What's the difference between a successful and unsuccessful campaign? How hard the organizers work at collecting signatures? Or does mainstream media get involved and publicize it?
Was it considered cheating that the English goalie had statistics about penalty kick preferences of opposing players written on his water bottle (and concealed under a towel) in the semi-finals for the Euros?
no - the key difference is those penalty kick stats are derived from watching the games, which are public, not from surreptitious surveillance of private practice sessions
If I have a penalty kick and you’re the keeper, I want to know if you know where I kick the ball most often. If I know that you know, I will kick somewhere else.
So if you’re the keeper and you know my habits, you have a slight advantage if I don’t know that you know. So you would hide the list.
I can't say for them, but towel is good heat insulator and can keep bottle content cold. I use it often for that reason (either towel or other clothes that's already in backpack).
Given Biden's endorsement of Harris, a fellow Californian, Newsom will probably not be on the ticket, due to Constitutional limitations. That's not dispositive, but has generally been interpreted as requiring the two executive candidates to be from different states. The actual language concerns how electors must vote, in Article II, Section I, Clause III:
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.
In strict compliance, this would require California's electors to split their votes on candidates from other states, though other states wouldn't face this limitation.
And on reflection: If California's electors couldn't vote for both Harris and Newsom (or any other CA-CA ticket's members), there's the prospect of Democrats winning the Presidential vote whilst Republicans win the VP vote. That would be ... interesting. And all but certainly a prospect that the Democrats would seek to avoid.
No, they gave up too late! Instead of chasing trends out of their lane, they should have been working on the robot vacuum everyone wanted them to make. They only released their first robot vacuum this year[1] because they were side tracked making EVs and wireless headphones[2]
If someone had pointed out to me the connection between computer programming problem solving and the Rubik’s cube earlier, I might have started programming sooner.
Location: Toronto
Remote: yes
Willing to relocate: maybe
Technologies: Go (backend), React (front end)
Resume: No professional experience, hobbyist programmer seeking first gig.
Digital audio is also relatively expensive for some people. There are people who in my community who ride around on their bikes listening to fm radio. A monthly data fee could be hard for some.
Not having a radio receiver in a phone has always been one of those WTF things for me. There have been articles on why iOS doesn't have a radio tuner even those the receiver is there claiming because it would divert users from apple music or whatever. It's always felt like a missed opportunity to me though
The main reason to not have it is that unless you’re out of cellular range or has no data quota left, it’s just worse than just streaming the same stations over the internet, which also offer more content as running FM stations is expensive.
Even though older iPhone baseband chips had FM receivers, you’d still need break it out and deal with the antenna setup, with the approach taken by others requiring wired headset and shenanigans in the headphone port. That’s more BOM, and user resistance to wireless headphones or newer models whose baseband chips cut the feature.
It used to be a somewhat common feature in phones (including smartphones from other brands), but it usually had quite “eh” reception. And with transitions to DAB, the feature becomes unusable without DAB decoders which I’m sure someone is claiming royalties for.
There's one place where I still bring my old cell phone to use the FM receiver part: sports events. It's nice getting the announcers live instead of on a broadcast delay + digital buffer. Through the internet it's usually several seconds behind the action but on the local low power FM broadcast it's practically zero latency.
> Listening to DAB on a cellphone requires a monthly data plan.
Cellphones used to include AM/FM radios.
Personally I think it might be useful to have them for public service uses: perhaps cell network are more robust than a few years ago, but there are still instances when they could be (are) overwhelmed, and a broadcast-only system could be useful in major emergency events.
Cell systems still have the ability to push out a message regardless of how "overwhelmed" the towers are. They'll just drop service to some customers while the higher priority emergency message is broadcasted out.
A cell network doing a one-way broadcast text message to all clients is a solved problem. And honestly, I greatly prefer this way to push out an emergency message than assume I'm tuned to a radio station or broadcast TV, two things I'm rarely doing. I'm way more likely to be listening or watching local or streaming media instead of watching broadcast TV. Or even just not be doing any of that at all. Lots of people I know wouldn't even be able to tune into a broadcast TV or FM radio station outside of their cars.
I've heard this assertion many times. But after having ridden hundreds (thousands?) of hours wearing headphones, I must conclude that it's a perfectly fine idea. People believe headphones will obstruct your hearing. Some do. Some don't. Wear the ones that don't. It's also possible to set the volume to the same level that it would be from a set of handle-bar mounted speakers.
