"But critics argue free money would eliminate the incentive to work, creating a society dependent on the state."

By critics, we mean people who don't pay any attention to the plight of people who are dependent on the state. The problem with benefits that are conditional / means tested is that you very quickly lose those benefits when you start working. So for many people, taking work means spending hours labouring to have the same or even less disposable income than on benefits.

That's not an incentive to work - it's a trap, and discourages people from taking low pay / part time / flexible work. UBI means that any work you take on - whether that's part time, does not have guaranteed hours, or you are starting your own business with uncertain income - everything you earn leaves you better off than before, even if it wouldn't by itself be enough to live on.

UBI isn't supposed to make lives so comfortable that people don't have any desire to work. But the trap that discourages people from taking some work needs to go.

I'm not going to comment on the actions of individuals, as other than what has been suggested in the summary of this story, I have no idea what they may have done.

But something seems to be amiss in how this has all transpired. Apache is a highly recognised brand, and It's understandable and justified that as an organisation they would only want to be a home to projects and communities that uphold their values.

At the same time, the communities for each project are the beating hearts of those projects. Being part of Apache is a benefit to the projects, but it's the communities that shape the projects, that know what the projects need, etc. It's the project / community that should decide whether someone needs to be removed from the community.

We can take a view on whether we want to use a project / be part of a community based on who is involved. Apache can take a view as to whether a project should remain part of the organisation - an ultimatum that either the project / community removes someone or the project leaves the organisation. But it would be a step too far for the organisation to remove an individual from a community seemingly against the wishes of that community.

"Vaccines typically take a decade to develop. They took less than a year"

The Oxford/AZ vaccine was developed in a similar timeframe, using more traditional techniques.

mRNA may (or not) have a benefit, but it isn't necessarily that much quicker.

All you need is a web browser and a plugin to alter the speed of videos - works for any HTML5 content. Use a wide range of speeds way outside the Netflix range.

And I cannot stress enough how wrong Judd Apatow and other filmmakers are in fighting Netflix over this. Not only is it irrelevant, because you can do it anyway in a web browser, but presenting controls to users for how they wish to enjoy (or bugger up) the content is NOT the distributors messing around with how content is presented. Netflix is still presenting the pure, unadulterated version, and it's the consumer that gets to choose whether they need it to be a bit faster or slower - and lets face it, timing is all over the shop with different titles. Yes, this is an artistic expression, but filmmakers need to remember that as people we have different requirements. Being able to speed up - and especially slow down - content is an *accessibility* features as much as anything else.

Getting angry that consumers are being given the option to adjust the pacing to suit them makes as much sense as getting angry that TVs/AV equipment have volume controls. After all, their film was mixed to a certain reference standard, and that sound mixing is an artistic expression - so everyone should be forced to listen at that volume, even if it means they can't watch at night, in flats, etc. because it would disturb the neighbours.

"Split-screen multitasking was introduced for the iPad back in 2015 with iOS 9. Five years to add support for a foundational element of the iPad user experience. And an email client is near the top of the list of the type of apps where someone would want to use split-screen."

Even on a Mac/PC, I almost entirely use apps in full screen. My browser is currently full screen as I'm typing this. When I use webmail, it's full screen. When I'm using Outlook, it's full screen. Word, Ecel, Photoshop, command lines - it's all full screen.

Virtually the only time I ever split screen / have windows side by side is I'm moving files around in Finder/Explorer windows.

So a lack of split screen support for an application on an iPad/tablet is pretty much irrelevant to me. There might occasionally be times where it would be useful to have another application visible whilst typing an email. It's more likely to be useful if I had something like a Twitter feed that I wanted to keep visible whilst using any other application.

Gmail is the top free productivity app for good reason - it's a) free, and b) the easiest way to access Gmail, and without any of the potential security concerns of either opening up IMAP access or authorising a third party application to access your account.

