You're missing the point: it's not about taxes. I mean, it should be embarrassing for the self-proclaimed king of the deal to lose a billion dollars in a year, and maybe 18 years is a little long to let him carry that loss forward, but not paying tax in a bad year is not the problem.
The problem is that he's claiming Clinton is beholden to Wall Street insiders, at the same time as he's claiming to have bought politicians using his Wall Street money. You're acting like it's better to elect an authentic Wall Street schmuck (Trump) than to elect his proxy (Clinton).
The fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that all they need to do to win the general election is win their primary.
For the most part, they're not wrong. The Presidency is really the only race where November matters, and even there, Donald Trump could literally grab Hillary by the pussy in Sunday's debate and still win at least 15 states. There's only, maybe, 6 senate seats actually competitive. By the time you get to districts as small as US representative, the districts are already gerrymandered enough that the general election doesn't matter. In 2012, the popular vote for Representatives was 48%:49% R:D, but the seat outcome was 54%:46%.
While he's no doubt a pig, "they let you do it" implies consent and you'd need to document lack of consent to prove anything more.
Thousands of women, every day, "let" their bosses, customers, and even random strangers on the street whistle, pinch and grope. That's not consent, it's exhaustion. It's not consent, it's powerlessness. It's not consent, it's expectation that a macho culture will dismiss 'boys being boys.' Sure, you can throw a fit every time some boy touches you, but that's a quick road to social outcast. Strangely, to invite 'inappropriate' touching is an equally quick road to slut-label.
The fact that DJT can't distinguish beating people up with his wealth and power from consent is exactly the problem.
I mentioned Amazon, and a Rental fee. That rental fee could be about the portion of what the studio would get from a theater ticket sale. It seems they would make their money back.
Studios get something around half of the ticket price. They're not paid like book authors or musicians. If you're talking about rental fees big enough to compensate for 4 theater tickets, you're talking about rents of $30-40.
Your OED passage says that the phrase, "its going," is ok, much like, "his going." "Its [gerund]" can be confusing, because it is (audibly) indistinguishable to mean "It is going" or the going of it, but it should be clear from context.
You would never say, "His passe," nor should you use "its passe."
He was engaging in hyperbole, with objects less often than that. But even trying to over-state the amount, it still sounds like not much.
If you walked through Denali and found an empty water bottle or an old pair of shoes every 250 feet - even every 250 yards - I imagine you'd be pretty upset that tourists had trashed the pristine wilderness. It's not a garbage island, but this place is even more remote than the deepest alaska wilderness, and here it is littered up with trash like a DC subway.
I took as some kind of information, the total lack of pictures of the 'garbage patch' in articles about the garbage patch. How hard would it have been for the people who have been there to pull out their phone and take a picture?
It's right there in TFS. They sighted a piece "ever half second" while flying over in a C130. If they're going 100 miles/hour, they cover a bit less than 150 feet per second, or a visible bit of plastic every 75 feet. Dunno what their search width was, but I'd guess less than a quarter mile. They're not looking for microbeads - they're looking for visible, macroscopic floaters
If you're walking through "remote wilderness" park and you come across an empty water bottle or a candy bar wrapper every 100 feet, you'd probably come to the conclusion that the park is full of garbage.
In the old days, you might have accounts on a dozen systems, and each of those systems might have a few hundred or a few thousand users. In that context, hacking an individual user seems like a reasonable tactic. It's fairly high effort, but the individual targets were fairly high value. Today, you might have accounts on a hundred systems, and each of them has hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of users. It's harder to hack a system than a user, but the return is so much greater that it's just not cost effective.
My point is that password policy was originally developed in the context of protecting the user from an outside attacker, and today we need to think of password policy protecting the user from the system itself. Complexity is less important than diversity.
We can download a password manager for free. Authentication token managers are going to cost money, with the price depending on how many authentication tokens you need them to manage.
You can get a U2F USB token about the size of your house key for $8 that will manage as many separate authentications as you like. For $50, you can get one with NFC that will talk to your phone.
They look like a great system now, until you lose the physical token. If they ever become popular, then I'm sure there will be techniques to subvert them - MITM, phishing or misdirection - I'm not smart enough to guess. If they every become popular, then I'm sure the 'lost token' problem will frequently be solved by having a password backdoor around the token.
