It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.
"And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
If we could completely stop aging, the average life expectance would only jump to about 300. You can calculate this by extrapolating out the death rate of a 25 year old. People would eventually die from other things besides old age. This would likely be a net benefit to society. We would greatly reduce our heathcare costs and people wouldn't have to retire because they are no longer capable of working. It would likely have other effects too. People might decide to be more careful with their driving and eating habits if they knew that it was up to them how long they could live.
If it's an either-or, the ethical and more humane solution for society in that case would be to take away voting rights from 100+ year olds, not to shun the possibilities of them living longer
Not just voting rights. Right now, death helps redistribute wealth. It's not perfect but imagine if Rockafeller never died. Instead of a charitable foundation, we would have someone likely with an almost infinite amount of wealth by now.
Regardless of these facts, it's good to know you don't mind someone brutally drugging and raping the females you love, as long as n amount of time has passed. I wonder if the females who know you in real life know that you don't mind if they get brutally drugged and raped?
There was no drugging or raping. Ford doesn't even claim that. There might have been an attempted rape by an underage person and I think if an attempted rape happened and there was proof then there should be a punishment. But, no, I don't think that something that happened 40 years ago by an underage person is relevant today. The reason we have different laws for people under 18 is because society agrees. The reason we lock people up is to keep them from doing it again and to deter other people from doing it. I don't see how society benefits from locking up someone for a crime they committed when they were a child when they obviously aren't a threat to society anymore.
If I understand you right, the things you count as evidence are "more specific details", and also "more corroborating stories from people about the event in question" -- not necessarily witnesses to the event, but people who can corroborate other incidental details of the accusation. In other words you'd want to see more "(s)he-said" to back up the the other details, presumably with the implication that if more people back up other details then you think a judge should believe the central detail.
(and you're specifically not interested in corroborating stories about behaviors/characteristics of the people in general; you're only interested in the particular event).
Is that a fair understanding of your position?
In law it's called "Preponderance of evidence". Even if it's all "he said/she said" if there are enough witnesses then it starts to look likely. Because this isn't a legal proceeding, it wouldn't have to be even all one event to disqualify him but a large enough trend to make it likely. For most sexual predators (like Clinton), there are dozens of people who come forward once the first story breaks. You are not seeing that in this case. You are seeing a few people come forward about his drinking habits but getting wasted in HS or college isn't really something that is prosecuted or even on trial here.
The hypocrisy is also really annoying. This isn't and never was about a juvenile attempted rape. This is completely political (on both sides). Neither side really cares about the truth. Both sides ignore much worse stuff if it's somebody on their team.
"The American people deserve a Justice without any doubt of his veracity. I refute these claims, and submit my withdrawal of candidacy.
That's exactly what we DO NOT want to happen. We don't want someone withdrawing because of false accusations. What I would have preferred to see is a response of "investigate all you want, sure I'll take a polygraph, etc.." The real issue here (besides the wag the dog pony show) is that the Republicans want to make sure they get a confirmation before the November Election just in case they lose some seats which generally happens in midterm elections.
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
A location would be a good start. Other people at the party would also help. If it was a large party then there should be plenty of other people that remember the party. If it was a small party with only 3-5 people then other people should be able to remember Ford and Kavanaugh actually being friends. You don't have a small party with 3-5 strangers and you don't have a large party without a lot of witnesses.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
First Off: There is zero evidence that it happened. There is zero evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford even ever met before. It's completely "he said/she said" but actually worse than that because even the people she named have said that they don't remember any such event. There is no time, no day, no month, no year, no location. There are 300 million people in the USA. It's not inconceivable that at least one of them would be crazy enough to make up a story like this. I'm actually amazed that it doesn't happen more often. It doesn't help her case that Ford is a expert in psychology nor that all the accusers are die-hard democrats.
Secondly: If evidence does turn up or if he otherwise becomes unfit for the job, you can still impeach him.
Lastly: Even if it did happen and was a single event at age 17 and he would have been caught and punished, it likely wouldn't even be on his record because he was underage but even if it was, is something that happened between 2 kids at a party 40 years ago really relevant today? Even if he spent a couple years in prison for it 40 years ago, does this disqualify him now? We should be looking at his record for the last 10-15 years max not stuff he did in HS or even college.
