Uber is paying a huge cost to corner the market while it is till a new and opening market. But all of these costs are voluntary and could be given up in a day.
At the end the of the day, Uber is a very simple software company that could operate on a shoe string budget of half a dozen employees and a few servers.
But the investors are obviously willing to spend billions building an iron grip on a transportation monopoly.
Two papers is not statistically significant, even 10 is pretty sparse. You need a statistically signification sample to start trusting to blind statistics to come up with the correct result.
How many studies? If a published peer reviewed study states a 95% confidence in the results, but has a 60% chance of being wrong, on average, how many studies must be conducted before we have significant evidence? If we have no tools in which to measure the confidence of an individual study, how do you suggest we come up with the confidence in an aggregate of studies?
A Bogosort will eventually get to the right answer, because it has a way of measuring the correctness of an answer. But without any method of judging an answer we have no method at all. If most studies are wrong, then the consensus is guaranteed to be wrong, than the collected aggregate of a group of studies is guaranteed to be wrong..
Not necessarily. Look at how these companies do their hiring. Google for example has hired every single black person who has ever applied, I assume we would see similar percentages for women engineers.It is not surprising that less hires would cut it, and leave, when you reduce initial vetting. Look at the education admissions system. Blacks make up a huge portion of college enrolls, But since any black with C and D averages can get into MIT, most of them do not ever graduate (as past schooling success is a good indicator of future schooling success)
So what is your point? Since the world and the laws are not perfect, if you kill someone, as a necessary but unfortunate side effect of ignoring these laws, that you are a righteousness and just person?
I really wonder at your point here, assuming that the alcohol distillers during prohibition were as bad as the Mexican Mafia, how is this an argument? Yes, murdering people, and hiring people to murder people for you is wrong, even if it is the only way to get alcohol or heroin. Sometime in the future we will be able to grow organs on demand in vats, that does not mean that right now, just because cheap, legal, plentiful organs do not exist that forced organ harvesting is right. Hireling someone to abduct and kill someone, to replace your ailing kidney is wrong, hiring someone to kill, smuggle, bribe, and threaten for you, to get you high, is wrong.
Perhaps, even if we ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who kill themselves withe drugs. Even if we ignore the the thousands who are killed accidentally by drug users. We are still talking murder, bribery, extortion, slavery, smuggling just to get those drugs to your street corner. If you bought illegal drugs, you are paying other people to murder, enslave, and commit most crimes on the books. Why should that not come with a life sentence? Just because you are white collar and can pay others to commit the crimes for you?
The whole single source, multiple source debate misses the point. If you are getting your news from professional outlet(s) your news is coming from the same billionaire no matter how many publications you subscribe to. CNN does have have a different bias and a different angle than HBO, it has the same bias because it is controlled by the same person. There are less than 10 cooperators that together control all news you ever read in a paper, watch on TV, or browse online. And they are not distinguishable. They are not at war, they jointly own many assets and work together.
Sometimes it is the little things, like really little things. I remember when an employee for the university I was working for turned down a new computer because it was not Mac, and only Macs had the proprietary font that she liked to use.
I would say that it is just as likely that they are going back to windows because of the incompatibility issues and the amount of retraining necessary. This sort of change is so expensive and such a big hassle, I really doubt that any single person could push it through if the average user was fine with how the computers were working.
That sort of seems backwards. It is a hell of a lot easier and quicker to not program a bug in the first place, than to find and fix one. Anyone can code, sure, but if you plan on eventfully delivering a bug free program, maybe the poor coders writing poor bug filled code are not really helping with this at all. Perhaps the senior coders, could have written a better functioning, and easier to maintain piece of software alone, way easier than trying to transform a trash-heap of code into something usable.
Except he is clearly against both. He is not saying that attack is theoretically morally outrageous. He is saying that both Moran and the UAW union are evil and bad. He is 100% against the union. He believes that unions killed all auto manufacturing in California.
Border security does not need evidence, most border situations resolve by allowing the applicant to voluntarily withdraw, and take the next plane home. Others are resolved by just denying entry, and holding the individual until the next plane home is ready to go. Neither involve a court case. Court cases are only used when they find 50 K of cocaine shoved up someones rectum.
>massive privilege of entering the US (and it is a privilege) Is it a privilege for American Citizens, though? There simply is no argument to limiting the amount of oversight the government wants to put on foreigners asking for entry. There is very little to no rights guaranteed for non-citizens. But their are many rights and privileges that American citizens enjoy in America. Which ultimately means that their probably must be some limit placed on what the government can do at the boarder to you, a returning American citizen.
Well that goes for most laws, as the constitution was mostly written as a list of things that the government should not do. I expect even all the way back then that they expected the federal government to grow until it toppled from the weight of its own tyranny.
Just because someone buys a few shares, does not mean they have any idea how to run a company. Their is no human right that forces all shares to be voting shares, and their is no reason to believe that some stock market player has a better idea on how to run a business than the founder.
Helicopters can fly anywhere because they cost millions of dollars, and only a tiny minority of companies and billionaires own them. If anyone suggested several hundred million should take to the sky on a daily basis, we would have to change the regulations concerning them.
So it is left up to industry and individuals to come up with a solution to breathing, and using carbon based fuels? But no one will be punished or rewarded if they come up with a solution or not?
Slashdot Mirror
Uber is paying a huge cost to corner the market while it is till a new and opening market. But all of these costs are voluntary and could be given up in a day.
At the end the of the day, Uber is a very simple software company that could operate on a shoe string budget of half a dozen employees and a few servers.
