I can't really speak for other Android users, but in those eras I either owned or was paying more attention to the HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Pixel, etc. phones because of their aftermarket OS support.
> With that said, If I could go back, I'd just start with learning all the notes on the fretboard, all the basic chord and scale shapes. It's actually not that hard, but you need motivation.
I agree, but if the guitar is someone's first instrument it may also be their only creative outlet or seen as a means to an end. They're almost guaranteed to do what you did and probably even skip the lessons.
I think the physical act of playing an instrument is very overrated, and music education is underrated. Even just a few years of putting kids in the school band goes a long way. Being familiar with sightreading and basic music theory sounds boring, but it makes everything else a breeze when they want to learn something on their own.
Of course, there are also tons of people who were in a bad program and it was worse than nothing for their motivation. That's another topic though.
> “It’s an incredibly exciting finding, because for so long, the intellectual aspects of native Native American cultures have really been sidelined, if not consciously suppressed by colonial powers,” Wiener said.
Really? That's what this is motivated by? Plain old boring science and more objective documentation of artifacts aren't good enough reasons?
How is anything being suppressed if there are a ton of random stories constantly being published about Native Americans apparently being secret geniuses with magical powers?
This is borderline racist. NBC has really gone down the shitter.
> Madden left legal practice in 2017 and started independent research on the Olmec civilization, an early Mesoamerican population, before he began a master’s program in archaeology — his “original love” — in 2022.
At least they're honest about who they're interviewing and leave it up to the reader to decide credibility?
This is becoming more and more common. I recently read an article about the male genetic material's influence on pregnancy complications and it included a similar blurb about women's rights and colonialism (don't ask me how that last one is related). Like, just state the findings and your conclusions from them. No need to attempt to save the world.
Im not American, so my knowledge on the natives, or Indians as I'm told they prefer to call themselves, was based on media made by these colonial powers. I started reading into the subject recently and I find that the only thing the colonial powers seem to miss out is the brutal treatment of women, the gang rapes and the torture. Interestingly enough, the powers that be in New York that never had dealings with the Indians face to face had the same picture of peace loving land hippies in mind when telling southerners how to negotiate with them.
The comanche specifically were some of the most impressive and frightening people I've ever read about.
The first problem with what you know: there were many different tribes and they didn't share common culture. They did have some trade, but there was no unified culture.
Second problem: diseases (smallpox is the best known) spread much faster than the Europeans and so most of what we they could see was influenced by large numbers of dead people in the previous generation that wasn't recovered from. It is a lot easier to be peaceful with your neighbors when there are no population pressures (that is everyone can eat enough on the land you have). Likewise it is easier to give away "stuff" when you have a lot of extras from older generations that nobody needs.
Third, guns and horses allowed for ways to life that were not possible before. The great nomadic horse tribes - that was clearly observed, but the way of life depends on things the Europeans brought not long before. It is really hard to know what the culture was like before the horse arrived. There is reason to suspect that those great nomadic tribes where heading to a population collapse of the bison herds because the horse and guns enabled over hunting (but of course Europeans arrived before that could happen, and did their own number on the herds).
I do see the connection. That was my point. We went from overt racism (by the oppressors alleged by NBC) to covert racism (by NBC themselves). We could have done without the virtue signaling.
I also say "alleged" because in most cases those oppressors are the other half of the family tree for the people we have alive today we're calling some particular outgroup. News organizations like NBC used to treat these topics with more care to avoid "othering" and full awareness that modern subjects are a mixed people with a ton of nuance. This is the USA, for crying out loud.
Now if you really want your "woosh", let's consider the stereotype of native americans owning casinos, and this article is about their ancient dice. :-)
I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that your "ton of random stories constantly being published about Native Americans apparently being secret geniuses with magical powers" are _themselves_ evidence of exactly the sort of unserious reporting that the researcher (NOT NBC) claims; they sideline and obscure the realities of the intellectual aspects.
I don't know if you're aware how editors choose what and how to publish, or how much of the journalist's writing gets thrown out.
NBC decided what to assign to the journalist, decided the goals the editor should have in mind, approved the editor's decisions, and ultimately let it publish.
When they push these stories and present them this way, the archaeologist is by far the least to blame even if I disagree with their words.
I'm already aware of the crazy reasons people do the work they love. It's just how the world goes 'round. NBC could have left that crap out along with the other stuff they cut.
I'm very confident the interview was much longer. Neither the interviewees nor journalists have any idea how the story will be spun. Some of these interviews drag on for so long it's practically interrogation tactics to see what shakes out.
It is indeed NBC's decision to focus on the "dice" out of all the artifacts shown. It is NBC's decision to choose the most sensational quotes to run with. It is NBC's decision to go looking for the most colorful people to interview and tap them whenever they want to push a theme.
Calling something 'virtue signalling' in 2026 is in itself a form of virtue signalling as to what kind of beliefs you hold. Frankly I think we could all do without those things breathlessly clogging up the page because people want to desperately overreach into what someone said for the sake of making an inane point.
