Yes, they are, but only in news print. There have been multiple studies done that show that serifed fonts are easier to read on rough textures like newspaper but that screens are much easier to read with sans serif fonts. I personally despise serifed fonts and the fact that firefox makes it easy to override them is the reason why I still use firefox. I get so damn aggravated when a site somehow still pushes serifed fonts on me. I despise serifs the same way many people despise comic sans. They are just horrible to read.

Every single use of the word "capitalism" means the poster spews propaganda rather than logic. The word has become useless.

There are two main definitions:
  * the most used one (by several orders of magnitude!): "any economic system other than communism, including even those that don't use money at all (like early kibbutzim), except for neanderthals ("primitive communism")". This meaning has been used in communist countries to refer to the outside world; we had entire universities devoted to such concepts.
  * free market economy. This one would exclude eg. current USA as they have devolved into corporatism. Stuff like bailouts is an anathema to free market. Free market has its flaws (see eg. late 19th century USA) but makes most of current USA ills impossible: high insulin prices? New makers will pop up in months! As long as the govt deals with monopolies and fraud, it's a sane system.

But here... the pokemon card market is currently saner than stocks.

Come on, just 2nd or 3rd? You can do better, next year we'll be #1 again!

Or even better, 3:4. I use a central 16:10 30" (2560:1600) plus two 3:4 24" (1200:1600) on the sides. An useless ratio 16:9 on the top sits mostly unused.

No, it's a great business plan. Add a feature that means the car is undrivable if the customer disables or blocks your location-tracking-for-sale device. Bonus! Make it an additional option they PAID for!

Why would a grocery chain pull out if they can drop some products and give that shelf space to the rest?

Releasing a database of personal info? Shame on you! But we have laws against that...

I understand why they want it to be needed but it absolutely is not. Casting exists because the complex handoff scheme enables them to weaponize the system against the owner of the devices. Plain streaming with a source and playback destination is massively simpler and no handoff needed and most of all no DRM to weaponize against the owners.

It absolutely is useless technology. There is simpler and faster technology that cannot be weaponized against the owner of the device. That technology is direct streaming from a source. The complex handoff that takes place in casting is idiotic and unnecessary and again only exists because it is weaponized against the owner of the devices.

Casting always was a technology that was never needed. Streaming from device to device is simpler in every way, but does not allow big media the control they insist on. Casting and the entire mechanism of having the device being casted to have to have direct access to the media source is idiotic and only exists because they insist on a extra level of weaponizing devices against the owners and policing what you can do with your own devices.

Far more likely it wasn't considered social media because there's no algorithm pushing for engagement, it's just humans communicating with humans in a way that is unmediated by some random company and its attempts to drive outrage, engagement, and shopping.

That's too much future tech, but for now -- why not install a titanium plate? At least it won't cause rejection issues, and functionality wise is no worse than current transplants. And, instead of on-lookers getting revulsed, you'll get looks of awe. Severely disfigured wetware makes people say they offer compassion, but in reality they're severely disgusted and feel an urge to distance themselves from you -- because biologically, looking ill means something potentially transmissible, which our instincts try to protect us from. A visibly artificial face avoids all that.

Assuming equal regulatory burden, fission power is cheapest, not most expensive. For example, for an equivalent safety level, coal plants would need to capture every bit of reaction products (which currently are vented into the air), store them safely, and place somewhere where they'd no longer cause harm if released. Which for combustion products means forever. The plan itself would need decade-long studies wrt its localisation, many rounds of votes among the regional population -- etc. And throw in another 10x cost factor of bureaucratic costs.

The reason? Completely banning nuclear power was unfeasible politically, but adding layers after layers of "safety" was easy to be voted in.

Result? Hardly any new plants have been built. A good part of existing installed power dates back to the first generation -- which was indeed unsafe (as expected of any new technology). All three plants that failed have been built in the '60s.

Not if the party in question has been repeatedly caught concealing malice. You'd be a fool to trust, or even assume good will, when dealing with anything by Microsoft, NSA, Facebook, etc.

Here, we have something that looks bad and has been done by a prior offender. Thus, it needs to be viewed with suspicion by default.

Not so surprising that red-socialism and brown-socialism are almost the same.