It affects American businesses and therefore affects the American economy.
For instance, let's say Brazil's telcos started throttling their citizens' access to Netflix, but not to Braziliflix, a hypothetical Brazilian version of Netflix. That could prevent Netflix from gaining traction in Brazil. Meanwhile, Braziliflix would be free to compete on an even playing field for customers in the US.
Cool, that means consumers in the US will have two viable alternatives, Netflix and Braziliflix, so there will be competition and people will enjoy better level of service. And the two companies will try to out-innovate the other, hiring engineers and lowering prices. Sounds like economic gain to me.
Meanwhile, consumers in Brazil enjoy shitty services and exorbitant prices...
While that scenario is certainly better for American consumers, it's not better for Netflix. Both companies will have to innovate and compete in America, but Braziliflix will essentially get the Brazilian market for free.
That's correct. Note that I never said it was the FCC's job to prevent protectionism in other countries. I was simply answering deciplex's question of how net neutrality could harm the American economy if it were only enforced in the United States.
For what it's worth, I felt the same way when I first dogfooded the new multi-column layout. I couldn't figure out how to read my stream. While reading a post, I kept getting distracted thinking about where I should focus my attention on next. It made scanning my stream more stressful and I was confident that I did not like it. This was before they added the option to switch to a single stream view, so I couldn't do much but submit my feedback and deal with it.
Then, one day, the G+ team added the option to switch back to single stream view. I thought "great!" and immediately went into G+ to switch back to single-stream mode. And I hated it. I hated having to scroll so much. I hated not being able to scan a large number of posts with a quick glance. I hated all the unused space on either side of the stream.
I'm not saying the same thing will happen to you, but maybe give it a week before giving up on it. You may just find that it grows on you.
First off, I admit that I am hypersensitive to any form of bastardization of language. So please don't hate me for I'm going to say, I'm just a victim of my hypersensitivities. But: the word "stream" in the English language means "a steady flow or succession." Or, if you prefer the CS definition, it means "a sequence of data elements made available over time." When I'm looking at a set of boxes of different heights arranged in three columns with no apparent ordering, then I'm not looking at a stream. As other commenters have pointed out, the multi-column layout is more than a different way of displaying things. It redefines the entire experience of receiving posts as something different, something Pinterest-like. Maybe that's a good idea. But please, let's don't call it a stream.
I would normally let this go, but I really dislike the holier than thou attitude with your "bastardization of language". Computer Science and mathematics would be much poorer if it didn't allow for people to generalize concepts. So let's get started.
You live and learn. I always thought "Let's don't" was a joke, something you say facetiously to indicate that you do care about grammar. It turns out that "Let's don't" has arrived in that grey area between grammatically right and wrong where many consider it just non-standard, but not wrong:
It's surprising and bizarre to me how comments like this are common in the CS world. If you are okay with "stream" now being more than just a small river, why are you artificially drawing the line as to what exactly the term may refer to?
I switched from the multi-column to the single column as soon as I found out I could switch back. And I agree, the single column is possibly even more hideous than the multiple panels (but easier to parse).
However, this is not the same view as the previous interface. This was the (very) old:
Since the sides were filled (with random stuff that, granted, you mostly ignored) the whitespace wasn't an issue. With those things removed, the vacuousness is much more noticeable. Also, the color of the whitespace wasn't that ugly gray that screams out "I'm not doing anything! Fill me with something!". Unfortunately, reducing the window size doesn't help because the chat panel will now overlap it. Speaking of which (and this is a change that I'm actually quite upset about), it is now much more difficult to determine which contacts are actually online.
I stared at the panel for a bit, tried to figure out why the people at my contact queue didn't seem to have any green indicators (they were all offline), then tried to determine who _was_ online (difficult since the indicator just blends into the photo, and clicking on a user's profile doesn't always reveal their status). Looking again today, it's still difficult to determine who is actually online.
That's irrelevant to the point in the parent that I was responding to - that every app uses tab to format text. Most apps don't. There are a limited section of apps that use tab for text formatting. I'm pretty sure most web browsers never have, although I welcome examples of web browsers that do.
If people want to write real email they can use a real client, not a web interface.
I think it's relevant. I expect app designers to use the keybindings that make sense based on what the user wants to do instead of blindly adopting whatever guidelines the OS suggests.
If you're in the shell, "tab" should tab-complete, not move to the next terminal you have open.
If you're in a shooting game, "tab" should reload your weapon or show scores or whatever, not advance your cursor to the next target.
If you're in MS word, tab should indent the next line, not move to a different control.
If you're writing an email, same thing, because "writing" is most like "writing in MS word."
Re: your second point, Gmail is a really good "real" web client, at least for most people, and this is a small step away from that.
None of your other examples have the conflict of running within a browser, and the browser already having an expected behaviour for tab, including an expected behaviour for tab inside a text box / edit field.
