I'm almost positive that it's both and also a short-sighted "give the customer what they ask for" approach. You could easily achieve local auto save, or a clear "upload to the cloud" UX, or whatever else. But the user got confused about saving documents, sooooo cloud.
Then the data centralization is a nice plus that makes it impossible to go back on.
The only reason the user got confused was because of the terrible fucking cloud-first save dialogs that they kept pushing. And all the different iterations of OneDrive that weren't the same thing.
It's also getting tiring seeing everything dumbed down for dumb people. I thought that people would learn how to use computers, and become empowered to integrate technology into their lives in the way that works for them. Instead, they have just become dumber than ever and more helpless and dependent.
No, I get that. I was responding specifically to the idea of going around trying to publicly shame people based on just seeing them with their service animal.
Under the ADA, the kind of dog youre describing would be a service dog, same as any other. "Therapy dog" isn't a term that the ADA uses.
You can totally have a legitimate service dog for invisible disabilities.
Licenses don't mean anything in the US btw. The law does not require it and having a "license" is meaningless. Sometimes a training organization might vouch for the dogs skills, but that isn't a license and doesn't legally mean anything.
In the US it's the Fair Housing Act. Basically if the dog is providing necessary emotional support then the landlord can't prevent them from being with you in your home (I think there might be a carve out for nuisance dogs, but the dog doesn't need to be specifically trained for anything in particular to qualify).
It's a really low bar for a dog to qualify as an Emotional Support Animal. Which is great for people who need it, but is SO easy to abuse.
It only gives permission for someone to live with their dog though. It doesn't give someone any rights to bring their dog to restaurants and stuff though, even though people try. That's reserved for Service Animals.
Your dog still needs to be under control though. The ADA is somewhat vague on what that means but it is a behavior standard and if someone's dog is misbehaving you can kick out the dog (the human needs to be allowed to return without the animal).
We need to get much safer dog parks. Too many of them are just huge areas of off leash dogs and it's terrible for the dogs involved. It breeds bad play behaviors, dog-dog reactivity, spreads disease between dogs, and encouraged bad owners who just let their dog run free unsupervised.
Dogs that spend a lot of time in dog parks are way more likely to behave badly when they see other dogs when they are out for a walk.
It's so weird for me to see anti dog park talk on the internet because my experience has been very positive with dog parks in general. Almost all the dogs are basically fine, serious behavioral issues are rare. Sometimes dogs get a little too rowdy playing but owners are always quick to step in. I wonder if it's a regional dog owner culture thing (I'm in a suburb of Seattle for reference).
Were there gaping narrative discontinuities...? Certainly.
But that 80s voice acting in the English dub... chef's kiss. The guy who voiced Milo("Asbel" in the movie) was the voice of Leonardo from Ninja Turtles and Kaneda from original dub of Akira!! (Cam Clark)
If I watch any version, I watch Warriors of the Wind. It really is the "Hollywood version" of Nausicaa.
Yeah, the newer one is better, but it doesn't hold a candle to the manga so give me that 80s synth and big hair voice acting any day.
Also I was like 5 when I saw it so nostalgia goggles.
It wasn’t that bad. It cut a few scenes but most of the movie is still there perfectly intact. It even won film festival awards. The movie mostly flopped in the US market on account it being distributed on a very low budget limited release against Rambo and The Goonies. SpaceHunterM on YouTube made a good video explaining a lot of misconceptions, if you want to check that out.
> Without that we delay treatment, increase costs, and slow research. And people die while we wait.
This is for new vaccines: we're not halting administration of existing vaccines. And the time taken for testing new vaccines seems reasonable for safety purposes, as it would be for any other medicine.
"New vaccines" in this case includes, as an example, influenza vaccines that use the same mechanism that has already been proven safe and effective and which need to be developed and deployed in the (short) time between determining the most likely influenza strains for the year and the beginning of flu season.
If annual influenza vaccines cannot be approved in time for flu season and flu deaths increase significantly over the years to come, would you consider that justifiable?
That’s a good question. No I wouldn’t consider it justifiable. I think newer versions of existing vaccines shouldn’t qualify as ‘new vaccines’.
The article mentions ‘
four years ago is unacceptable so it sounds like they want to retest new versions every four years, rather than every new version.
> The article mentions ‘ four years ago is unacceptable so it sounds like they want to retest new versions every four years, rather than every new version.
Your choice of quote makes it seem like you are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the article. In more context:
> "As we've said before, trials from four years ago conducted in people without natural immunity no longer suffice. A four-year-old trial is also not a blank check for new vaccines each year without clinical trial data, unlike the flu shot which has been tried and tested for more than 80 years," Nixon said in a statement he had earlier sent to The Washington Post. "The public deserves transparency and gold-standard science — especially with evolving products."
This states that a Covid vaccine passing the placebo-controlled study requirement 4 years ago will not suffice to accept updated versions of the same Covid vaccine -- not that vaccines and/or delivery mechanisms will only need to be tested every 4 years. More concisely: it's an upper bound, but not a lower bound.
> This states that a Covid vaccine passing the placebo-controlled study requirement 4 years ago will not suffice to accept updated versions of the same Covid vaccine
Yes. That is what the comment you were replying to states.
> More concisely: it's an upper bound, but not a lower bound.
You can’t say it’s any bound at all. Maybe more than two milliseconds old (less than four years) is unacceptable, maybe 16 millennia (more than four years) is unacceptable. They’re just thinking about four years as being unacceptable. Which sounds reasonable.
I can't find my Amazon Prime rewards card in your search, any chance it's in there under a different name?
And for my Discover It card a tool like this is t very useful unless it can handle the rotating reward category (I think one of the Chase freedom cards also has a similar program).
I can easily remember most of my static rewards categories, but managing the rotating categories is harder and is where a tool like this would help me best.
Then the data centralization is a nice plus that makes it impossible to go back on.