I imagine that the largest market for self-driving chairs will be departments of motor vehicles. I just wonder if you'll be allowed to ride one before you get your license.
Given the difficulty of installing something to the image when you want to, the potential for it to be easily and automatically owned by is very low.
Viruses and worms can run just fine from RAM. Discovery may be slow, but once you find a vulnerable system with a read only filesystem, you have it report its IP to a C&C node, then re-infect it whenever you need it.
States spend more on education in real dollars than they did 50 years ago, students pay much more tuition, and the colleges and university spend a lot more of it.
You have to take into account enrollment, or count per capita cost. In 1965, there were 6 million college students; in 2015, 20 million. If you look closely at your NYT article, you'll see that total spending increased by 5x between 1965 and 1975, then by not-quite-2x from 1975 to 2015. Nor is the NYT article distinguishing among dollars spent on classroom instruction, sports programs, or housing and campus security.
The sixties were a good time for education: people still believed in the future. It's since then than things have stagnated
I wish. It's much more likely we'll get "free" education, that is, we'll just have our tax dollars subsidizing the bloat instead of lifetimes of debt-servitude from the students.
Believe it or not, that used to be the way the system worked. "State" schools were called that because they were funded largely by state tax dollars on the ideas that an educated population was good for the state and that education should not be restricted to the few people able to afford it. Over the last 50 years, in almost every state, state spending on colleges has not kept up with population and enrollment growth (and in some cases have even been cut in real dollars). It still costs about the same (inflation adjusted) to educate a student, just today the student has to pay most of that cost, where in 1970 state governments paid most of it.
Take a look at any Charity, foundation, donation organization, etc. and take a look at the person running it. In most cases that person is making millions.
In "most cases," charities, foundations, etc, are small, local organizations with budgets in the tens or hundreds of thousands whose principals are frequently unpaid. Even in large, international organizations with budgets of billions, like the Red Cross or United Way (both often cited as "bad" or "misleading" charities), Gail McGovern of Red Cross made $600k in 2014 and Brian Gallagher of United Way made $1.5M. Big numbers, certainly, but they're each running $4B organizations. Same basic size as Bose or Petco; Fortune 150. If the directors are making "millions" with an s, your nonprofit is probably not a charity.
Top tier publications like Science and Nature have some good papers.
Science and Nature publish exciting papers with comparatively little data. They're the place you publish things that might be groundbreaking, so they get wide exposure. After a couple of years, most of the revolutionary stuff fails to pan out, but whatever does will always cite Science as the first report.
That might be because Trump is unapologetic in his avocation for prioritizing American interests over those of the world at large - in foreign trade, in overseas military action and in diplomacy.
I, for one, am happy that we are reaching the end of candidates' formative years being the glorious 1950s. When we had the only major economic infrastructure not destroyed by WWII and post-war reconstruction let 80% of men and 30% of women get jobs. Before all that silly civil rights stuff, when the country was less than 8% foreign-born and the census bureau didn't even bother reporting stats on Asian and African descent. McCarthyism, Elvis, and Marylin Monroe.
It's time we let this anachronistic fantasy world die.
North Caroliners voted their own representatives in the office. They can vote them out if these are so corrupt as to hinder them in access to basic service.
What's happening in North Carolina is that the local efforts of pockets of liberalism are being over-ruled by the state-wide, gerrymandered conservative majority. That same state-wide majority is strongly opposed to imposition of regulation or intervention from other-party-dominated federal agencies. The two party system results in politicians supporting the scale of government where their party dominates. Local, but not too local.
Incorporation is just a legal framework for people to work together. It doesn't force that organization to have a business plan, to be for-profit, or to seek venture captial and a path to IPO.
Already done. Previous versions of this study, involving different time points, different reference interventions, and different sample sizes have shown trackers are beneficial or not helpful. Big surprise, the whole story is more complicated than a headline.
There's a huge psychological component to all of this - that's why there is such a wide array of diets that work, exercises that work, good trainers and bad trainers. You can imagine ways where the tracker could be used as a crutch or an excuse.
In this study, they had counselors talk to their subjects and recommend an exercise regimen. I can imagine people with the trackers, very able to quantify total daily activity, might count some of their routine activity against the recommended exercise, thus do less exercise. In a previous group-based intervention, I can imagine people competing to get the best numbers, thus doing more activity (and, it turns out, trackers are beneficial over group activity alone).