That's actually not an easy problem to solve. When I'm creating some (desktop) UI that has multiple controls one being a text box, it always destroys the workflow (tab - next, tab - next, tab - indent.. crap..). I did not find a good solution for this so far.
Edit: Thinking about it.. maybe I'll try big G's version.
The title is a bit sensationalist. None of the famous animal ones were destroyed, just some of the straight line ones. It's ridiculous that a company felt that they could just quarry over part of a UNESCO world heritage site, but the title makes it seem like they're all gone when that isn't the case.
From the About Us: "PeruThisWeek.com and LivinginPeru.com are part of the Peru Experience family, a company whose goal is to promote Peru all over the world"
I think the underlying message in this bit of sensationalist journalism is that foreign tourists to should hurry and visit the Nazca lines right away, before they get completely destroyed and are forever lost.
The sad thing is that Peru can barely balance the tourist traffic it gets already while still preserving its natural sites and artifacts. Who know how much damage to the lines would result from a rush of tourists trying to see them before they are gone?
You wrote:
"The sad thing is that Peru can barely balance the tourist traffic it gets already while still preserving its natural sites and artifacts. "
Any facts/numbres to back up this claim ?
Do you mean Machu Pichu (Where this is true) or all of Peru ?
I recently visited Nazca and it was not particularly busy at all. ( Compared to last years visit to Yosemite valley it was refreshing not to wait in line to see anything)
Yeah, sorry, no numbers... I was drawing on anecdotal experiences.
I've also been to Nazca and my impression was that though the tourist traffic was only a tiny fraction of Machu Picchu, the town couldn't handle much more of it. Even in off season the airport was booked to capacity and people had to wait hours for scheduled flights.
Another example (besides Machu Picchu) that comes to mind is Paracas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracas_National_Reserve). It's hardly a mainstream tourist attraction, but the degradation from the tourist industry was pretty apparent when I visited in 2009, despite being a protected area.
I was in Peru for a month at the beginning of the year and there were similar rumors abound regarding the closing of the famous Inka Trail in a few years. Not to lessen the story but sometimes I wonder if some of these are planted to encourage people to visit these place "before they're gone".
From what I saw, these popular tourist sites are fine as the government realizes the importance of their preservation to maintain the tourist industry. Every guide I talked to about the Inca Trail rumor said it will never happen. They close the trail every February (slowest season, dangerous too with the rain) for maintenance and also limit the number of groups on the paths at anytime by issuing a limited number of permits.
This isn't required in Nazca, as you fly over on a plane, so beyond the carbon impact of flying, I can't see it getting to a point where there are "too many tourists" that would damage the lines.
No, people should not, and do not, have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property, especially when what they're doing puts other people's lives in danger. That's why we have laws against things like drinking and driving.
That's not to say that I think Glass should be outlawed while driving. But lawmakers certainly have the right and responsibility to question whether it should be.
Very cool. Although now it's going to be even more difficult to tell whether someone is talking to you, their Bluetooth headset, or their augmented reality glasses.
I'm hoping they build in Google Translate into these things. They could be the real life version of the Babel fish.
My non-programmer friends and family are always bewildered when I tell them that I hope my daughter doesn't grow up to be a programmer. The reason why is because I'm afraid her life would be like the OP's. There is indeed a subtle sexism in our industry. That's why things like yesterday's Sqoot screwup happen so frequently.
Of course, every workplace is different and I'm sure there are plenty of places where women don't have to deal with the bullshit described in this article. However, they are far from the norm. I can see why the OP would want to leave the industry rather than be the person constantly reporting people to HR and lecturing them about proper behavior. It may be the right thing to do, but it's also extremely uncomfortable and just as likely to create an even more hostile working environment than before.
You clearly have not experienced discrimination before. It's not just the act of being discriminated against, it's the memories that it invokes and the reminder of how little has changed.
Believe me, friend, I have experienced discrimination. My entire family has. They have been driven away from their home because of their nationality. Then I was mocked and humiliated by other kids as the-kid-who-cant-speak-our-language. Then there was the high school and all the "nice" things it holds for the nerds. It might well be that I have experienced more discrimination than some of the furiously anti-sexist people here. Yet I don't have anything against racial, sexist, religious or other kinds of "sensitive" jokes. They are jokes. They are not meant to be taken seriously. It's OK to laugh at them if you find them funny. If you don't, shut up and let other people laugh. Don't be a self-important asshole. After all, your precious nationality/religion/sex/sexual orientation is worth exactly nothing.
It's not just that women reading this flyer wouldn't be interested in showing up, it's that they are instantly reminded of how the programming world perceives them and their place in the industry. It reminds them of the sexism they've endured their entire professional careers and it reminds them of how little has changed.
"Lots of hot men serving beers" isn't a very comparable example because male programmers haven't been discriminated against (at least, not professionally). A better example would be if the flyer were changed to "lots of Mexicans serving beers" or "lots of African Americans serving beers". Wouldn't that offend you even if you were able to somehow derive how the marketing people arrived at this approach?
