People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.

If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.

Once they're able to detect trails and follow them looking for people, the next step would be detecting signs of where they might have wandered off trail, or (especially in snowy conditions) detecting and following where they have started their own trail.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcri...

Open source, easier to use, much better UI.

My main issue with the article is that despite only using pseudonyms, the author easily revealed the real life name of one of the individuals by quoting her Twitter account.

Maybe the author doesn't understand technology, but this shouldn't have slipped by editing. Which really leads me to believe there was none.

In this case, straight to the front page despite many negative comments about the content.

If the article is not an Amazon link farm, it sure as hell reads exactly like one. So much so that my assumption is that the author intended to add in referral codes at a later date when reaching peak audience.

Garbage self promotion submitted by the author himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_selfie-related_injurie...

Priceonomics is usually higher quality than this. This feels more like a quick college term paper.

Would clothes fall off a Barbie doll if you flipped it upside down? Do they fall off of Ken? I find that argument highly questionable.

Also, I don't think India is unique in negative coverage. With a newspaper as big as the NYT you're bound to find something negative, but every country gets primarily negative coverage, including the U.S. That's the news that sells.

"The numbers were based on surveys of 500 U.S. residents who made a purchase at Amazon.com in the period from October-December 2015"

Lot of bold claims here. Just a few ways off the top of my head for why this estimate is ridiculous:

- People who use the Internet are more likely to be Prime members. We have elderly people here.

- People who've made a purchase on Amazon are more likely to report being prime members.

- People who made a purchase during the holidays are far more likely to be Prime members (I was a Prime member this holiday season, because I finally cashed in my free month and cancelled).

- 500 people is far too low a number to extrapolate such a bold claim about Americans.

- I'd even argue that people who fill out surveys may be more likely to be Prime members.

In short, Consumer Intelligence Research Partners sounds like a joke.