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Any guesses as to what trends in firearm related deaths looked like when the ban was allowed to expire in 2004?

Freakanomics made that argument, but there is very little statistical evidence abortions were the cause. For one thing, abortions were legal in states like California and New York, which also saw crime drops.

That's very bad for the Prison Economy. :-/

Don't worry, we tripled incarceration rates between 1980 and 2000, particularly of nonviolent drug offenders, to make up for the difference. This is America, after all, we can't just let the businesses fail!

This broadly attributed to the infrastructure spend of the internet and greenspans new “unlimited productivity in the digital age” realization — which Clinton did agree to, but at the price of the promises he made

Beg pardon, but I can't quite make out what your point is. Dole/Kemp lost, but they get credit for the Clinton-era economic boom, which is well known to have been stronger and lasted longer than the more famous Reagan-era boom?

I think the point was you can't evaluate their campaign promises because they never governed. Here's what happened instead....

My point was, in response to the OP, to explain to the commenter what had subsequently happened in the context of that motto, pointing out that democrats deliver even what republican strategists think voters want.

I can't imagine a reading of my comment that suggests I am giving Dole/Kemp credit for any of this though.

That something could have been lawmakers going on major media saying, unequivocally, that flying is safe, warning not to give away freedoms lightly and even making a show of flying commercial themselves.

That something didn't have to include trading freedom for surveillance/inconvenience/increased exposure to poorly trained LEO's.

The world we live has been shaped more and more by the funders of certain politicians and major media to make us fearful of boogiemen. The payoff is increased surveillance and more authoritarian governments.