Is this a meta-joke about links that don't prove what they are supposed to? If so, I don't really get it.
Most of the 2010s section is about some drama about managers/hosters. The only thing that is even remotely applicable is they fact checking a satirical website, and needing to add a "Labeled Satire" tag to clear up confusion around the intensions of the linked site (as opposed to combating people who use the article as an argument without labeling it as such).
Okay, so you're linking a known tabloid whose sensationalized headline is still not about the actual content of the Snopes website being inaccurate, and instead is leaning hard on ad-hominems derived from legal drama between the then-divorcing husband-and-wife team who ran the website originally (with the husband continuing to run it after the wife had stopped working on it years ago).
The only thing in the Wikipedia section you linked that's actually about the content on the Snopes website is the thing where they had to create a label for "Satire" after people got mad that a right-wing satire site (literal, actual, intentional "fake news" but for comedy purposes) had its knowingly-false stories labeled as "false".
(don't come at me with "it was bias"; I lived in the right-wing evangelical bubble through my whole childhood and young adulthood all the way through to the early 2010s; I know the boy-who-cried-persecution complex that lives there, and I also know what the Babylon Bee both was and is quite well; they were never trying to be a real news source, so getting mad that their comedic fiction was labeled "false" is really a stretch).
You haven't exactly shaken my faith in their ability to do the thing they do: find primary sources, present them, and give a verdict based on those primary sources.
The cmd+q is the "quit" command. And the convention in single-window apps (or ones that have a single unambiguous main window) is that the window only closes when the app is quit. So this is command you have to give.
For "document-based" apps (think almost anything where you open multiple files), the application can stay running even if there are no open windows. So you have both cmd+q and cmd+w available to you.
You can probably come up with some apps that don't cleanly fit these two, but that is what Apple has.
As to screen shot commands, it is a three-key chord because it is system-wide, and they did not want to step on any toes that the apps might have. And there are a few versions:
shift-command-3 takes the entire screen
shift-command-4 takes either a window or a section (press space bar to switch between them)
shift-command-5 opens a more menu-based system that includes a timer
Why 3, 4, and 5 (and not 1 or 2)... I don't know. Maybe there was something in those spots at some point.
Command - Shift - 1 was "Eject Floppy Disk in Drive 1" and Command - Shift - 2 was "Eject Floppy Disk in Drive 2". I kid you not, that's how old these keyboard shortcuts are, they date back to the 80's.
Design is not the problem. Having foundry space to manufacture is the bottleneck. It is just all being sucked up (with AI needs being the big additional load).
And to be clear, the foundry space for CPUs/GPUs is not the same as for RAM, which is printed with much larger feature size in order to lower the costs.
I don't think it's that... you have three companies that control over 90% of the market that have been convicted of collusion and price fixing more than once, when there were even more companies in the mix. The memory companies aren't producing at max capacity, they're price fixing.
Beyond this, memory isn't produced on leading end nodes, they're a few generations back as it is. For that matter, Intel isn't even near capacity and has/had plenty of opportunity to produce VRAM and SSD Storage, they got out of both as they became more commoditized.
My guess is that the are requiring this in order to reduce the amount of fraud there (I am sure there still is some, but...). Apple really does not want to be involved when someone can't get into the Taylor Swift concert that they paid some scammer a lot of money for the Apple Wallet ticket they got.
Having an authenticated developer account at least provides some level of speed bump to scammers, and a better starting point for the police.
There are many events that are still sending you a pdf file with your tickets. Until fairly recently, that included major venues too.
The charitable explanation is that the wallet is designed for credit cards, and tickets were an after thought. Though I suspect it is really Apple trying to keep a walled garden, just like they always have.
If cap-and-trade held the same levels forever you would be correct. But all of the cap-and-trade systems I am aware of have a built-in lowering of the cap over time. So they start out doing nothing/very little, then ramp up to meaningful reductions over time.
The idea being both to make it easy to get people to agree today (the reductions are tomorrow's problem), and to allow time (and foresight) for industry to adapt to where things are going.
Public schools are not subsidizing charter schools. Rather per-student money travels with those kids to the school they are actually attending. So since the kids don't go to those schools, neither does the money.
I don't know what state you are in, and there are a number of them where the charter systems are absolute messes and have become fraud paradises (looking at you Florida), but other states things are much better.
Fo instance my kids are in charter schools in California. All charter schools here are required to have tiered lotteries to get in, and after siblings and teachers' kids, the first tier is always kids with an IEP (the problematic/expensive ones). And at my kids school we know one of the kids with a severe problems that the school has bent over backwards to provide the best environment for that little girl.
And every 4 years they have to re-apply for their charter, and one of the front-and-center numbers required for that is how many kids they kick out. And they got grilled on that (which our school passed with flying colors). The charters absolutely had to prove that they are doing things better than the local schools, and our school worked very hard to prove that (and had the numbers to do so). If they didn't, then their charter would have been cut (we heard about other schools that failed this grade).