In my experience, Content-Disposition is mostly used because the website wants to specify the name of the file being downloaded, separately from what the URL is. Whether or not people actually download the file or view it in the web browser is largely irrelevant, and not something that any website I've worked on has been interesting in forcing a behaviour.

It's not just that - it's about working from home. In an office, you can only really get away with listening to music on headphones whilst working.

Working from home, it's a lot easier to have a TV on in the background.

Every large company is going to have it's critics. Yes, arguably companies like Amazon could do more in certain regards. But really, if you care about workers rights, then it isn't sensible to have laws that allow companies to treat workers badly, and then rag on the companies expecting them to do better. Businesses want a level playing field - set laws that everyone has to follow, and they will.

In the broader context, Amazon is an enabling company. They provide a competitive marketplace for sellers. They allow small businesses to reach a larger audience. They can provide logistics. They enable tech companies to build scalable services. From a consumer point of view, the thing that becomes questionable is Alexa.

Compare that to Apple, and sure, the App Store potentially allows developers to reach an audience. But it's a walled garden.Integrating software and hardware can create good products, but it also creates lock-in for consumers. And whatever you think you are getting in privacy, they also have Siri, which is just as questionable as any other digital assistant.

Whilst there are things I admire about Apple, whilst I might use some of their technology if it was available under different circumstances, as a consumer I inherently find Apple more troubling than Amazon.

When you've sold over 100 million consoles, selling less than 4% of those a VR headset is somewhat niche.

If Apple - or anyone else - really wanted to give people the battery life they want, they would bulk out the phones just enough so that there is no longer a camera bump.

The opposition to nuclear is not just based on the likelihood of a catastrophic failure. You also have to deal with the waste that is generated, the cost and complexity not just in building but decommissioning nuclear power stations. And the fact that in many renewables generate cheaper electricity.

Nuclear can play a part, and maybe needs to in order to ensure diversity in supplies. But maybe not that large a part.

Even a per-ton carbon tax may not be that effective. Who would be imposing it? Where would that money be going?

If we could somehow agree a global levy - so everyone, everywhere is paying the same percentage extra - and the revenue from that went into a global fund that could invest the money in making the biggest impact to reducing carbon emissions, then we might be doing some real good.

But that is never going to happen.

Good luck with that. Air travel is largely paid for by the people at the front of the aircraft, not the majority in the rear. Trying to price people who are not so price sensitive out of the market is doomed to fail, and pricing the rest of us out of the market isn't going to do anything to help the environment.

Saying he's guaranteed a fair trial might be a little naive. Although in all probability his trial wouldn't be unfair.

But fair or unfair, it's a bit of a smokescreen. He's not really asking for a fair trial, but one that is open to the public to scrutinise what is going on. Now yes, this would then make it apparent to anyone paying attention if it proved to be an unfair trial.

However, the guy leaked official secrets. You would expect that the prosecution would need to present evidence that is still covered by official secrets. His insistence on a "fair" trial - a public trial - means the prosecution would have to make that information public, or not be able to bring certain evidence. Which would be a rather advantageous situation for Snowden.

In terms of what should happen, it's a tough call - I can see both why it should be public, and why it can't. But you wonder whether this is a knowingly impossible ask, or is meant to weaken the prosecution case.

"Using the system" shouldn't be a dirty phrase. Part of the reason why it is is because people look at it as something that *they* are paying for through taxes. The reality is that the system is funded through more means than just an individual's tax burden. And it may be possible to insert other funding mechanisms.

Look at it this way - automation is not just about reducing labour costs. You might be able to reduce material wastage. You might be able to remove people from doing dangerous work. You might place a lower burden on national infrastructure by being able to run tasks at off-peak times without engaging people in disruptive shift work.

Maybe it means getting businesses to make additional payments into "the system" for work that has been automated, where they still gain benefits from having automation, whilst not reducing their costs significantly and providing a way to take care of people. Maybe it means we move more people into working fewer hours and giving them more free time.

We need to look at the overall structure of how automation can fit into and benefit our society, which goes beyond the traditional view of people being employed, or living off of others.