But the investors are obviously willing to spend billions building an iron grip on a transportation monopoly.
Two papers is not statistically significant, even 10 is pretty sparse. You need a statistically signification sample to start trusting to blind statistics to come up with the correct result.
How many studies? If a published peer reviewed study states a 95% confidence in the results, but has a 60% chance of being wrong, on average, how many studies must be conducted before we have significant evidence? If we have no tools in which to measure the confidence of an individual study, how do you suggest we come up with the confidence in an aggregate of studies?
A Bogosort will eventually get to the right answer, because it has a way of measuring the correctness of an answer. But without any method of judging an answer we have no method at all. If most studies are wrong, then the consensus is guaranteed to be wrong, than the collected aggregate of a group of studies is guaranteed to be wrong..
Not necessarily. Look at how these companies do their hiring. Google for example has hired every single black person who has ever applied, I assume we would see similar percentages for women engineers.It is not surprising that less hires would cut it, and leave, when you reduce initial vetting. Look at the education admissions system. Blacks make up a huge portion of college enrolls, But since any black with C and D averages can get into MIT, most of them do not ever graduate (as past schooling success is a good indicator of future schooling success)
Which is why blood diamonds are illegal, and widely considered immoral.
So what is your point? Since the world and the laws are not perfect, if you kill someone, as a necessary but unfortunate side effect of ignoring these laws, that you are a righteousness and just person?
>alcohol during prohibition
I really wonder at your point here, assuming that the alcohol distillers during prohibition were as bad as the Mexican Mafia, how is this an argument? Yes, murdering people, and hiring people to murder people for you is wrong, even if it is the only way to get alcohol or heroin.
Sometime in the future we will be able to grow organs on demand in vats, that does not mean that right now, just because cheap, legal, plentiful organs do not exist that forced organ harvesting is right. Hireling someone to abduct and kill someone, to replace your ailing kidney is wrong, hiring someone to kill, smuggle, bribe, and threaten for you, to get you high, is wrong.
Perhaps, even if we ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who kill themselves withe drugs. Even if we ignore the the thousands who are killed accidentally by drug users. We are still talking murder, bribery, extortion, slavery, smuggling just to get those drugs to your street corner. If you bought illegal drugs, you are paying other people to murder, enslave, and commit most crimes on the books. Why should that not come with a life sentence? Just because you are white collar and can pay others to commit the crimes for you?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
The whole single source, multiple source debate misses the point. If you are getting your news from professional outlet(s) your news is coming from the same billionaire no matter how many publications you subscribe to. CNN does have have a different bias and a different angle than HBO, it has the same bias because it is controlled by the same person. There are less than 10 cooperators that together control all news you ever read in a paper, watch on TV, or browse online. And they are not distinguishable. They are not at war, they jointly own many assets and work together.
That is what Trump is proposing.
Sometimes it is the little things, like really little things. I remember when an employee for the university I was working for turned down a new computer because it was not Mac, and only Macs had the proprietary font that she liked to use.
I would say that it is just as likely that they are going back to windows because of the incompatibility issues and the amount of retraining necessary. This sort of change is so expensive and such a big hassle, I really doubt that any single person could push it through if the average user was fine with how the computers were working.
That sort of seems backwards. It is a hell of a lot easier and quicker to not program a bug in the first place, than to find and fix one. Anyone can code, sure, but if you plan on eventfully delivering a bug free program, maybe the poor coders writing poor bug filled code are not really helping with this at all. Perhaps the senior coders, could have written a better functioning, and easier to maintain piece of software alone, way easier than trying to transform a trash-heap of code into something usable.
Except he is clearly against both. He is not saying that attack is theoretically morally outrageous. He is saying that both Moran and the UAW union are evil and bad. He is 100% against the union. He believes that unions killed all auto manufacturing in California.
Border security does not need evidence, most border situations resolve by allowing the applicant to voluntarily withdraw, and take the next plane home. Others are resolved by just denying entry, and holding the individual until the next plane home is ready to go. Neither involve a court case. Court cases are only used when they find 50 K of cocaine shoved up someones rectum.
>massive privilege of entering the US (and it is a privilege)
Is it a privilege for American Citizens, though? There simply is no argument to limiting the amount of oversight the government wants to put on foreigners asking for entry. There is very little to no rights guaranteed for non-citizens. But their are many rights and privileges that American citizens enjoy in America. Which ultimately means that their probably must be some limit placed on what the government can do at the boarder to you, a returning American citizen.
Well that goes for most laws, as the constitution was mostly written as a list of things that the government should not do. I expect even all the way back then that they expected the federal government to grow until it toppled from the weight of its own tyranny.
Just because someone buys a few shares, does not mean they have any idea how to run a company. Their is no human right that forces all shares to be voting shares, and their is no reason to believe that some stock market player has a better idea on how to run a business than the founder.
Not all share holders are created equal. Their are millions of owners of FB stock, but thier are a handful that together control a majority..
Ya, all the rabid leftists calling for a violent revolt, have just been undercover for the last 10 years, just in case Trump ran and won the election.
The house is majority Republican. It is the Republicans that just passed this privacy measure
Helicopters can fly anywhere because they cost millions of dollars, and only a tiny minority of companies and billionaires own them. If anyone suggested several hundred million should take to the sky on a daily basis, we would have to change the regulations concerning them.
So it is left up to industry and individuals to come up with a solution to breathing, and using carbon based fuels? But no one will be punished or rewarded if they come up with a solution or not?
I am not sure you understand ridicule. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.