Also worth pointing out that they don't have huge changes - these are people who lost 10 pounds in 2 years, where the tracker-delta is 5 pounds. "Helps" or "Hurts" is a pretty small effect, regardless.
The study didn't isolate one, but mixed it in with other things. Yes, that was the only variable, but a variable in a field of confounds that weren't corrected for.
This study directly tested whether an activity tracker is a beneficial addition to weight loss counseling. It didn't ask whether that counseling itself is effective, and it didn't ask whether a counselor is more effective than a brochure. It didn't ask whether a counselor is more effective than a personal trainer. It didn't ask whether a monitor is always beneficial/harmful under all conditions. It didn't ask whether activity monitors interact with various forms of intervention.
Just because they didn't do the comprehensive study you would like to see done, or the study you inferred from the popular-press summary of their study, does not mean their study is flawed. It means you have a different question.
Circadian rhythms, entrained both to light and activity, are starting to look pretty important to metabolism of consumed food. They're definitely important to the consumption of food, in that mucking up the internal clock results in overeating (in animal models). Body weight is not a simple arithmetic of calories eaten - calories exercised.
I can't name a single thing in my home that is china-made and has lasted very long.
Logitech mouse, 17 years. Likewise, this generic, $10 keyboard. Audio receiver 25 years. I bought my refrigerator used, 19 years ago, but it's still going strong. Microwave oven...came with the house, probably 30 years old now. Pretty much nothing that 'came with the house' has been replaced in 20 years. Everything that has been replaced, except for a couple of DVD players, has been replaced to get new features or better performance.
I don't know what you're doing with your stuff that it won't last 10 years, but maybe the problem is not the manufacturing.
EpiPens are priced a bit more affordably here, but many other drugs are not very affordable, most notably things like cancer drugs.
Epinepherine and autoinjectors are out of patent, so they can be made by anyone (subject to country-specific rules). The newest, most effective cancer drugs are still under patent, giving the sole producers much more power. I suspect they realize that accepting "reasonable" prices from nationalized health care providers would undercut their US margins.
The one area that US healthcare statistically outshines the rest of the world is cancer survival. I wonder if this is why.
The parents refuse to get a proper muscle biopsy done, something that could clarify if that is the actual cause.
The hospital could easily have done that biopsy after parental rights were revoked and the child was made, effectively, a ward of the hospital. Except that the hospital's diagnosis "somatic symptom disorder" requires no diagnostic tests, or at best, a handful of 'negative' results. Once the psychiatrist said, "It's all in her head," and wrapped his own ego around that claim, things got ugly. The doctor "in charge" has no interest in overturning his own diagnosis. Child Protective Services doesn't have the resources to evaluate medical information, and appear to have a policy of not questioning anything volunteered by a physician. The hospital/CPS even ignored the recommendation of their own ethics committee, that the child be evaluated by physicians from outside the hospital.
Medically, there's the family physician treating the child for a mitochondrial disorder for which there are no conclusive tests, and there's the hospital physician treating the child for psychosomatic symptoms because there are no conclusive tests. There's two sides to every story, but one of these docs referred the child to other experts for evaluation; one of these docs refused to let other docs examine the child.
There's an additional constraint, which is that the autoinjector is intended to be used by untrained people. It has to be, literally, idiot proof. The reason the competing producer got pulled from the market is failure of idiot-proofness - that it would sometimes deliver the wrong dose.
Proving that your device is idiot proof is expensive, putting a high barrier to entry of new market participants. The liability cost of failing idiot-proofness is outrageous. The result is, even with a 95% profit margin, no commercial entity (in the US) wants to start up and compete with the entrenched monopoly on price. Seems rational to me.
The DIY publishers have done a nice job of demonstrating the regulatory walls that protect the US pharmaceutical industry, but the first time someone tries to use an epi-pencil and delivers a wrong dose, gets a venous injection, or an infection, they're going to be targets of civil lawsuits from whomever managed to build or use the device wrong. We need reform of the laws that facilitate monopoly-like entrenchment and reform of the culture that looks at misfortune as a lottery ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point: it's not about taxes. I mean, it should be embarrassing for the self-proclaimed king of the deal to lose a billion dollars in a year, and maybe 18 years is a little long to let him carry that loss forward, but not paying tax in a bad year is not the problem.