So I am experiencing a well run charter school, inside a well policed system (California). If you are not, then make that one of the things you cast your vote on: regulations on where your school dollars flow to.
I will note that there is one important advantage that charter schools have: you have to make a choice to get into them. That means that the parents tend to be more involved in their kids' education (if only minority so), and so you get kids that are a bit more motivated to do well. This one area is unfair to the public schools.
> Public schools are not subsidizing charter schools.
That is a blanket statement that is not true everywhere. There is, yes the money going with the student, but there is also money from the general funds that goes to subsidize various aspects of running charter schools.
> I don't know what state you are in, and there are a number of them where the charter systems are absolute messes and have become fraud paradises (looking at you Florida)
One could say it's the entire point of them existing to begin with. Self-selection of the student body is the only thing that actually matters. The rest is a bunch of minor details. Everyone more or less intuitively understands this point but doesn't want to admit it in public.
And no, I do not see that as a bad thing. I see it as a great thing. It's the closest thing to public school academic tracking as we are likely to get. Other western democracies have this one figured out. They don't throw endless amounts of money into bottomless pits with zero expectation of a payback to society.
I would be nothing today if my very working class parents didn't have the ability to opt me out of the local urban school system. I likely would be dead or in prison. What they had going for them was "giving a shit" and a still-functional system where motivated highly engaged parents could opt out of the status quo. Most of my peers would have had similar stories if not for tracking and academically based magnet schools and the like. The system I was able to use to get ahead has since been torn down.
If it had been the choice of "pay for private school" or "go to the local public school" I'd have been forced into the latter with almost zero chance to succeed in life. I ended up back in that system my final year I attended K-12, and the education offered was laughable and perhaps 6-7 year behind what I had become used to. Plus a moderately violent environment on top of it all.
Nearly nation wide enrollment at schools is down, and the funding methods for schools mostly are done on a per-student basis. So school budgets are getting smaller in absolute terms, so they have to get rid of a lot of the fixed spending (mainly schools).
Unfortunately, people hate it when you close their local school, and fight tooth-and-nail against it, but almost never fight for the funding needed to keep those schools open.
In the SF Bay Area almost all of the school districts are facing this. Oakland and San Francisco both had school closures canceled by parent revolts, but are still stuck with the budget shortfalls (and are handing out pick slips). One of the school districts in San Jose looks like they are going to make it through closing 5 elementary schools this year, but it has been a close fight all the way.
The same pattern will also play out with Universities and colleges. 2025 was the year of peak US high school graduation, with the next ~30-50 years of graduation rate declines baked in. We're still a few years away from this trend percolating into the work force.
Given the (often ongoing) educational requirements, if you pro-rate it you still come out much below most positions with similar requirements. We absolutely under-pay teachers in virtually every public school.
My mother retired after working her entire career as a teacher, and I earned close to double her final salary my first year working in tech. She has her masters degree and I did not graduate college. And if you count the stocks I got at the end of that first year, it was over triple.
She was a special ed. teacher teaching emotionally disabled grade schoolers (including a first grader that tried to kill his grandmother with a tv power cord). There is no way that I worked harder than she did.
I think you are mistaking "oil" (crude oil) as a straight stand-in for jet fuel. The former is a raw material (one that has a lot of "flavors"), whereas the latter is one possible product from refinement of that raw material. It should be noted that not all refineries are setup to produce jet fuel, and not all crude oil is viable for making jet fuel. I don't know the details about Europe's mix on refineries an d viable crude oil supplies.
As it happens, about 75% of Europe's jet fuel comes from the Middle East (I don't immediately have numbers for what of that goes through the Persion Gulf). That percentage puts it outside of the range you can correct with market changes (other than most flights don't fly... that is pretty drastic).
European aviation is particularly exposed to the shortage of jet fuel, relying heavily on imports from the Middle East. Around 75 per cent of Europe’s jet fuel imports come from the region, making any prolonged disruption especially problematic for its aviation industry.
You are correct, but I should point out that Russia has described its Kinzhal missiles as hypersonic, when they are really more of a traditional ballistic missile fired horizontally. So very fast (Mach 10), but not as maneuverable as what the U.S. has been calling hypersonic.
Since the original story here does not provide many details, we can't know which side of that fence this falls on (assuming it is real).
Was there any evidence that the Kinzhals fired, for example, toward Kyiv during the current conflict were fired on a depressed trajectory? I remember reading one account that looked like a plain old interception of a ballistic missile. (which is impressive enough to someone who remembers when "Patriot missile" was not exactly synonymous with excellence)
Most of the 2010s section is about some drama about managers/hosters. The only thing that is even remotely applicable is they fact checking a satirical website, and needing to add a "Labeled Satire" tag to clear up confusion around the intensions of the linked site (as opposed to combating people who use the article as an argument without labeling it as such).
reply