> the outcomes of revolutions are usually much worse in the short term and often in the longer term
This is a pretty strong and unfounded statement. Would we even have the relatively free and democratic societies we exist in now without the revolutions of centuries past?
The US is a bit biased by considering its revolution a great success - which it was, for the white population. There was never a wholesale slave revolt, but the revolt of the slaveowners was successfully suppressed.
Conversely the UK never had a popular revolution and transitioned to constitutional monarchy (eg also Sweden).
France was very bad in the medium term; the Terror, subsequent invasion, Napoleon etc. Perhaps only a fully free society at the 5eme republic.
Much of the world by sheer number of countries got its freedom either at the end of WW2 or the Cold War.
I see revolutions similar to heavy mutations in evolution. Most of them leave society in a worse position, some, however, do bring long-lasting improvement to social governance.
An increased resting heart rate can be caused by many things, and we have no false negative/positive rate for increased heart rate wrt this virus. Whilst the intention is good, this app will end up sending many more people to hospitals, doctors, and pharmacists than necessary, furthering the straing on the healthcare system.
Data like this could (or might have the potential to) be used by the authorities to determine in which areas to test more. But otherwise it shouldn't send people anywhere, I don't think that was the intention.
This is absolutely not true in the UK, and probably not in most major cities. The overwhelming proportion of cyclists here are adults, and many have decided to take up cycling after already going through the normal rite-of-passage of learning to drive.
Base on data from the national travel survey, it's estimated that 83% of cyclists hold a driving license in the UK[1]. Given that figure, an increase in cycling traffic will definitely cause a proportional decrease in motorised traffic.
You are misunderstanding my point - I'm saying that because the majority of cyclists are adults, who got into cycling after they turned 18, the majority of them have learned to drive (at least from my experience), not that the cyclists OP is talking about aren't adults.
I do not hold a driving license either, aged 29, but I am in the minority. I am also learning to drive this year, to stop burdening my friends and family members.
My point is that in modern cities you are not a minority anymore, or not by a large margin.
I have a driving license, I've been driving for 20 years, but I gave up on cars 3 years ago.
Now I use other means of transport, mainly the subway and my feet. I walk a lot, but I don't use a bike because
- I don't like biking when it rains and in Milan it rains a lot
- I don't mind the cars, but I avoid sharing the road with trams and their rails, and Milan has a lot of them
- I mostly go out at night and I think biking at night it's too dangerous, even if there were no cars around
- Milan is very flat, it makes it good for biking, but also for walking, which I prefer
There are a lot more bikes in Milan then in Rome, but the people that are biking to replace the car entirely are a small minority, they either live a few minutes away from their workplace, are students or use it as a way to do sports, not to commute
Finally, air quality is bad and biking make it much worse
One thing I noticed is electric scooters are having a boom because they are easier to drive, transport and are less messy (if you're a woman in a dress or a man in a suite biking can be very challenging)
Seconding this: PureData is very good - used it throughout my second and third years of university to create soundscapes and scores. A little DSP knowledge is required to get really good, but very rewarding once you get the hang of it.
> In any case, that was just an example, I am not doing Germany - Portugal by train, unless forced to do so. It is more than 24h.
That's the point, we need to expand the rail network to make longer distance trips shorter, more comfortable, and affordable. Flying can't continue to be the default option.
I think it could possibly ruin the 'big budget', glossy podcasts in the mould of Serial as they take more money to produce and I'd imagine they are more reliant on ad income.
It may also be more accurate to suggest that Spotify will ruin American podcasting - I can't see UK podcasts (particularly those that are BBC-funded) going spotify only, and iPhones (and probably by extension the podcasts app) are only a huge market share in the US.
Here's hoping that the independently funded and smaller podcasts will continue to exist outisde of Spotify.
Yeah the BBC podcasts aren't going to go exclusive, but instead they've launched their own podcast app and piss everyone off by going on about it constantly.
They might go exclusive to BBC Sounds. The BBC has already started pulling its services from those they perceive to be competitors, like TuneIn[1] and Google Podcast[2].
I want to second this. Decluttering is definitely a huge way to improve your life, and physically removing things from your home also helps to removes mental distractions.
I made a conscious effort to really consider what I need before purchasing things over the last 6 months, as too often over the years it felt like I was drowning in a sea of crap! Sell your old unwanted items on ebay/gumtree/wherever and save that money.
'Tidy desk, tidy mind' isn't just an old wives tale.
I've used pocket for many years to collect articles and web pages that I want to read later, and kept using it almost by default when Mozilla took it over and integrated it into Firefox.
"Social media" make it seems like some separate entity, it's still public sentiment. You have also bought into the framing the company has used to make itself seem like the victim by referring to "mobs" having power, rather than a company and CEO facing backlash from the public finding out about its terrible culture behind the scenes, as it rightly should.
> "Social media" make it seems like some separate entity, it's still public sentiment.
If your target market is American teenage boys and some Qatari old men really, really hate you their feelings are public sentiment too but you shouldn’t care in the slightest. Likewise what journalists think should be irrelevant compared to what customers think.
It's often not "public sentiment", it's often a handful of nobodies on Twitter that the media deliberately seeks out to push a narrative. The worst part is that the narrative-pushing often isn't insidious, they just want page views.
I think the point is that it isn't a 'public sentiment'. Public sentiment would imply some sort of representative sample. Twitter people engaging in Twitter mob behaviour is not representative. It's like calling the Campus students freakouts when some conservative speaker visit, as 'public sentiment'.
>You have also bought into the framing the company has used to make itself seem like the victim by referring to "mobs" having power,
That's exactly what it was. It wasn't a balanced view on this CEO or company culture. It wasn't even that bad. I remember reading the Verge article, and thinking "Meh". There was one circumstance when the team was asked to work New Years Day in return for getting a month off. Everyone would make that choice. But OK, Korey clear set high expectations and created a culture where working a high number of hours was encouraged - is that bad? "Meh". It's an interesting case study but a investigative report from the The Verge is overkill.
And this is another aspect to this story, this mob behaviour was triggered by 'The Verge', itself a billion-dollar conglomerate owned in part by NBCUniversal, another global media conglomorate. 'Public Sentiment' indeed.
This is a pretty strong and unfounded statement. Would we even have the relatively free and democratic societies we exist in now without the revolutions of centuries past?