Now there are plenty of things that we should be looking at like his sealed records, his temperament on the stands, etc... but these rape allegations should have been quietly investigated and only been made public if they had actually found evidence. By making them public they not only hurt Ford and Kavanaugh's reputations but they intentionally polarized the country even more. So think about that for a little bit, the only thing that was really accomplished was to further polarize the country. The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
I have personally always wondered about the effect taking wind energy has.
I wonder this too but how much are we talking about? Do a thousand windmills really take out more energy than 10 thousand trees? Planting thousands of trees in an area would likely have the same if not a greater effect on the reduction of wind speed. I even say a proposal once on what type of wind breaks it would take to stop tornados from forming over the USA. Everything we do has some effect. Someone has theorized that if we terraformed the sahara and planted trees that it would reduce the amount of sandstorms which would reduce the amount of rain in the Amazon. Studies like this are useful but we need to take it all with a grain of salt. We need to decide what is the least destructive path and try to travel that path and the least destructive path is many times multiple things in moderation.
Those are 90s web sites, tiny in comparison to today's animation heavy monsters. Aren't GeoCities sites static anyway? Then why couldn't they just make a tar of everything and hand it over to archive.org?
Yeah, something doesn't add up. If they are low traffic then the cost is negligible and if they are high traffic then they should be able to make money from ads. Basically, whatever the traffic is, putting ads on them should more than cover the cost of the servers.
Of course, I'm an old curmudgeon who still believe that commoditization of personal information is fundamentally wrong and that privacy rights need to be inalienable and untradeable.
This almost sounds like a setup to expose how much your personal data is really worth. Even if its not, escaping into the real world might help people realize the value of their information. Of course, it could cause the real world to go "free" as well where everything is free in exchange for your soul.
this one is probably made around the idea that women are being excluded from boards for reasons other than a lack of qualities relevant to the job.
This has the same problem as third party presidential candidates. Most presidential candidates are governors first. Because there are no libertarian or green party governors, it's hard to have decent presidential candidates. Most fortune 500 board members and CEOs were previously board members and CEOs on smaller companies. Starting at the top doesn't make any sense.
One problem with the flu shot is that it is predictive. There have been many, MANY years where the "type" of flu vaccinated for, is not the type the spread through the population. Often, the shot is useless. The flu is really thousands of flus, sadly.
The flu vaccine is based on the most common strains of the previous year. Yes, it's somewhat predictive but have you ever considered that the reason the strain that is vaccinated against is not the one that is most common is *because* it is vaccinated against. That's what you would expect if a large percentage of the population is immune to a certain strain. You would expect that strain to not spread as much.
If only it wasn't such a PITA to leave work to get a shot. Just deliver the damn thing to my home and I'll prick myself. Done!
Assuming you eventually leave work at some point, this shouldn't be a problem (at least where I live). Where I live, I pass teo 24 hour walgreens and several other pharmacies on my way home from work that offer flu shots with no appointment.
We should designate an official war zone over an uninhabited part of the Pacific Ocean where million dollar robots can fight each other to the death. At least that way instead of having an expensive chess match where real people die, we just have the expensive chess match.
Have you not read the paper? Apple has like a paltry 1% share. They are barely hanging on.
Apple has a 43% market share in the USA and if you only talk about "high end" phones or "contract phones" then it's likely considerably higher. Android has a larger market share only because it also sells a bunch of low end devices and between the two of them (google and apple), they control virtually 100% of the smartphone market.
uh... so how is the default chosen? Google has better results, sure, but the difference is not consequent enough that Apple cannot make some (good) money out of it.
Why do you have to choose a default? Apple already asks setup questions when you first turn on a device. Of course then it would just shift to charging companies to show up in the list of options. You could do a blank box and let the user type in the url but that is hard on the semiliterate users.
Whatever solution, it makes my skin crawls when one monopoly is giving billions of dollars to a different monopoly in order to maintain those monopolies. Anyone who isn't disturbed by this isn't paying attention.
If True, that is going to come as a surprise to most of the world. You're of voting age now, and no longer part of the family.
Immediate family has a strict definition. It usually refers to living under a single roof but can occasional make an exception for kids in college. It's the definition used for health insurance and most other "family membership plans". It sometimes is defined as dependants.
Other services use a variety of methods to reduce cheating. Things like sharing credit card information too, restricting shipping addresses, limiting the number of streams, or GPS. There are lots of ways to verify that someone is part of the family but they all have their own limitations and problems.