The problem is that he's claiming Clinton is beholden to Wall Street insiders, at the same time as he's claiming to have bought politicians using his Wall Street money. You're acting like it's better to elect an authentic Wall Street schmuck (Trump) than to elect his proxy (Clinton).
The fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that all they need to do to win the general election is win their primary.
For the most part, they're not wrong. The Presidency is really the only race where November matters, and even there, Donald Trump could literally grab Hillary by the pussy in Sunday's debate and still win at least 15 states. There's only, maybe, 6 senate seats actually competitive. By the time you get to districts as small as US representative, the districts are already gerrymandered enough that the general election doesn't matter. In 2012, the popular vote for Representatives was 48%:49% R:D, but the seat outcome was 54%:46%.
While he's no doubt a pig, "they let you do it" implies consent and you'd need to document lack of consent to prove anything more.
Thousands of women, every day, "let" their bosses, customers, and even random strangers on the street whistle, pinch and grope. That's not consent, it's exhaustion. It's not consent, it's powerlessness. It's not consent, it's expectation that a macho culture will dismiss 'boys being boys.' Sure, you can throw a fit every time some boy touches you, but that's a quick road to social outcast. Strangely, to invite 'inappropriate' touching is an equally quick road to slut-label.
The fact that DJT can't distinguish beating people up with his wealth and power from consent is exactly the problem.
I mentioned Amazon, and a Rental fee. That rental fee could be about the portion of what the studio would get from a theater ticket sale. It seems they would make their money back.
Studios get something around half of the ticket price. They're not paid like book authors or musicians. If you're talking about rental fees big enough to compensate for 4 theater tickets, you're talking about rents of $30-40.
I get that the possessive sense is always its but OED says preceding a gerund or noun-verb that "its" is also correct. In the case of passé which is an adjective I'm not sure
Your OED passage says that the phrase, "its going," is ok, much like, "his going." "Its [gerund]" can be confusing, because it is (audibly) indistinguishable to mean "It is going" or the going of it, but it should be clear from context.
You would never say, "His passe," nor should you use "its passe."
He was engaging in hyperbole, with objects less often than that. But even trying to over-state the amount, it still sounds like not much.
If you walked through Denali and found an empty water bottle or an old pair of shoes every 250 feet - even every 250 yards - I imagine you'd be pretty upset that tourists had trashed the pristine wilderness. It's not a garbage island, but this place is even more remote than the deepest alaska wilderness, and here it is littered up with trash like a DC subway.
I took as some kind of information, the total lack of pictures of the 'garbage patch' in articles about the garbage patch. How hard would it have been for the people who have been there to pull out their phone and take a picture?
It's right there in TFS. They sighted a piece "ever half second" while flying over in a C130. If they're going 100 miles/hour, they cover a bit less than 150 feet per second, or a visible bit of plastic every 75 feet. Dunno what their search width was, but I'd guess less than a quarter mile. They're not looking for microbeads - they're looking for visible, macroscopic floaters
If you're walking through "remote wilderness" park and you come across an empty water bottle or a candy bar wrapper every 100 feet, you'd probably come to the conclusion that the park is full of garbage.
In the old days, you might have accounts on a dozen systems, and each of those systems might have a few hundred or a few thousand users. In that context, hacking an individual user seems like a reasonable tactic. It's fairly high effort, but the individual targets were fairly high value. Today, you might have accounts on a hundred systems, and each of them has hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions of users. It's harder to hack a system than a user, but the return is so much greater that it's just not cost effective.
My point is that password policy was originally developed in the context of protecting the user from an outside attacker, and today we need to think of password policy protecting the user from the system itself. Complexity is less important than diversity.
We can download a password manager for free. Authentication token managers are going to cost money, with the price depending on how many authentication tokens you need them to manage.
You can get a U2F USB token about the size of your house key for $8 that will manage as many separate authentications as you like. For $50, you can get one with NFC that will talk to your phone.
They look like a great system now, until you lose the physical token. If they ever become popular, then I'm sure there will be techniques to subvert them - MITM, phishing or misdirection - I'm not smart enough to guess. If they every become popular, then I'm sure the 'lost token' problem will frequently be solved by having a password backdoor around the token.
