I'm pretty sure the major messengers all had integrations with at least US mobile providers. Because if you didn't have a messaging plan, you'd get charged 10 cents per message as it was delivered over SMS.
IMHO, the reason a mobile first network was more compelling than a desktop first network is that people tend to have their phones on them, while their desktops tend to be at their desks. For better or worse, you can always reach me on my phone.
Tencent developed QQ on desktop and then WeChat on mobile, but afaik, didn't bridge the two networks.
Accuracy and precision is vital in communication. I agree that the speaker does have a responsibility to know his audience and shouldn't use fancy words to project intellect, education, or status. However, if there is an opportunity to be more exact, one should take it without remorse.
Accuracy and precision is sometimes vital, but modifying words with very is frequently a good way of achieving that.
"I want a fast game", "I want a very fast game". This site suggests "rapid", "breakneck", and "dashing" as alternatives for "very fast". "Very fast" is pretty clear very precise compared to those words. Maybe I could speak about "a breakneck pace" instead, but would I have really gained anything other than showing off my vocabulary?
Speaking of very precise, it doesn't even have a suggestion for an alternative to that - though admittedly if I wasn't forcing things I would have phrased that sentence as "more precise than those words".
What does "very fast" actually convey that "fast" doesn't, unless you have a specific example of "fast" to compare with?
The idea isn't that "rapid" means "very fast" (I don't think it even necessarily means faster than "fast"). It's that people will use "very fast" when they feel that "fast" lacks the punch the sentence needs, even when they don't actually mean anything different from "fast".
You're narrowing the range of things that you're describing to not include "normal fast". This can be useful for a variety of reasons. You might be instructing people to skate extra fast this game, while avoiding implying that they usually don't meet the criteria of the word fast. You might be acknowledging that coup is a fast board game, but saying you only have time for an unusually short round of coup (even for coup) before you need to leave.
To quote the person I initially responded to
> However, if there is an opportunity to be more exact, one should take it without remorse.
That is what "very fast" commonly does over "fast". It costs next to nothing, and it specifies the meaning slightly more precisely.
---
I don't think "rapid" is really a convincing alternative to "very fast" in any case where the "very" is warranted. I liked the "breakneck" suggestion by the site a bit more, but in most contexts I don't think that it's better, just different.
I would agree that accuracy is important, and sometimes technical words can help with this. But all too often people use big words just to sound intelligent and only end up obscuring their message.
I agree completely. Just don't take someones plainly worded communication with less value, only because it's plainly worded.
Of course, this all falls completely apart with groups containing a significant number of members with <language> as a second language, where plain speech is required.
I live in an old house with roommates that aren't on the same work / life schedule. They're considerate but moving around on old floors with thin walls makes noise. Keeping a box fan on when I go to sleep and leaving it on all night means that I can tune out the noise of them being normal humans before I fall asleep and when they wake up earlier than me.
Are there any solutions that can account for noise on a varied schedule?
It's how I did. Now I'm a professional frontend developer with adequate Adobe skills and a license paid for by the company that frequently come in handy on the job.
Didn't this also use to be the case with MS Windows and MS Office? I always thought they were so easy to crack, and Microsoft was so prone to turn a blind eye to pirate copies at home, because this led to employees familiar with their products at the office. And they did go after pirated software at the office.
Microsoft gives everything for free to students, except office.
Check with your university. This shall includes hundreds of software, all editions of Windows both 32 bits and 64bits, as well as all editions of Visual Studio Ultimate, plus databases and other tools.
They were easy to pirate up until CS6, nothing more than a keygen (or pregenerated key) and a couple blocks in /etc/hosts.
After that they really cracked down on piracy, and at the same time offer the CC subscription decently cheap (50$ a month) that honestly the risk of malware isn't worth it any more.
So one can pay $700 a year to Adobe or pay 1-2 month of student rent for that year. I'd say Adobe is pushing hard for piracy trying to get blood from a stone (students).
$50/month is the full price for the most complete bundle. Adobe has a student price at a lower rate that I can't be bothered to look up just as you couldn't be bother to look up before making your comment.
And even the 50$ - that's about the price of getting wasted once a month which most students can afford. The key difference between CS and CC is that you don't have to up-front hundreds/thousands of dollars.
