yggstyle

Build a bear?

Scared? The journalists shouldn't be. They'll never have to write about it.

Every major news organization is owned by a small handful of people playing for the same team. Internet exposure? Maybe for a few minutes before your site is delisted/deranked and/or taken down by a barrage of nonsense DCMA takedown notices that are effective immediately (with no evidence) but to reverse them you need to painstakingly disprove each: to both your provider and the claimant.

Time to accept that we're juuuust at the tipping point of freedom of speech and expression. Slip a bit more and we're sliding right into an identical situation as seen in China, North Korea, and Russia. Remind me... who does the head apricot idolize? Neat.

No, see it's like a chameleon: it's for blending into their surroundings. Their natural habitat is most likely... uh ... a faux leather seat from the 60s? Or some old slightly off color wood paneling. Get them in their hunting ground and all you will see is a telltale shimmer against the backdrop...

Tragically we have a dried apricot ceding power to the highest bidder. There isn't much for other countries to do directly unless they are paying for "sock puppet time" or getting in a pissing match with a clown that makes a juggalo look smart.

This is more about controlling (collateral) damage: in this case megacorps "kissing the ring" via stupid shit like Google is doing presently. Countries can fuck with corporations far easier than we can (guess who paid for sock puppet time...)

Google is clearly attempting to make themselves more "saleable" to the ruling party by dropping things like month names or renaming universally accepted names of global features. Right now their -baseline- is where we are at currently. A lawsuit does next to nothing. It's an operating cost. A country threatening to blacklist their service will hit them cleanly in the only thing that matters: their shareholders. Our biggest corporations have time and again rolled over for this tactic. They may have elevated themselves to a godlike status within the states but they are vulnerable outside our shores.

Don't sue- just threaten to block some of googles services in your country and they'll come around real quick. Hit em where it hurts. Google isn't hurting for lawyers.

Sure. There are absolutely people in that photo who have a normal skin tone. If the saturation were being brutally jacked up to make RFK look orange then they too would be off color completely (most likely beet red.) The point I was getting at is this doesn't take much modification (even to fairly benign levels like my example shows) to land him firmly in the topic's question.

Yes - the observation is being made because it's funny; but if we're being honest - the pictures don't really need all that much assistance to make OPs point, though.

I touched on this above but did a very quick modification on mobile and only adjusted black levels. Not warmth, hue, saturation etc. The man is, unquestionably, of the "fake tan / orange" variety - and the woman, while more "natural," is effectively leather. I left our head dried apricot in charge out of the picture because he is easily the worst one in the image. The painting is catching some bad light - but it's still a bit too washed out regardless.

Original:

Black levels eyeballed:

While I won't disagree that someone upped the saturation on the above photo slightly - and slightly is the key here: it easily could have been auto corrected to that level on a simple photo editor automatically. I wouldn't be comfortable with malice being the underlying reason for what appears to be an attempt to make the photo look less washed out - which your example appears to be.

The problem is a lot of these people are positively off of an actual human color. Spray / fake tan or years of sun exposure and subsequent damage. Take your pick. Either way: correcting color without intentionally distorting the spectrum to make them look 'normal' is not kind to most of the people in the original photo... and not drastically far off from what it appears to be.

Disclaimer: I'm not looking at this at the office where I have a display that has been properly calibrated - but I'm reasonably certain of my assessment.

It might be worth looking into what the affected serial # range is. From what I've seen / read (anecdotal) batteries are under the most stress when fast charging: you could reduce risk using lower wattage chargers in all likelihood... but I'd definitely explore all your options.

I miss what.cd

This is purely conjecture on my part but if I were a gambling man I'd say that this is an attempt to insulate a potential issue with a bad batch of cells. A bad battery charge that forces you onto another phone is probably better than a repeat of the Samsung battery issue. In essence it's a sneaky recall without the bad press.

I can't really come up with another reason that they'd be doing that.

Yeah. For some (this isn't excusing it but explaining some of it:) the finishing a statement is 'urgent' because you unconsciously have trained yourself to handle a fleeting idea immediately or potentially lose it to the noise again. Pre medication I moved to a notepad and as someone spoke I'd just leave response breadcrumbs for when they finished. Worked reasonably well.