I think limiting streams seems like the fairest and give the newest connection the ability to terminate stale streams. Other options include allowing the "owner" to see the streaming history of all the sub accounts and/or only allow two over 18 accounts per family plan.
I've got a cabin way out in the boonies where I can't get strong internet. It sounds more realistic than the whole google balloons project.
They already have satellite internet that works anywhere in North America but it's expensive, slow, and really horrible ping times. It also requires a satellite dish. Not sure what this service actually is targetted at. When I think IoT, I think small devices and satellites like this are very low bandwidth. GPS gets away with small devices because it is only one way communication. Bulky low bandwidth devices seem to be a niche application for maybe some odd telemetry where regular internet doesn't exist. Maybe monitoring ocean temperatures?
If you Google "teacher salary by country", the first link is to an OECD study. The USA ranks 5th highest in teacher income.
The OECD says top of pay scale in the USA for school teachers is $68k. That sounds about right. In order to get that a teacher needs to have a Master's Degree and likely also needs to teach summer school (i.e. all 12 months). Compare that to other occupations with 6+ years of post high school training. They aren't the worst paying job but almost all the teachers I know have a spouse that makes considerably more than they do. Try to find another occupation where everyone in that occupation makes less than their spouse. Especially today, most people tend to marry people in the same sociaeconomic and intellectual class as they are. My guess is a majority of teachers could easily find a better paying job if they left teaching.
And where exactly do you live? Cuz no place in 'merica is like that. I'd love to know... for a friend.
I live in Columbia, MO (one of the larger metropolitan areas in Missouri with population 120k with a mall, 2 theatres, etc...). My parents live in Chillicothe, MO (population 10k) and do not have keys to their house and leave the keys in all their vehicles, ATVs and heavy machinery. As a kid I used to get in trouble if I removed the keys from my car, four wheeler, or any other vehicle. When we went on vacation to Alaska for 3 weeks, we locked the front door and walked out the back because we didn't have keys to our house. Most of my dad's vehicles to this day have the keys zip-tied to the ignition so no one can remove them and they all sit outside 24/7.
Never mind reliable and safe - it would get stolen from a US front yard before it could break down or hurt anyone. At most one of these could do a back yard hidden away from the street.
You need to find a better place to live. A large percentage of places in the USA with yards large enough to mow are relatively safe to leave stuff out. I have a grill and a couple bikes I leave outside and have never had a problem. Many houses in my neighborhood have similar stuff left outside. I also would think that if I had a mower like this that I would likely give it a doggie door to use so it would only be out for a few hours a week at most.
It's why I asked at the start what is "real". Because beyond even "good" or "bad", defining "real" and "fake" are even harder problems to crack even for humans.
You don't have to strictly define "real" vs "fake" for every questionable app for this to be a non-issue. You just have to make sure that apps that matter (banking apps and fortune 500 apps) are made by actual banks and actual fortune 500 companies. We are talking about maybe a few thousand companies max that need to be properly vetted. If you make sure there are no fake clones of the banking apps and the top 50-100 most popular email and social apps then you have eliminated 99.9% of the potential attack vector. Obviously, noone other than facebook should be allowed to publish a facebook clone app, same goes for most other popular apps that would be tempting to create a phishing app for.
The user is the one who was tricked into installing the fake app.
What's a "real" app? Answer that and we can discuss how people can avoid fake ones.
If Apple and Google are going to insist on having walled gardens they should also guarantee that these walled gardens are safe. Who is asleep at the wheel and approving clones of popular sites? They need to either police their walled garden or get rid of it. If they got rid of the walled garden then third parties could start offering malware scanners, etc... to alert people of malicious apps.
A lot of apps are just mobile interfaces to services that also have web pages. Why would you have different passwords for each interface? Should there be a different password if you have a desktop app? What about a mobile browser?
I didn't say different passwords. I said that you shouldn't be autofilling from one to the other until they use if for the first time. They shouldn't be trying to link the app with the website. The user should be the one doing that. I see no reason to expect a password manager to carry my password across from the website to the app unless I specifically tell it to. Even if it does, this is still a user screwup that would still happen without a password manager.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the only way for change to happen. Imagine in people from 200 years ago were still alive and voting. We'd never progress as a society.
"And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new."
