Because the reports go unheeded by management until it costs them money, at which point the quality department get their arses kicked for not fixing the problem that management ignored.
TrippaSnippa
joined 2 years ago
Butterfly, the man's hand outstretched.
No, the full context of the code snippet doesn't appear to check the browser user agent at all. Other comments have explained that it's most likely a lazy implementation of a check for ad blockers.
I feel it's important to add that the clip ends immediately after the Doctor slaps Paris.
My first was a Galaxy S1 back in 2010 which I rooted and flashed with custom ROMs almost immediately. I remember applying the various generations of Voodoo lag fixes because Samsung used cheap shitty flash storage and a slow proprietary file system. Once the Nexus S came out the dev scene took off because they had almost the same hardware. I had it running up to Android 4.2 or so before it was relegated to sitting in a drawer for good. Unfortunately I don't know where it is now, if I still had it I'd try to boot it up and see if it still works.
There are no men on the internet
That is why it should also be equally available to fathers/partners on a "use it or lose it" basis. The "risk" of parental leave becomes even between men and women, thus one reason for hiring discrimination is removed.
Institute of Public Affairs = Institute of Privatisation and Austerity
That is a trickier question. My gut feeling is that while it makes sense for a person's likeness to enter the public domain after they die, it feels a bit morbid and disrespectful for it to become possible to start running AI generated ads of a celebrity the day that they die. I hate how long copyright lasts now, but I feel like there should be at least some period after someone dies before their likeness enters the public domain. I don't know how long that should be, but definitely shorter than copyright currently is (which should also be much shorter).
My other concern is that if studios can freely recreate dead celebrities then new talent won't get a chance to make a name for themselves. Hollywood would much rather milk existing celebrities for every cent possible with AI (which is part of the reason for the SAG/AFTRA strike I guess). I don't have an answer for this right now.
Yes and yes imo. A person's voice is part of their likeness, and people should get to decide how their likeness is used and get paid for such usage.
Not to mention that the bar for a referendum to pass is very high. For the non-Australians, you need not only a majority of voters nationally to vote yes, but also a majority of states to vote yes (the so-called "double majority"). Only 8 of the last 44 referendums before now have passed and partisan referendums have never passed, so this one was doomed the minute Dutton decided to play politics with it.
This article has given me a kick up the backside to switch my super away from AustralianSuper.