>it sometimes feels that our current Governments cannot bring forward decent legislation on complex tech issues.
No, the issue is not advanced technology but special interests. When the later take priority over resolving troubling consequences, you get results like those two articles.
Politicians are not meant to understand the areas they regulate. Even if they were IT professionals, they still would not understand all the other professions.
>With colleagues at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Broniatowski looked at 899 vaccine-related tweets sent from mid-2014 to late 2017.
If there were either hundreds or at least several tens of thousands tweets like that, or if all of the tweets they've screened were highly popular, then I could take that study seriously.
As it is, however, this appears to be a targeted evaluation failing to qualify the significance of those tweets' impact.
Uh, this post sounds like an ad. The pricing model of that service obviously targets businesses instead of consumers, so it's kind of obvious from where the demand would come.
>A third-party for-profit business with sketchy monetization
What is exactly is sketchy? What is bad about a for-profit business?
>though they don't tell what you'll have to pay up-front
Where did you get that? You're registering for a free account. If you want to upgrade, you select a plan. All information of the features you would unlock are available upfront.
For one, it's not as accessible to all of Mozilla's users. Remember, their goal is to help the poor and the young as well as SV programmers.
Besides that, not necessarily anything — there are lots of great businesses out there — but it creates a greater possibility of mismatched incentives than something like Mozilla. My highest goal in a feed reader is to be able to keep up to date with feeds hassle-free. A for-profit business's highest goal is to make money. The best way for them to achieve their goal might be helping me achieve my goal as efficiently as possible, or it might not.
> Where did you get that? You're registering for a free account. If you want to upgrade, you select a plan. All information of the features you would unlock are available upfront.
Can you find for me the part on Feedly's front page where it tells you what all the limitations on a free account are, which are relieved by upgrading to a pro account? I can't find any place where it even lets you know there's more than one kind of account. For a couple of specific examples:
- It doesn't mention that there's a limit on subscriptions on a free account.
- Many of the integrations mentioned on the front page don't appear to be enabled for a free account (e.g. OneNote, EverNote, Slack).
>For one, it's not as accessible to all of Mozilla's users. Remember, their goal is to help the poor and the young as well as SV programmers.
What nonsense is this? How is a free account inaccessible, and how are Mozilla's(??) users specifically affected?
>(...) there are lots of great businesses out there — but it creates a greater possibility of mismatched incentives than something like Mozilla. (...) The best way for them to achieve their goal might be helping me achieve my goal as efficiently as possible, or it might not.
So, you don't have an argument against them. Just a bunch of maybes.
...
I don't like Feedly, so be my guest if you want to hate it. However, both services list all the features of every plan once you're in. A lot of per account or freemium services do that, it's nothing new.
Really disappointed in Mozilla. After all, it's quite obvious, if you don't modernize and even continue to hide a feature for years, its usage won't improve unless external events drive the demand.
And since RSS readers counter the interests of both ad- and subscription-driven media, it's unlikely there will be any demand generated by anyone else other than RSS aggregators themselves.
It used to be a way for media to keep their readers updated about new content, which was in line with the interests of both subscription and ad driven media. But since then we've come to have Twitter, Facebook, mobile apps with notifications, even websites with notifications, so RSS has become somewhat redundant.
Uh, what have notifications anything to do with RSS? Practically all all web services and mobile apps for it offer them.
Social media, on the other hand, is an alternative solution to the consumption of information, not inherently a better form of aggregation.
It is mainly the addiction to social feedback that attracts people to social media, while RSS is a boring stream of data you've specifically decided to process.
RSS was created in 1999, when short of visiting a website it was the only way to get updates about new content. Now, there are other ways which people already use and like, addiction or not.
When RSS was created is irrelevant, when its age does not hinder innovation in its implementations. It's like saying email or phone calls are obsolete because social media has taken over.
Off-topic: Why is everyone adopting the term fake news, thus leaving a linguistic legacy of that illiterate mafiosi? He obviously used that neologism due to his limited vocabulary, and popularized it further as a buzzword of his campaign.
> Why is everyone adopting the term fake news, thus leaving a linguistic legacy of that illiterate mafiosi?
He adopted it as a way of neutralizing it because other people were using it about propaganda supporting him that appeared, at the time, to follow what RAND Corp had earlier described as the “firehose of falsehoods” propaganda model employed in recent years by the Russian government (and with the benefit of hindsight appears to have been, in no small part, actual Russian government propaganda, which would explain it following that model.)
So, I guess there is a sense in which it connects to his legacy, but not the way you seem to think.
> He obviously used that neologism due to his limited vocabulary
Trump may be an idiot, but the people crafting his campaign messaging were not, and his use of “fake news” was much more careful than you suggest (and effective, as your own mistaken idea of how it came to be prominent in the 2016 campaign illustrates.)
>but the people crafting his campaign messaging were not
Yeah, many people would dispute that. In particular, you can't forget that he rarely followed scripts. His team definitely observed and measured what people and the press responded to, and brainstormed how it might benefit them in the future. But it certainly all started as what he could think of or remember best.
The success of campaign slogans and buzzword relies heavily on creativity, luck, and your own success. The work the campaign teams invest is usually more about damage control than profound strategies on how to rule society.
>So, I guess there is a sense in which it connects to his legacy, but not the way you seem to think.
What are You talking about?
Fake news had been a trivial phrase, used in different contexts throughout the years but without any grand emphasis on its own existence—hence the lack of an entry in dictionaries. Even throughout 2016, it had no explicit connection to Trump. Hillary also used it shortly before Trump famously called CNN out as fake news. [1] Even then the term was an unnecessarily misleading trivialization. But Trump redefined and weaponized that afterwards as his own catchphrase.
My recollection is quite different. I remember his political opponents started to use it quite extensively during the Clinton campaign, but that was a mistake, because trust in journalism is lowest amongst Republicans. So Trump started using it in the sense of "what, that isn't fake news, YOUR news is fake news" and from there it took off. But it's a term used mostly by the left, as far as I can tell. At least they're much more obsessed with the idea.
>In the second-quarter results, Intel said that its 10-nanometer yields are "on track" with systems on the market in the second half of 2019. Krzanich's previous perspective wasn't specific on whether they would arrive in the first half of next year or in the second half. On the conference call with analysts on Thursday, Swan was more specific and said products would be on shelves in time for the holiday season.
>Murthy Renduchintala, group president of the technology, systems architecture and client group, said on the call that the products that will become available in 2019 are client computing products, whereas products for data center use will come "shortly after." The stock fell further after those comments but later rebounded as executives talked about ongoing research and development for next-generation 7-nanometer technology.
>Murthy Renduchintala, group president of the technology, systems architecture and client group, said on the call that the products that will become available in 2019 are client computing products,
This sounds to me like Apple telling Intel. We plan to ship new MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac and Mac Pro after 2019 Keynote. If you don't deliver we will kick all of Intel's product out of our roadmap. Including the modem business, which although offer no profits value but lots of investor are looking at it.
No, the issue is not advanced technology but special interests. When the later take priority over resolving troubling consequences, you get results like those two articles.
Politicians are not meant to understand the areas they regulate. Even if they were IT professionals, they still would not understand all the other professions.