If we could completely stop aging, the average life expectance would only jump to about 300. You can calculate this by extrapolating out the death rate of a 25 year old. People would eventually die from other things besides old age. This would likely be a net benefit to society. We would greatly reduce our heathcare costs and people wouldn't have to retire because they are no longer capable of working. It would likely have other effects too. People might decide to be more careful with their driving and eating habits if they knew that it was up to them how long they could live.
If it's an either-or, the ethical and more humane solution for society in that case would be to take away voting rights from 100+ year olds, not to shun the possibilities of them living longer
Not just voting rights. Right now, death helps redistribute wealth. It's not perfect but imagine if Rockafeller never died. Instead of a charitable foundation, we would have someone likely with an almost infinite amount of wealth by now.
Regardless of these facts, it's good to know you don't mind someone brutally drugging and raping the females you love, as long as n amount of time has passed. I wonder if the females who know you in real life know that you don't mind if they get brutally drugged and raped?
There was no drugging or raping. Ford doesn't even claim that. There might have been an attempted rape by an underage person and I think if an attempted rape happened and there was proof then there should be a punishment. But, no, I don't think that something that happened 40 years ago by an underage person is relevant today. The reason we have different laws for people under 18 is because society agrees. The reason we lock people up is to keep them from doing it again and to deter other people from doing it. I don't see how society benefits from locking up someone for a crime they committed when they were a child when they obviously aren't a threat to society anymore.
If I understand you right, the things you count as evidence are "more specific details", and also "more corroborating stories from people about the event in question" -- not necessarily witnesses to the event, but people who can corroborate other incidental details of the accusation. In other words you'd want to see more "(s)he-said" to back up the the other details, presumably with the implication that if more people back up other details then you think a judge should believe the central detail.
(and you're specifically not interested in corroborating stories about behaviors/characteristics of the people in general; you're only interested in the particular event).
Is that a fair understanding of your position?
In law it's called "Preponderance of evidence". Even if it's all "he said/she said" if there are enough witnesses then it starts to look likely.
Because this isn't a legal proceeding, it wouldn't have to be even all one event to disqualify him but a large enough trend to make it likely.
For most sexual predators (like Clinton), there are dozens of people who come forward once the first story breaks. You are not seeing that in this case.
You are seeing a few people come forward about his drinking habits but getting wasted in HS or college isn't really something that is prosecuted or even on trial here.
The hypocrisy is also really annoying. This isn't and never was about a juvenile attempted rape. This is completely political (on both sides). Neither side really cares about the truth. Both sides ignore much worse stuff if it's somebody on their team.
What I want to hear from someone in his shoes:
"The American people deserve a Justice without any doubt of his veracity. I refute these claims, and submit my withdrawal of candidacy.
That's exactly what we DO NOT want to happen. We don't want someone withdrawing because of false accusations. What I would have preferred to see is a response of "investigate all you want, sure I'll take a polygraph, etc.." The real issue here (besides the wag the dog pony show) is that the Republicans want to make sure they get a confirmation before the November Election just in case they lose some seats which generally happens in midterm elections.
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
A location would be a good start. Other people at the party would also help.
If it was a large party then there should be plenty of other people that remember the party.
If it was a small party with only 3-5 people then other people should be able to remember Ford and Kavanaugh actually being friends.
You don't have a small party with 3-5 strangers and you don't have a large party without a lot of witnesses.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
First Off:
There is zero evidence that it happened. There is zero evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford even ever met before. It's completely "he said/she said" but actually worse than that because even the people she named have said that they don't remember any such event. There is no time, no day, no month, no year, no location. There are 300 million people in the USA. It's not inconceivable that at least one of them would be crazy enough to make up a story like this. I'm actually amazed that it doesn't happen more often. It doesn't help her case that Ford is a expert in psychology nor that all the accusers are die-hard democrats.
Secondly:
If evidence does turn up or if he otherwise becomes unfit for the job, you can still impeach him.
Lastly:
Even if it did happen and was a single event at age 17 and he would have been caught and punished, it likely wouldn't even be on his record because he was underage but even if it was, is something that happened between 2 kids at a party 40 years ago really relevant today? Even if he spent a couple years in prison for it 40 years ago, does this disqualify him now? We should be looking at his record for the last 10-15 years max not stuff he did in HS or even college.