More like they eventually join mid-size plus companies which Adobe tracks down to make them pay for their photoshop (if they detect it on a company network they will reach out). Or they simply just pay for it because they can and/or are professional/law abiding people.
Adobe doesn't spend copyright enforcement time on individuals much.
Me too. I distinctly remember the warez group editing the startup image of PS 6, which had the code name Venus in Furs. Apparently that was 20 years ago!
Anyhow, I know that much of my early software license transgressions resulted in actual software licenses.
They already have a bulk retail subscription with Sams Club. A membership that includes access to both the retail store and one-day walmart.com shipping could be attractive.
Possible evidence they could be thinking about this: a few minutes ago I filled out a survey of their's about my last Walmart.com purchase, and one of the questions asked was if I, or an immediate family member had a Sam's Club membership.
> No one should be helping creating life if they are not open to at least basic contact with the human beings they have created.
The system is anonymous exactly because people like the one you're replying to are willing to help provide the biological material and nothing more. Requiring communication with a person that, beyond DNA, is a complete wildcard seems like a steep barrier to donation that would significantly decline overall donations.
That's my point - providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical.
I would encourage you to look at some of the research - 70%+ of "anonymous" sperm donors are actually open to contact with their genetic offspring.
Optimizing for the health and welfare of intended parents while ignoring the well-being of the actual human beings that are created is incredibly short-sighted.
A decrease in the overall amount of donations is a significantly smaller problem than the pain and risk created by anonymous donations (that are, as I've said, no longer anonymous because of the existence of these websites).
> providing the biological material and nothing more is inherently unethical.
Why is it inherently unethical?
Donors are willing to provide a good/service, and part of the price is sometimes their anonymity. (I am sure many don't mind either way.) I'm not sure that anonymous donation is _possible_ anymore, given DNA testing, but even if it were, I don't see how being willing to donate is unethical if one wanted to stay anonymous.
Interesting discussion, even though some responses are emotionally charged, understandably :-)
IMHO, the key ethical question is, how can a person (the child in question) be made party to a contract in which they have no input?
Is it unreasonable to give them full/veto choice over the matter of contacting genetic parents -- because that is the only place in the story where they have any agency? Donors & receivers have full agency at the point of exchange.
Further, if one is willing to conceptually agree that a child might have needs/rights beyond what parents (either adoptive or biological) might be willing to provide for, then one is necessarily led to seek & consider data on possible harms (emotional or otherwise) to children who do not have the choice to contact their biological parents.
Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin.
Intentionally depriving someone of that right through anonymous donation is unethical.
On a broader level, I believe that taking an action that causes no harm to oneself but causes harm upon another person is unethical.
Wanting to stay anonymous has a harmful effect on the actual human beings being created here - I can cite research and/or hundreds of anecdotal conversations and relationships I have had with real-life people conceived this way.
> Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child asserts that everyone has a right to know their genetic origin.
No, it doesn't. The child has a right to "know his or her parents". It does not specifically state "biological" parents. Parents are the people who raise you and are legally responsible for you.
> I believe that taking an action that causes no harm to oneself but causes harm upon another person is unethical.
I agree with that statement in general, but don't see how this applies. If someone donates sperm anonymously, that anonymity does not cause harm to any child conceived with that sperm. That child may later really want to know where their genes come from, but that's not harm. If the offspring feels some sort of anguish over this, that's a self-inflicted harm.
Having said all that, I would really prefer that couples with severe fertility issues would instead adopt. Arguably the planet is already overpopulated, and there are plenty of unwanted kids who need parents. But I'm also one of those people who doesn't understand how people feel the need that they must reproduce, so clearly I'm missing something that the mainstream believes.
Adoption is a lot of work, money, time and vetting, especially if you don't want a child with physical issues, to look like the parents or to go international.
Fertility treatments can be paid by health insurance and there is no 'parent vetting' process to delay things. Often fertility issues are one sided, so at least the children will be half of the couple.
I'm not in such a position, but if I wanted to learn about my ancestry and the source of my conception was reduced to someone else's anonymous transaction I think I'd be quite upset.
Scientific studies show that creating a child with your genetic material while systematically denying them any chance to meet you results in poorer outcomes. Children from anonymous donation are at higher risk for drugs, depression, crime, etc.