I imagine that the largest market for self-driving chairs will be departments of motor vehicles. I just wonder if you'll be allowed to ride one before you get your license.
Given the difficulty of installing something to the image when you want to, the potential for it to be easily and automatically owned by is very low.
Viruses and worms can run just fine from RAM. Discovery may be slow, but once you find a vulnerable system with a read only filesystem, you have it report its IP to a C&C node, then re-infect it whenever you need it.
States spend more on education in real dollars than they did 50 years ago, students pay much more tuition, and the colleges and university spend a lot more of it.
You have to take into account enrollment, or count per capita cost. In 1965, there were 6 million college students; in 2015, 20 million. If you look closely at your NYT article, you'll see that total spending increased by 5x between 1965 and 1975, then by not-quite-2x from 1975 to 2015. Nor is the NYT article distinguishing among dollars spent on classroom instruction, sports programs, or housing and campus security.
The sixties were a good time for education: people still believed in the future. It's since then than things have stagnated
I wish. It's much more likely we'll get "free" education, that is, we'll just have our tax dollars subsidizing the bloat instead of lifetimes of debt-servitude from the students.
Believe it or not, that used to be the way the system worked. "State" schools were called that because they were funded largely by state tax dollars on the ideas that an educated population was good for the state and that education should not be restricted to the few people able to afford it. Over the last 50 years, in almost every state, state spending on colleges has not kept up with population and enrollment growth (and in some cases have even been cut in real dollars). It still costs about the same (inflation adjusted) to educate a student, just today the student has to pay most of that cost, where in 1970 state governments paid most of it.
Take a look at any Charity, foundation, donation organization, etc. and take a look at the person running it. In most cases that person is making millions.
In "most cases," charities, foundations, etc, are small, local organizations with budgets in the tens or hundreds of thousands whose principals are frequently unpaid. Even in large, international organizations with budgets of billions, like the Red Cross or United Way (both often cited as "bad" or "misleading" charities), Gail McGovern of Red Cross made $600k in 2014 and Brian Gallagher of United Way made $1.5M. Big numbers, certainly, but they're each running $4B organizations. Same basic size as Bose or Petco; Fortune 150. If the directors are making "millions" with an s, your nonprofit is probably not a charity.
Top tier publications like Science and Nature have some good papers.
Science and Nature publish exciting papers with comparatively little data. They're the place you publish things that might be groundbreaking, so they get wide exposure. After a couple of years, most of the revolutionary stuff fails to pan out, but whatever does will always cite Science as the first report.
Serious science is mostly not revolutionary
That might be because Trump is unapologetic in his avocation for prioritizing American interests over those of the world at large - in foreign trade, in overseas military action and in diplomacy.
I, for one, am happy that we are reaching the end of candidates' formative years being the glorious 1950s. When we had the only major economic infrastructure not destroyed by WWII and post-war reconstruction let 80% of men and 30% of women get jobs. Before all that silly civil rights stuff, when the country was less than 8% foreign-born and the census bureau didn't even bother reporting stats on Asian and African descent. McCarthyism, Elvis, and Marylin Monroe.
It's time we let this anachronistic fantasy world die.
North Caroliners voted their own representatives in the office. They can vote them out if these are so corrupt as to hinder them in access to basic service.
What's happening in North Carolina is that the local efforts of pockets of liberalism are being over-ruled by the state-wide, gerrymandered conservative majority. That same state-wide majority is strongly opposed to imposition of regulation or intervention from other-party-dominated federal agencies. The two party system results in politicians supporting the scale of government where their party dominates. Local, but not too local.
Incorporation is just a legal framework for people to work together. It doesn't force that organization to have a business plan, to be for-profit, or to seek venture captial and a path to IPO.
Already done. Previous versions of this study, involving different time points, different reference interventions, and different sample sizes have shown trackers are beneficial or not helpful. Big surprise, the whole story is more complicated than a headline.
There's a huge psychological component to all of this - that's why there is such a wide array of diets that work, exercises that work, good trainers and bad trainers. You can imagine ways where the tracker could be used as a crutch or an excuse.