Now there are plenty of things that we should be looking at like his sealed records, his temperament on the stands, etc... but these rape allegations should have been quietly investigated and only been made public if they had actually found evidence. By making them public they not only hurt Ford and Kavanaugh's reputations but they intentionally polarized the country even more. So think about that for a little bit, the only thing that was really accomplished was to further polarize the country. The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
I have personally always wondered about the effect taking wind energy has.
I wonder this too but how much are we talking about? Do a thousand windmills really take out more energy than 10 thousand trees? Planting thousands of trees in an area would likely have the same if not a greater effect on the reduction of wind speed. I even say a proposal once on what type of wind breaks it would take to stop tornados from forming over the USA. Everything we do has some effect. Someone has theorized that if we terraformed the sahara and planted trees that it would reduce the amount of sandstorms which would reduce the amount of rain in the Amazon. Studies like this are useful but we need to take it all with a grain of salt. We need to decide what is the least destructive path and try to travel that path and the least destructive path is many times multiple things in moderation.
Those are 90s web sites, tiny in comparison to today's animation heavy monsters. Aren't GeoCities sites static anyway? Then why couldn't they just make a tar of everything and hand it over to archive.org?
Yeah, something doesn't add up. If they are low traffic then the cost is negligible and if they are high traffic then they should be able to make money from ads. Basically, whatever the traffic is, putting ads on them should more than cover the cost of the servers.
Of course, I'm an old curmudgeon who still believe that commoditization of personal information is fundamentally wrong and that privacy rights need to be inalienable and untradeable.
This almost sounds like a setup to expose how much your personal data is really worth. Even if its not, escaping into the real world might help people realize the value of their information. Of course, it could cause the real world to go "free" as well where everything is free in exchange for your soul.
this one is probably made around the idea that women are being excluded from boards for reasons other than a lack of qualities relevant to the job.
This has the same problem as third party presidential candidates. Most presidential candidates are governors first. Because there are no libertarian or green party governors, it's hard to have decent presidential candidates. Most fortune 500 board members and CEOs were previously board members and CEOs on smaller companies. Starting at the top doesn't make any sense.
One problem with the flu shot is that it is predictive. There have been many, MANY years where the "type" of flu vaccinated for, is not the type the spread through the population. Often, the shot is useless. The flu is really thousands of flus, sadly.
The flu vaccine is based on the most common strains of the previous year. Yes, it's somewhat predictive but have you ever considered that the reason the strain that is vaccinated against is not the one that is most common is *because* it is vaccinated against. That's what you would expect if a large percentage of the population is immune to a certain strain. You would expect that strain to not spread as much.
If only it wasn't such a PITA to leave work to get a shot. Just deliver the damn thing to my home and I'll prick myself. Done!
Assuming you eventually leave work at some point, this shouldn't be a problem (at least where I live). Where I live, I pass teo 24 hour walgreens and several other pharmacies on my way home from work that offer flu shots with no appointment.
We should designate an official war zone over an uninhabited part of the Pacific Ocean where million dollar robots can fight each other to the death. At least that way instead of having an expensive chess match where real people die, we just have the expensive chess match.
Have you not read the paper? Apple has like a paltry 1% share. They are barely hanging on.
Apple has a 43% market share in the USA and if you only talk about "high end" phones or "contract phones" then it's likely
considerably higher. Android has a larger market share only because it also sells a bunch of low end devices and between
the two of them (google and apple), they control virtually 100% of the smartphone market.
https://www.macrumors.com/2017...
https://www.pcmag.com/news/358...
uh... so how is the default chosen? Google has better results, sure, but the difference is not consequent enough that Apple cannot make some (good) money out of it.
Why do you have to choose a default? Apple already asks setup questions when you first turn on a device. Of course then it would just shift to charging companies to show up in the list of options. You could do a blank box and let the user type in the url but that is hard on the semiliterate users.
Whatever solution, it makes my skin crawls when one monopoly is giving billions of dollars to a different monopoly in order to maintain those monopolies. Anyone who isn't disturbed by this isn't paying attention.
If True, that is going to come as a surprise to most of the world. You're of voting age now, and no longer part of the family.
Immediate family has a strict definition. It usually refers to living under a single roof but can occasional make an exception for kids in college. It's the definition used for health insurance and most other "family membership plans". It sometimes is defined as dependants.
