It was a hellish day indeed and it went from bad to worse ever since.
I live in a predominantly Muslim country and Islam seems to have an insecurity & inferiority complex so large that it needs ear deafening audio signals broadcast at dawn time to notify the population of its suffocating and heavy presence in their daily lives.
I have handed the CMS keys for Ghost to non-technical people with good results. There's no doubt that it's more limited (especially in terms of plugin ecosystem) than WP, but that lack feels liberating. No need to agonize over which contact form plugin is the right one to go with, etc. And Ghost is certainly snappy [0].
Custom code is great if you have staff programmers. If you do not, one of the upsides to WordPress is letting end customers - not the programmers - agonize over which plugins to use.
Primaries are generally far more meaningful in a two party system than a one party system. So people often get meaningful choice in a two party system.
Also of note, in some multi party systems like Britton a minority party’s can end up with vastly outstated control. EX: The largest party got < 37% of the vote but they are a clear majority right now. One party got 3.8% of the vote and got 1 seat another got 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/britain...
PS: You really can't design a voting system without clear downsides, but zero voting is clearly worse.
Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party.
A two party state is as free as a 10 party state. Euro-style multi-party governments fall into 2 major parties with smaller, often extremist (racists, etc), smaller parties anyway. Because the two parties need to court these smaller parties for votes, minority views like racism, get majority exposure and unequivocal representation.
A one-party state isn't free at all. Its just old fashioned autocracy. A shade less than a total dictator.
> Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party.
Without effective choice, which arguably is substantially lacking when the structural features that preserve duopoly is in place, there may be theoretical freedom to challenge the incumbent party, but there isn't necessarily real practical choice. This is evident when there are numerous policies that remain in place despite large majorities opposed (or which are not adopted despite large majorities in favor), which are frequently seen in the US system.
Duopoly results from structural features which obstruct effective democratic accountability, and which therefore produce a government which is not effectively accountable to the nominal electorate.
> A two party state is as free as a 10 party state.
No, its not, which is why "democracies" which few effective competitive parties also have measurably poorer satisfaction with their governments than those with more effective competitive parties: a state with only two viable parties is, while likely freer than one-party state, one with a government less accountable to the people -- and therefore one which is less ruled by and more ruling over the people -- than is the case in one which supports a multiplicity of competitive parties.
Your comment ignores the existance of primaries and other democratic institutions that encourage political change. The US's constant shifting political winds is evidence that it does work and works well considering we are the sole superpower and saved "enlightened" nations like the various countries in Europe from killing themselves 70 years ago and keep aggressive autocratic powers like Russia and China from completely taking over their neighbors or starting WWIII.
> Your comment ignores the existance of primaries and other democratic institutions that encourage political change.
No, it reflects the actual results of empirical study of democracies, notably that by Arend Lijphardt in Patterns of Democracy.
> The US's constant shifting political winds is evidence that it does work and works well
The poor satisfaction with government in the US and other limited-practical-choice democracies compared to democracies with more effective choice through the electoral system is evidence that it does not work in the judgement of the people actually subject to it as well as other democratic systems do.
Apple's quality at this point of time is SO overrated. Yeah, Apple products out of the factory gates are relatively quality products compared to the competition but they tend to break down over time real quick and show their true colors and Apple's modus operandi of charging people more and more over the lifetime of the devices (recurring income) in replacements and repairs like in the automotive industry.
Apple surf on the edge. They've managed to maintain a margin by differentiating on quality, maintaining incompatibility at the hardware level, offering an integrated user experience and a vertically integrated cutting-edge manufacturing process.
This doesn't work in all markets - see Apple servers. Some of their products (desktops, Apple TV) are probably on the wane.
The existence of Apple doesn't preclude the ongoing commoditization of the PC, smartphone, and tablet markets. Apple has already stopped producing servers, which are effective commodity items now.
They are the only serious company in the home computing space that realised design and ergonomics was more important than processor frequency. Which is interesting given there are many industries, like audio equipment, where there have been many design-led companies, but it seems to be a rarity in computing.
Contrary to popular belief and urban myths, the market in which Apple operates is ripe for commoditization and iPod and most recently iPad sales are the best proofs now for my assertion.
Forward looking, I'd be really very surprised to see Apple staying relevant in tech in the next decade as the smartphone revolution fades away and the novelty factor they enjoy or make up as well as market dominance will follow suit.
That's misleading because it includes a large number of android based video players in Asia, which are not competitors to the iPad as general purpose tablets.
Yeah, man, that "Asia" place, it like, doesn't count. And who's heard of this "Europe", anyway? It sounds made up. I guess the reality distortion field doesn't have the range to reach there.
Just seemed to me like you're going around dismissing continents, redefining the product category when faced with opposing evidence. Perhaps in 2010 iPad was the only game in town but Android tablets have shot up since then. I've seen it with my own eyes and ears, but yes, when I googled for data I saw that I am not wrong.
Sorry, the data you quoted is absolutely wrong. It doesn't distinguish between low cost android video players and iPads. If you want to make a point about android being used widely, that's fine, but if you want to make a point about iPads being affected by commoditization, the data doesn't support that.
More like you don't like some of the brands and models because they come from a continent you don't like, and you are using this to dismiss the whole argument.
No it isn't. Neither market has been overtaken by commodity products at all. Your argument about Apple products being commoditized is totally without merit. The Mac and iPhone continue to gain share in markets that have commodity alternatives. The iPad sales have slowed but they haven't slowed as much as the commodity alternatives. iPod sales have slowed not because people are buying commodity MP3 players instead, but because people are no longer buying standalone MP3 players.
The tablet market and more importantly its poster boy the iPad (the notebook killer lol) have been swallowed by two beasts simultaneously, from the bottom up, larger size smartphones, and from the top down, hybrid notebooks like the Surface/Yoga that integrated the touch based interface and generally speaking more capable devices not toys.
The MP3 player market and iPods in particular have been swallowed and cannibalized to Apple's discontent by their smartphones and their peers again.
So, it doesn't look rosy for Apple as it's becoming more and more a one trick pony with one single dominant product while the rest are suffering or in steadfast decline and when you take into account that the saturation point for smartphones is approaching, you'll realize that they will need to bring up REALLY something new or face the fate every tech company finds itself sailing the ship through the stagnation storm just to get alive.
I agree that larger smartphones attract buyers who otherwise might have bought a tablet, but there is zero evidence that hybrid notebooks have affected the iPad.
There isn't even evidence that the overall trend foe the iPad is lower growth - just that the upgrade cycle is slower.
As for a 'one-trick pony', that statement is certainly false, as Apple has multiple growing product lines.
Also, saturation for smartphones may be approaching in a few markets, but saturation for the iPhone is much much further off, so your prophecy of decline is empty as yet.
Tell me about it, bro!
It was a hellish day indeed and it went from bad to worse ever since.
I live in a predominantly Muslim country and Islam seems to have an insecurity & inferiority complex so large that it needs ear deafening audio signals broadcast at dawn time to notify the population of its suffocating and heavy presence in their daily lives.