That assumes it was not work that was contracted out to the "best" bid.

They might be missing the point in the positive 18% critical part if they truly think it would have scored significantly better if only they CGI effects were _______________.

(Fill in the blank - less creepy, toned down, less furry etc...)

I think most people think the changes, the script, the choreography as compared to the the broadway version is just bad.

The CGI part was the icing/nail in the coffin.

Exactly! (US MD here) If she wants to sue to change the law in a Tarasoff "duty to notify" type of case then sure, sue away as it poses an interesting question. Does she have a right to know. If she is suing for $$$ (she is) then it fails 2 of the 4Ds of malpractice (if that is what she is going for):

Duty: The daughter and the patient did not have a doctor patient relationship

Dereliction: Standards of the time, and probably still would dictate the privacy of the actual patient (the dad) would win over the daughters right to know.

I am not saying that is correct/right/ethical, and it doesn't say she is claiming malpractice per se, but she is seeking £345,000 in damages. She raises an interesting question, ethically, though.

I mean, you can't but people do. SF right now is a mess.

Just ban DTC marketing. Is it really helpful?

This is sooo vital to point out. Especially in the West (a Judeo/Christian society), we are taught and culturally have a very specific notion of what "evil" is, such that we have trouble seeing it when it actually is staring us in the face. I think of serial killer neighbors "He was such a good neighbor" or as mentioned in the book about those who perpetrated the Holocaust. "How could they seem so normal". Because many were imaging pitchforks and tails and hooves and got company men who were "doing his job" and "following the law" and "serving their country" etc....

I am not drawing any conclusions about anyone in particular here, just noting that evil is often missed and not what we think it is....

I have had good experience with OpenDNS with their Web Content Filtering. I am sure it isn't 100% but it is a decent start.

Would like to see a performance test with feature off and on to quantify, on modern hardware, the speed benefits.

One final thought from the article:

I added the emphasis on some. If you really thought Apple was doing this, because as the article also points out "they can", why wouldn't they just kill all third party parts? Would be more efficient.

Do you really think I have time to write code to fix problems/bugs/features as part of my daily job *AND* evilly scheme to write extra code just to break random bits of hardware that may or may not be present in a phone?

You mean the company that didn't want their phone randomly shutting down with a battery meter at say 25%. They absolutely should have thrown up an alert that said - "Your battery needs replacement. Please call us or visit an Apple Store for more information. Your phone will now run in "energy saver" mode (or some such) to protect against unexpected shutdowns." But not likely to be some conspiracy.

It does make me wonder though...I bought an iPhone 6 when it came out and use it every day until it is almost dead. 11.3 upgrade said my battery is still 86% "good". Pretty shocking.

Is the code for hardware fingerprint sensors in the Android OS core code or is it written and supplied as moduled for each phone manufacturer? I suspect it is the latter, but I'm not sure. Also, I would imagine most android phones, especially not from the big 3 are using pretty standard/generic fingerprint sensors. I doubt the same is true from Apple. All of this complicates the picture and could lead to unintended consequences, especially involving part of the crypto scheme on the phone.

Are we still Slashdotters?

For me, security and privacy is a concern however I would honestly be surprised if that is ever adequately tackled. The main reason for me is the cost, most of these gadgets are fantastically expensive for what they are. The value just isn't in it for me.

Nicotine addicts are much better off not using nicotine and if they vape to get there that is fine, but many are just permanently swapping which is not ideal.

I would not rely on an op-ed from Forbes. The effects and risks of nicotine, especially to the cardiovascular system are well known. The nicotine patch for Alzheimer's in that op-ed has been in and out of the news since 1999, but so far nothing has come of it.

Indeed you are right! Antidepressants are far more controversial than most people seem to think. The reasons some doctors in the medical community are beginning to admit it (embarrassingly after 20+ years) is that the data for their effectiveness is really thin. Essentially, they don't work outside of patients with (maybe) really severe depression, and even in those cases the effect is largely minimal.

What's worse, like all good/new things once the first bits of data started to show they "helped" (mood in many people is a fluctuating thing, you could argue they would have felt better in a few weeks anyway), the prescriptions started flowing, and it is now hard to reverse the expectations that one of the prior commenters note - pill to cure or treat depression. According to a 2015 study, more than two-thirds (69%) of those prescribed an antidepressant do not actually meet the criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder.

It also shows the business of medicine - showing "statistically significant" results that may or may not contribute to clinical significance. Here's what I mean. For trials that examined depression that was mild to moderate in severity, the benefit was just 1.29 points on the 53-point Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). The difference for trials that studied severe depression was 2.69 points on the HDRS. Previous researchers suggested/used a 3-point difference which corresponded to “no clinical change”—that is, neither a doctor nor a patient would notice that change. Other researchers showed that at least a 7-point difference was necessary for “minimal improvement.” As you see, many studies don't come close.Then there is publication bias. If you look closely you find that 49% of the total studies had negative results,

It is a mess. It is a problem. People who are clinically depressed and suffer depression need treatment, and they need effective medications that afford them a clinically significant improvement in their condition, not just statistically. This is true for all branches of medicine - I'm looking at you cardiology and oncology.