Other services use a variety of methods to reduce cheating. Things like sharing credit card information too, restricting shipping addresses, limiting the number of streams, or GPS. There are lots of ways to verify that someone is part of the family but they all have their own limitations and problems.
I think limiting streams seems like the fairest and give the newest connection the ability to terminate stale streams. Other options include allowing the "owner" to see the streaming history of all the sub accounts and/or only allow two over 18 accounts per family plan.
I know dish has an autoaiming satellite for tailgating and RVs. I'm assuming a similar technology would work fine for satellite internet.
I've got a cabin way out in the boonies where I can't get strong internet.
It sounds more realistic than the whole google balloons project.
They already have satellite internet that works anywhere in North America but it's expensive, slow, and really horrible ping times. It also requires a satellite dish. Not sure what this service actually is targetted at. When I think IoT, I think small devices and satellites like this are very low bandwidth. GPS gets away with small devices because it is only one way communication. Bulky low bandwidth devices seem to be a niche application for maybe some odd telemetry where regular internet doesn't exist. Maybe monitoring ocean temperatures?
If you Google "teacher salary by country", the first link is to an OECD study. The USA ranks 5th highest in teacher income.
The OECD says top of pay scale in the USA for school teachers is $68k. That sounds about right. In order to get that a teacher needs to have a Master's Degree and likely also needs to teach summer school (i.e. all 12 months). Compare that to other occupations with 6+ years of post high school training. They aren't the worst paying job but almost all the teachers I know have a spouse that makes considerably more than they do. Try to find another occupation where everyone in that occupation makes less than their spouse. Especially today, most people tend to marry people in the same sociaeconomic and intellectual class as they are. My guess is a majority of teachers could easily find a better paying job if they left teaching.
And where exactly do you live? Cuz no place in 'merica is like that. I'd love to know... for a friend.
I live in Columbia, MO (one of the larger metropolitan areas in Missouri with population 120k with a mall, 2 theatres, etc...). My parents live in Chillicothe, MO (population 10k) and do not have keys to their house and leave the keys in all their vehicles, ATVs and heavy machinery. As a kid I used to get in trouble if I removed the keys from my car, four wheeler, or any other vehicle. When we went on vacation to Alaska for 3 weeks, we locked the front door and walked out the back because we didn't have keys to our house. Most of my dad's vehicles to this day have the keys zip-tied to the ignition so no one can remove them and they all sit outside 24/7.
Never mind reliable and safe - it would get stolen from a US front yard before it could break down or hurt anyone. At most one of these could do a back yard hidden away from the street.
You need to find a better place to live. A large percentage of places in the USA with yards large enough to mow are relatively safe to leave stuff out. I have a grill and a couple bikes I leave outside and have never had a problem. Many houses in my neighborhood have similar stuff left outside. I also would think that if I had a mower like this that I would likely give it a doggie door to use so it would only be out for a few hours a week at most.
It's why I asked at the start what is "real". Because beyond even "good" or "bad", defining "real" and "fake" are even harder problems to crack even for humans.
You don't have to strictly define "real" vs "fake" for every questionable app for this to be a non-issue. You just have to make sure that apps that matter (banking apps and fortune 500 apps) are made by actual banks and actual fortune 500 companies. We are talking about maybe a few thousand companies max that need to be properly vetted. If you make sure there are no fake clones of the banking apps and the top 50-100 most popular email and social apps then you have eliminated 99.9% of the potential attack vector. Obviously, noone other than facebook should be allowed to publish a facebook clone app, same goes for most other popular apps that would be tempting to create a phishing app for.
What's a "real" app? Answer that and we can discuss how people can avoid fake ones.
If Apple and Google are going to insist on having walled gardens they should also guarantee that these walled gardens are safe. Who is asleep at the wheel and approving clones of popular sites? They need to either police their walled garden or get rid of it. If they got rid of the walled garden then third parties could start offering malware scanners, etc... to alert people of malicious apps.
A lot of apps are just mobile interfaces to services that also have web pages. Why would you have different passwords for each interface? Should there be a different password if you have a desktop app? What about a mobile browser?
I didn't say different passwords. I said that you shouldn't be autofilling from one to the other until they use if for the first time. They shouldn't be trying to link the app with the website. The user should be the one doing that. I see no reason to expect a password manager to carry my password across from the website to the app unless I specifically tell it to. Even if it does, this is still a user screwup that would still happen without a password manager.