Jimmycrackcrack

As part of just living in.... the world, I already kind of assumed it was possible for some parties, credit card companies in particular, to pry in to my financial activity and also interested governments to compel banks to hand over whatever they had, and/or possibly just hand over everything about everyone to government all the time automatically. This was bad enough, however, even I was surprised and shocked to learn how bad it was with my own bank when they sent me a letter gleefully telling me that as of the date of the letter they had now managed to sell my data to even more 3rd parties. I was not, up until that point aware that they were selling my data at all, and that 3rd parties (other than the credit card company) were getting access to it not just because of powers to compel, like people might expect of governments, but purely because the bank was literally handing it over to whoever was willing to pay for it, no consent on my part necessary. I don't know what changed that required them to apparently have to now disclose this to me, but I assume that they were forced, hence the letter. The sneaky motherfuckers didn't frame it that way though, not "due to recent legislation the bank is obliged to inform you blah blah blah", no just "good news removed, we were selling your data, we still are, but we used to too, and now we're selling it to more people, hope you like egregiously unethical behaviour because we put a travesty in to our travesty so you can experience a travesty while processing the first travesty".

Empire Records just felt good and I think it could pull that off with a crowd.

But why would they not have thought of doing this before. I haven't noticed this uptick at least in my country but I'm curious now OP has asked. It's strange that they've decided now that they could prey on people's insecurities when it's been an option all along and it's largely already what they do anyway.

Yes, but in the context of the comment to which I'm replying, I say scare quotes because the commenter has interpreted editorial intent behind the choice of how and where the punctuation has been used beyond simply establishing that the word is a direct quote.

While I kind of disagree with what that intent is, hence my reply to them, I agree with the original commenter that there is reason to believe the quotation marks served more purpose in that headline than simple punctuation. As a quote, it's an odd choice, given it's a single word long, conveys nothing that the sentence without the marks couldn't have said and used to complete a sentence that is otherwise entirely constructed by the author.

I and the person to which I replied have interpreted this choice as a form of editorial commentary upon the reasoning behind the policy being discussed in the article. In the original commenter's case they're taking it to mean that the article's author thinks the premise of iphones having security problems is so absurd that the people claiming such must be crazy (which the commenter obviously does not agree with). I don't take from it such an extreme implication, although I do read some kind of implied commentary and given that this security concern has nuance to it that a headline would struggle to convey, I have suggested perhaps that that punctuation is serving to subvert or undermine the supposed security concern in some way. When that writing technique is employed, the punctuation is referred to as scare quotes.

Or you know, we're just reading tea leaves and it's just a one word quote, but there's the rationale for you at least so you know why I chose that term specifically.

I don't know too much about the relative security chops of different smartphones, however in terms of what's actually in this article it seems reasonable for the government department to consider the iphone a security issue within the context where it presents this particular problem and for the reason why it presents that problem for them. However, it does also seem like the very reason this is a security concern in this more narrow context is arguably a better security option in almost every other context so I wonder if that's what they were getting at with the scare quotes.

In the case of defence personnel entering secure locations they say the iphone represents a threat because it doesn't allow 3rd party apps to control inherent functions of the device, so the defence force cannot use an app they developed which would presumably do things like disable all voice recording abilities so they can be sure that people walking around secure locations aren't unknowingly or deliberately transmitting or recording conversations and sensitive information. I can see why this would be a problem for them, however if you don't work in defence and are an average consumer, the fact that random 3rd party developers can not do exactly what such an app would be designed to prevent sounds like a more secure way to operate. In that scenario, apps are incapable of controlling inherent functions of the phone unless they're developed by Apple. Obviously this leaves the door just as open for untrustworthy behaviour from Apple themselves, but if you've chosen to trust them, you can at least be sure that no one else is controlling your device in ways you wouldn't want, unless the device is somehow hacked but in that case, well it really doesn't matter which phone it is because somehow it's security has been circumvented and at that point all bets are off.

Oh. Ouch. Sorry mate I wasn't trying to imply I had any expertise. Just trying to follow conclusions for amusement. If it's not clear, I'm not OP, I'm not trying to do whatever wacky thing they're trying to do. I'll take it from your apparent anger this has ceased to be amusing for you before it did for me so I'll leave it there and not bother you any more.

I do like that last barb though, even if directed at my expense, if I can ever find a scenario that suits I might have to steal that.

Aww I was just about gush about how awesome they've been all these years. Guess I haven't really kept up to date. I mean it doesn't sound like it's gone totally to shit, but just clearly embarking on a path straight in to the shit

Haha, well presumably not because the OP's proposed substitute food made from fruit/vegetable constituents isn't the same thing as fruit/vegetable at least in part because the sugars are not bound to the fibre as you say. If my theory was correct, and OP put the correct amount less sugar in to their weird food substitute mix they'd end up with nutritional the equivelant of some kind of fruit which has more, but less freely available, sugar. If that reduced amount of sugar ended up equal to the amount of sugar in a vegetable, presumably the same principle would apply, whereby the sugar content might be equal in weight to an equivalent vegetable, but because of the relative availability of that sugar were it in vegetable form, your food substitute mix would have to be even less sugar (or just none) to be a vegetable, although presumably it still wouldn't be one given it's just constituent elements not bound together in to a form recognisable as a vegetable.

If you were dead set on this experiment, I wonder if you could avoid recreating fruit, by simply having a lesser amount of the added sugar commensurate with how much of it you would end up absorbing if consuming fruit instead.

I think there has to be at least little more to this than that. There's some complicated implications taking this to logical extremes, what of the adult industry for example? But really, it's hardly a stretch to say the whole theme around which these cafes operate is degrading. Typically cafe work doesn't require a worker to behave or be encouraged to be objectified in this way and in a normal cafe context, most of the whole maid cafe schtick would be considered pretty inappropriate.

Have you seen this a lot?

People are posting a lot of maybe more rational reasons, but I think there's another answer that's more in line with just being a human. Airports suck, air travel, generally, sucks and the whole process is riddle with both intentional and also just unavoidable misery. Every time a new step in the sequence of unpleasant and boring steps that is air travel nears, we start to anticipate it and get anxious to move on to that next step in the process. It doesn't make it faster, it likely only makes the misery arguably worse, but some times people just can't help trying to mentally hasten things even if in reality nothing is hastened at all.