I'm kinda surprised to hear people having this problem on Android. I've found Android's notification management to be superb and, as others have said, with a one strike rule, this has been a non-issue for me.
> I live in a gated society that uses an app called MyGate to allow visitors, and the app intentionally pushes ads through the same channels since you cannot block them.
This strikes me as against the Play Store policy, potentially Notifications VX-S1, "Notifications are not used for cross-promotion or advertising another product, as this is strictly prohibited by the Play Store."
Facebook Messenger constantly tells you shit like "Hey, it's been 1 minute since someone messaged you, you better check it out!", Uber Eats is constantly telling me about meal deals even directly after I just ordered food on Uber Eats, and now it's giving me Uber ads implying the only thing stopping me from going out is that I haven't ordered an Uber, despite my history of only using it once a year when out of country and that I JUST ORDERED FOOD TO MY HOUSE!
You can't turn these off without never getting FB Messenger messages or notices of if your food has arrived because no one knows how to ring a fucking doorbell anymore even if the note specifically says to :/
I only have "Your Order" notifications allowed for Uber Eats which will only send notifications about my specific order and I think reminding me to tip if I didn't already? That seems to be a subcategory at least.
Anecdotally, I've never received anything other than those notifications.
I only use Facebook Messenger for Facebook Marketplace, so I don't have much interaction with it, but I see "Reminders" as a category of notification, try turning that off.
There are many people who enjoy spending an afternoon working on a classic car. There are also many people who enjoy spending an afternoon driving a classic car.
Sometimes there are people who enjoy both. Sometimes there are people that really like driving but not the tinkering and some who are the opposite.
IIRC a current statistic is that the top 10% overall own 60% of the wealth.
Also I believe that actual surviving boomers are underrepresented in that 10% compared to the general population now. And that trend can be expected to continue predictably.
I would expect many/most billionaires to be boomers or older. It takes time to accomplish anything. Idk how many are "new money" vs "old money" (majority inherited) but I sure don't expect a high proportion of young people among the ultra wealthy.
> Do 30-year mortgages make the other houses more expensive somehow?
OP didn't mean to say this, but yes, unfortunately they do. Anything that "increases affordability" will result in an eventual increase in the principal value for things that are supply constrained.
Those might be the only ones? Desert Storm being the one that I'd probably call out, Just Cause was just so small.
One minor win, every major operation being a loss doesn't change the conclusion though imo.
I think it's also instructive to look at each of these operations and note that the two that were won were small, had clear objectives, and were executed quickly to meet those objectives and had no scope creep.
Iraq had one of the largest militaries in the world at the time of Desert Storm. They had tons and tons of arms and equipment and a huge standing army to counter the persistent threat (and/or to provide their own threat) of resumed hostilities with Iran (that war was still pretty recent when Desert Storm took place)
I would agree that the US is notably terrible at occupations and getting involved in civil wars, at least since WWII, but Desert Storm was pretty much an unqualified slam-dunk take-a-victory-lap success against one of the top armies in the world that wasn’t an ally or a nuclear state—carried out on the other side of the planet from the US, to boot. Like I think Iraq was ranked top-10 at the time by many ways of reckoning military strength, and that wasn’t enough to effectively resist the US effort at all, really.
If that war seems small, it’s only possible for it to seem that way from the victor’s perspective, and only because we did such an amazingly good job of totally destroying Iraq’s substantial capacity to fight in a matter of weeks. In terms of deployed and engaged men and materiel it was really big, just fast because it was so very one-sided, and “cheap” in terms of casualties on the US side for the same reason.
You're agreeing with me, or rather I agree with you.
I consider Desert Storm an unqualified victory in an engagement that is in the same conversation as a Vietnam or Korean war, but still not quite to a WW level in scope or complexity.
I've found Google's default Weather app to be quite poor starting around six months ago. Consistently off by two to five degrees.
On the advice of someone here on hackernews I tried out weawow, and though it is a terrible name it is _very_ accurate. So much better and consistent. Love it so far.
So we're probably only a few years out from today's SOTA models on our phones.
reply