Uh, it’s not that they made her look white. They made her look like a Romulan.
Uh, it’s not that they made her look white. They made her look like a Romulan.
Maybe they’ll roll Hulu’s content into Disney+ without raising prices.
Without raising prices, right?
Is it wrong to monetize newspapers or documentaries? This is journalism too, and the people who document it deserve compensation for the work they do.
It’s good to bring exposure to these types of issues, even if the only way to do that is through a commercial platform. There’s nothing wrong with monetizing this.
Headline: “let’s anyone you follow potentially call you up”
Article: “To be able to call someone, they must have sent at least one direct message to your account.”
This makes total sense. Your DM conversation has too much back and forth so you say “let’s take it to an audio or video call”, and then hash it out in person.
There’s a reason Slack has this exact same feature…
I just don’t want to hire the sort of person who posts their opinions about world politics on LinkedIn, regardless of what particular opinion that is. LinkedIn is for work stuff, and I don’t want to work with people who can’t separate that stuff from work.
I still think it’s theoretically possible to do a touch interface right… but nobody has figured it out yet. Any interaction that requires you to navigate between multiple menus while driving is doing it wrong, but if you could get all the relevant buttons on screen, in predictable enough locations that people can click them while driving, it could work….
But at that point I’m not sure there’s much benefit to the screen vs physical buttons.
I’m old enough to remember when it was the Christians getting music they thought was offensive pulled from the public eye, not the other way around.
He estimates he’s had about three interviews a day
Bullllllshit. Three introductory calls with recruiters per day, maybe, but not interviews.
So instead of being fooled by fake and misleading headlines written by journalists, you can get fooled by fake and misleading headlines written by Twitter users? If you insist on not reading the article, I’m not sure one of those is worse than the other.
Is this really much less usable for screen reader users than anybody else?
The sighted user sees the tweet, “check this out!” And a BBC banner but no other information about the link.
The screen reader user hears the tweet, “check this out!” And hears that there is a link.
I guess the image provides a tiny bit more context that the mystery link goes to the BBC, but that ‘s not a ton more.
X should do away with the images too.
I guess if you’re stupid enough to buy a dental plan based on Tom Hanks’s recommendation, you’re also dumb enough to think Tom Hanks still looks that young.
Organizers expressed frustration. Past iterations of the conference have “always felt safe and loving and embracing,” said Bo Young Lee, president of advisory at AnitaB.org, in a LinkedIn post. “And this year, I must admit, I didn’t feel this way.”
“This group was really accepting until all these unacceptable people showed up”
You just went from complaining about having to manually trust certificates, to acting like you’d be ok having to install a browser plugin that tells you which certs to trust….
Why did you need government regulation to solve the original problem? Couldn’t you have just installed a plugin for it?