They went from being THE banana for much of the western world to being extremely rare as in available on a few farms in Florida & Hawaii and Asia. I was inaccurate in saying they were all wiped out.
you can buy either the Gros Michel or a very similar variety in Chinatown and Flushing in NYC. And the local green markets have several other varieties as well. There are definitely other bananas around, most people just don't care that much.
The review pointed out the shortcomings of the first generation iPod. It isn't a review of the entire iPod line that would follow in the future. The first generation was only compatible with OS 9 and OS X, had 5G or 10G of storage, was in black and white and had a mechanical click wheel. Apple sold 236,000 in three fiscal quarters before they released the next generation. Meanwhile Nokia was selling an order of magnitude more 3310s, another portable electronic device (cell phone), every quarter. The iPod became the best music player on the market because Apple kept improving it.
It's funny in retrospect but the iPhone didn't really start to take off until the 2nd generation, when the price came down, 3rd-party developers were let in, and it added 3G.
The comments on the physical keyboard were clearly off-base looking back, though. I remember when the iPhone came out the criticism for a lack of a physical keyboard was extremely common and most competitors responded by using sliding keyboards, which clearly never caught on.
Just because he's leading in the popular vote now doesn't mean he won the popular vote. The New York Times projects that Clinton will win the popular vote once all the ballots have been counted.
Right now it's projecting a margin of 0.7% It's pretty hard to call that a mandate from a clear majority. I think we've got to accept that what we have is a deeply divided country, not a highly vocal minority.
There are many people such as myself in places like NY or California that don't vote because we know our votes don't matter, so it may be that in a popular vote election we'd see a greater margin for Clinton.
I wonder what it would look like if you took the percentages that voted for each candidate and scaled it to the population of the state, and then used that to total the scaled popular vote?
Of course, there's many problems with that, foremost being that you can't assume that those that didn't vote did so in the same relative percentages of support that those that did vote. For example, I imagine there's a higher percentage of Democrats/Clinton supporters in CA and NY that didn't vote compared to the alternatives, and the opposite is likely true of predominantly red states.
When will people learn that polls and "projections" from mainstream media etc are ridiculously wrong on this.
They were wrong on Brexit. They were wrong on Trump. Maybe once more countries have results like this the polsters and media will start actually engaging with real people.
I don't mean to sound offensive but you do understand how the US election system works, right?
It is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election. I don't think anyone is spinning the fact she won the popular vote to mean she should've won.
The President is elected by the electoral college who aren't directed by popular vote but by electorates.
Over a million voters isn't a big difference? 2/5 last elections won by the loser of the popular vote seems extremely problematic.
Phrased differently, Democrats have won the popular vote in 4/5 of the most recent elections but only won office in two of them. In the 21st century, winning the most votes for president only results in a 50% success rate for Democratic presidential candidates.
> 2/5 last elections won by the loser of the popular vote seems extremely problematic.
Well, no, because it was designed this way. Popular vote is the obvious option when designing a democracy. They decided to go with something else under the specific understanding that any system other than a popular vote would allow this to happen.
> In the 21st century, winning the most votes for president only results in a 50% success rate for Democratic presidential candidates.
It will always affect Democratic candidates more negatively because they don't do as well with rural voters and the electoral college exists almost specifically to give rural voters more power. This is by design--not an oversight or misunderstanding.
Read up on why the EC exists. I think the term that applies is "concurrent majority".
If you want a counter-example, you can look at small town and rural upstate NY and realize how their concerns are always neglected because the sheer number of NYC voters drowns out any chance they have to be heard as part of the electorate.
EC exists because the states had to agree on a mutually acceptable compromise (between large and small states, and also between slave and non-slave states) when forming US. It doesn't make it inherently valuable - it was a compromise solution, which pretty much by definition means that it's not a perfect design.
That's ... not a valid argument against a different point. It's 1:41 AM on the west coast and despite the NY Times clearly calling the election for Trump, Clinton still has a forecasted 1% lead in the popular vote. Given California is incredibly blue, this will most likely hold true.
The review has to be looked at in its context. If the sales figures on Wikipedia are correct, the device he reviewed sold just 236,000 units in Q1-Q3 of 2002. Apple didn't sell more than a million iPods in a quarter until 2004, at which point the full-size device had 4x the storage, a click wheel, support for Windows, and a color screen (optional); the Mini was then in its second generation.
