This product doesn't look to me to be compelling enough to switch away from Finder and ranger. I use Finder when I want to browse pictures or other rich media and ranger when I just want to browse source code and other text files from the command line using vim-like hotkeys.
There are two very valid points here: activism and alignment. I intentionally chose not to bring up alignment because it's tiring in circles like HN and/or SF. Additionally, bubbles like this aren't unique to the bay area. The focus on causes and activism is much more unique.
It makes no difference one way or the other. The idea is that customer A doesn't want their campaign paired with ads from customer B. I don't care whether they're right or wrong in feeling that way -- they clearly do feel that way. So if you do it anyway, you are absolutely making a clear choice that you favor customer B.
That's my only point. There's no way to abstain and keep the goodwill of everyone.
Agreed. It'd be quite difficult to measure whether or not someone learns something new, anyway, because of the variety of things available to learn (large and small). If we're talking about learning entirely new skills, though, yea, obviously a cashier will probably not need to learn any significant new skills over the course of their career.
As always, people who do make learning new things a part of their life's rituals will generally be more successful than those who do not.
All of the subjects you mention at the end of your comment, especially memristors, are indeed the focus of neuromorphic computing. It's a nascent technology field, but there are plenty of papers available on IEEExplore or ACM Digital Library to satisfy curiosity! I'll take a look at the survey paper I wrote a couple summers back-- if it's decent I'll edit this post with a link.
>Because the list of countries was drafted by Obama's administration.
So? Obama isn't president anymore. Trump campaigned on Obama's policies, especially his foreign policy, being ineffective. If anything this shows laziness on behalf of the Trump administration – not a good sign.
After reading, I think it's obvious that the author has seriously overestimated the impact of the technology. It could have had as great an effect as the author's tone implies but I'm not sure the evidence is available.