I'm offended anytime any group is in the news and the report goes from facts to speculation on what that must mean that is obviously rooted in some modern stereotype. Natives commonly get this treatment, but there are plenty of other groups it happens to as well.
print spoolers typically consume space in /var/ for the files being printed and then stream them to the device through the output filters. The amount of data in play to render a page is not typically that big. Yes, there are corner cases analogous to a zip bomb which can make the print model explode. No, in practice this isn't very normal: printing is one of the spaces where compression of the data is entirely normal. "please print another row of black, where black is that thing I told you before, do that 2048 times and then come back"
Huh? I don't have any PDF files larger than 150 MB (2500+ pages long).
It won't be a problem. 512 MB is more than enough. The previous revision had 256 MB (that's a bit tight), and the newer PCB does not have RAM less than 1 GB.
Printing stack supports streaming, either per-band (part of a single page) or per-page. Even 1200 DPI CMYK color page is less than 50 MB.
The longer term value of having moon outposts for observation, mining, etc. will pay off massively.
This is way bigger than just putting people on the moon or hubris. It's the prerequisite for everything we've also said about Mars. Elon just muddied the waters so much that people are so negative about anything else.
> everything that matters is controlled by other people somewhere else who make strange decisions
This is a very interesting take and I think you're on to something. Might all this friction simply be a matter of not understanding or not agreeing with the decisions being made?
At least in my experience. Most large companies have something that's working quite well and brings in all the money, which means your particular product or feature doesn't really matter. Plenty of times I've spent up to 6 months building a feature only for some upper management or disagreement somewhere result in the whole thing never being released. But it doesn't matter because my 6 months of wages don't really matter much in the companies big picture which is still on track.
So I don't sweat about getting work out as fast as possible when immense waste happens that I don't have control over. If I was in a very small company where I had reason to care and control over things, I'd be far more incentivized to work harder.
> If I was in a very small company where I had reason to care and control over things, I'd be far more incentivized to work harder.
Exactly. This is the point being missed by the people saying that only some people want to work hard and they go to startups. Everyone would if they were closer to the stakes of their work (impact, decision making, accountability, authority etc)
Not being a stakeholder in them yeah. Which doesnt even necessitate power, but even just the right to be informed and kept abreast of them. The author makes this point in the article
The "realpolitik" is in fact, and almost by definition, not online.
I think a ton of people didn't get the memo during the first Trump term, and are still baffled by it during his second one.
Republicans have never used the media like the Democrats. Conservative values change very slowly and are disseminated through institutions like the military, religion, etc. Trump has taken it to the next level by only ever using the internet to troll the chronically online and anyone else out of the loop. That's radio discipline.
Nah, this is giving him far too much credit. I've read many a theory about how this or that thing that has been said is just a ruse or a troll and the real plan makes so much more sense and his actions have done nothing to demonstrate that.
I've also heard what you're saying before and I'm equally confused by this take.
I'm not saying the Republicans keep their plans secret. The brutal simplicity is the main appeal for Republican voters. They emphatically don't want discussion. They want action. There's nothing to pick apart or analyze, and that's the point. It's hard to argue with someone waving a big stick.
> Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and prominent critic of Neoconservatism, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism": "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms", a "low tolerance for diplomacy", a "readiness to use military force", an "emphasis on US unilateral action", a "disdain for multilateral organizations" and a "focus on the Middle East".
This is the same game plan since the 1970s. If you want to hear any debate about it, you're gonna have to go that far back. Nobody in today's Republican party is ever going to entertain or reiterate any of this because it will just make them look weak to voters.
OK, then what's the ruse that's got the online people so distracted? Because what you've linked tends to be what people are getting angry about (I mean, there's other things as well, but this is the latest one). Like, the main thing is that there's lot's of action, pretty much none of it actually making much sense.
> what's the ruse that's got the online people so distracted
Now you may understand why the Republicans are constantly and loudly asking that same question and insisting that all of social media is hoaxes/conspiracies/lies.
I know these answers all seem so simple and convenient, but they're just plain true. Take it for what it is.
> none of it actually making much sense
I think you just disagree with how little depth there is to this, and while that's understandable, I wouldn't go as far as saying it doesn't make sense.
Given that religions are losing members, especially the youth, and that the most people do not join the military, what will keep disseminating the ideas in the future?
For now, the neoconservatives are running the Republican party. They also have a pretty clear game plan that doesn't require constant chatter. I am just stating where the values originate, and of course things can get murky over time without stronger leadership.
The equivalent question for the Democrat party would be where they expect to find new leaders when their voter base is increasingly antisocial and doesn't believe in higher education.
They used to allow downloads of all books, which you could then rip the DRM from, but they got rid of that last year. Huge disappointment, and is why I don't buy books on Kindle anymore.
It's an enjoyable read, hopefully it's the start of a whole new arc in the series with more to come. My only real complaint is it's short and I want more. If you never read his other Interdependency series, it's also great.
reply