In this study, they had counselors talk to their subjects and recommend an exercise regimen. I can imagine people with the trackers, very able to quantify total daily activity, might count some of their routine activity against the recommended exercise, thus do less exercise. In a previous group-based intervention, I can imagine people competing to get the best numbers, thus doing more activity (and, it turns out, trackers are beneficial over group activity alone).
Also worth pointing out that they don't have huge changes - these are people who lost 10 pounds in 2 years, where the tracker-delta is 5 pounds. "Helps" or "Hurts" is a pretty small effect, regardless.
The study didn't isolate one, but mixed it in with other things. Yes, that was the only variable, but a variable in a field of confounds that weren't corrected for.
This study directly tested whether an activity tracker is a beneficial addition to weight loss counseling. It didn't ask whether that counseling itself is effective, and it didn't ask whether a counselor is more effective than a brochure. It didn't ask whether a counselor is more effective than a personal trainer. It didn't ask whether a monitor is always beneficial/harmful under all conditions. It didn't ask whether activity monitors interact with various forms of intervention.
Just because they didn't do the comprehensive study you would like to see done, or the study you inferred from the popular-press summary of their study, does not mean their study is flawed. It means you have a different question.
Circadian rhythms, entrained both to light and activity, are starting to look pretty important to metabolism of consumed food. They're definitely important to the consumption of food, in that mucking up the internal clock results in overeating (in animal models). Body weight is not a simple arithmetic of calories eaten - calories exercised.
I can't name a single thing in my home that is china-made and has lasted very long.
Logitech mouse, 17 years. Likewise, this generic, $10 keyboard. Audio receiver 25 years. I bought my refrigerator used, 19 years ago, but it's still going strong. Microwave oven...came with the house, probably 30 years old now. Pretty much nothing that 'came with the house' has been replaced in 20 years. Everything that has been replaced, except for a couple of DVD players, has been replaced to get new features or better performance.
I don't know what you're doing with your stuff that it won't last 10 years, but maybe the problem is not the manufacturing.
EpiPens are priced a bit more affordably here, but many other drugs are not very affordable, most notably things like cancer drugs.
Epinepherine and autoinjectors are out of patent, so they can be made by anyone (subject to country-specific rules). The newest, most effective cancer drugs are still under patent, giving the sole producers much more power. I suspect they realize that accepting "reasonable" prices from nationalized health care providers would undercut their US margins.
The one area that US healthcare statistically outshines the rest of the world is cancer survival. I wonder if this is why.
The parents refuse to get a proper muscle biopsy done, something that could clarify if that is the actual cause.
The hospital could easily have done that biopsy after parental rights were revoked and the child was made, effectively, a ward of the hospital. Except that the hospital's diagnosis "somatic symptom disorder" requires no diagnostic tests, or at best, a handful of 'negative' results. Once the psychiatrist said, "It's all in her head," and wrapped his own ego around that claim, things got ugly. The doctor "in charge" has no interest in overturning his own diagnosis. Child Protective Services doesn't have the resources to evaluate medical information, and appear to have a policy of not questioning anything volunteered by a physician. The hospital/CPS even ignored the recommendation of their own ethics committee, that the child be evaluated by physicians from outside the hospital.
Medically, there's the family physician treating the child for a mitochondrial disorder for which there are no conclusive tests, and there's the hospital physician treating the child for psychosomatic symptoms because there are no conclusive tests. There's two sides to every story, but one of these docs referred the child to other experts for evaluation; one of these docs refused to let other docs examine the child.
There's an additional constraint, which is that the autoinjector is intended to be used by untrained people. It has to be, literally, idiot proof. The reason the competing producer got pulled from the market is failure of idiot-proofness - that it would sometimes deliver the wrong dose.
Proving that your device is idiot proof is expensive, putting a high barrier to entry of new market participants. The liability cost of failing idiot-proofness is outrageous. The result is, even with a 95% profit margin, no commercial entity (in the US) wants to start up and compete with the entrenched monopoly on price. Seems rational to me.
The DIY publishers have done a nice job of demonstrating the regulatory walls that protect the US pharmaceutical industry, but the first time someone tries to use an epi-pencil and delivers a wrong dose, gets a venous injection, or an infection, they're going to be targets of civil lawsuits from whomever managed to build or use the device wrong. We need reform of the laws that facilitate monopoly-like entrenchment and reform of the culture that looks at misfortune as a lottery ticket.