False negatives are much less of a big deal in investing than false positives. One of the basic problems with venture capital is that there are way more investment opportunities than any firm has money to invest. That means you're always going to have missed opportunities no matter how smart your decision making process is. As long as you find enough good opportunities, it doesn't really matter than you missed others.
[[Citation Needed]]. A quick check of the best references I have available says the typical level for cow's milk is 4%. It varies by breed, but even the richest breeds, like Jersey, have just a bit above 5%. 8% is what you'd expect from something like water buffalo milk, which is the richest of any of the animals humans regularly use as a milk source.
That's not to say that "whole" milk is whole. As I understand it, typical milk processing involves separating the fat from the rest of the milk and then recombining it at specified levels to create a standardized product. So "whole" milk will always be 4% fat, even if it comes from a breed that naturally produces more fat than that; the rest of the fat is removed for products like cream and butter.
I would think that flagrantly and blatantly refusing to interoperate with a competitor would be the kind of thing that would attract attention from anti-trust authorities.
Of course that's not how they look at the chance of death. They're talking about the chance of death in a specific time interval. To make up some numbers, a 60 year old man who doesn't drink coffee might have a 1% chance of dying in the next year, which a 60 year old man who drinks coffee might have a 0.88% chance of dying in the next year. That would classify as a 12% reduction in the risk of death.
There's increasing evidence that fake sugar is worse for you than real sugar. My understanding is that the fake sugar affects the sugar receptors in the rest of your body the same way it does the ones in your tongue, which makes it prone to induce type II diabetes- almost exactly the opposite effect from what you want.
The result showing decaf might have a similar effect is possibly the most interesting point in the study. It suggests that the effect is from something other than caffeine, which would mean there's more interesting chemicals in coffee.
The only sensible course is to refuse to sign. Any reviewer can still buy their products at retail without having to sign anything; they just don't get advance access to the products or a chance to pick the company's brains. Their reviews will be a little bit later than those who sign and get to use the product before its official release, but the kind of buyer who wants the new product as soon as it's released wasn't going to listen to reviews anyway.
The other thing to do is to make it explicit that you didn't sign an NDA to get the product you reviewed. There's a reason the most serious reviewers already make sure to review retail products rather than company provided ones: companies have been known to provide a different product to reviewers from what they sell to the general public. Any reviewer who's signing an NDA and getting what may be a custom, tuned product rather than what an ordinary buyer would get isn't trustworthy anyway.
The 4 billion tons is the amount of uranium in the ocean, not the amount of water. The oceans have a volume of over a billion cubic kilometers, and one cubic kilometer is about a billion tons, so the total mass of the oceans is more than a billion billion tons.
There was just enough innocent traffic to mask the transfers***
This is the key, though. The criminal uses of cryptocurrency depend on there being enough legitimate uses to provide effective cover. If those legitimate uses dry up, the cover is blown. If only criminals use cryptocurrency, then using cryptocurrency is enough to get the police to investigate you.
The difference between precious metals and cryptocurrencies is that precious metals have some practical uses. Apart from their use in jewelry- which in many cases is ultimately a form of bullion- they have industrial uses. Admittedly, those uses alone would result in a lower price than the current one, but they do provide some kind of absolute price floor. In contrast, cryptocurrencies have no use except as a medium of exchange, and their price will fall to zero if people decide to stop using them that way.
And yes, you can say something similar about any fiat currency, too; there's no inherent value to dollars, euros, or yen. The practical difference there is that governments demand you use their currencies to pay taxes, which provides a real world use for them that isn't going away any time soon.
"Fruit" exists as both a botanical category and as a culinary category*. The two have some overlap, but many things that are botanical fruits are not culinary fruits, and a few things that are culinary fruits are not botanical fruits. The problem was that Congress was vague when defining what they meant by fruit; they didn't say if they meant it as a botanical category or a culinary category. One role of the courts is to rule what laws mean when they're vague, and in this case the Supreme Court decided that because the tomatoes in question were being imported as food it made more sense to tax them according to their culinary category (vegetable) than their botanical category (fruit).
*It is also used in a literary sense to mean product, e.g. fruit of our labors, fruit of my loins, Fruit-of-the-Loom.
Sorry, but the reason is obvious. They only want the sales tax law applied when there's an actual connection to the state because a resident of the state is buying something. That's a different case from gun, abortion, marriage, etc. laws which would be applied to activities taking place entirely outside the state.
I rather suspect that he has access to really good base information on the subject
I'm sure he has access to more information about USPS than the rest of us. I'm also sure he's not looking at that information because it would require reading, which he is apparently unwilling to do. He is most likely basing his complaints about USPS on his personal grudge against Jeff Bezos and some misinformation he heard on Fox News, since personal grudges and TV propaganda are the same tools he uses to make all his other decisions.
Yes, it has been established the USPS's biggest problem is their need to pre-fund all their pensions for the next 75 years. There's also an established Republican desire to privatize USPS, probably so some private equity firm can suck that pension fund dry and discard the useless husk. If you want to preserve the USPS, get ready to fight to defend it.
This kind of thing is always a potential problem. If you allow uncontrolled inputs, you always need to check if somebody is acting maliciously. Technical improvements could obviously help, but it's at least as important to have legal mechanisms to back them up. Spoofing the system needs to be illegal with real penalties for violations and reasonable mechanisms for spotting the spoofers. This is the new equivalent of making it illegal to use emergency lights if you aren't an emergency vehicle.
I'm not sure I'd expect a continued downward trend. The big efficiency gains you get from upgrading your lighting and TV are one-time things. To see continued efficiency gains, you'll need to find more and more potential gains like those, and there aren't any obvious candidates. At the same time, there are potential new consumers of electricity that could drive demand higher, like electric vehicles. The only way we're likely to see decreasing utility demand is if we continue aggressively installing local generation (e.g. rooftop solar) to power those things.
The way you stay in business despite losing $4.5 billion is to start with a lot more than $4.5 billion in the bank. Uber raised a lot of money and has substantial reserves. The basic idea behind the company has always been to spend heavily developing their brand, expanding their reach, and getting customers used to dealing with them rather than conventional cabs. Once they're well enough established, they'll be able to raise prices and/or pay drivers less to bring themselves to profitability. This kind of thing is very common among start-ups; they burn through a lot of money getting started in the hopes of big profits later.
As far as I can tell, Uber has two hopes for why they'll be profitable enough to justify eating all those losses up front. One is that they'll be able to get driverless cabs before the rest of the market and make big money by not needing to pay drivers. The other is that they'll be able to drive the conventional cab companies out of business and have the market to themselves. If they can charge monopoly rates, they could become very profitable indeed.
In this case, you can also reorder the sentence to make the appositive clearer. "Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old-demigod, and a dildo collector" is potentially ambiguous. "A dildo collector and Nelson Mandela, an 800-year old demigod" is unambiguous.
My general experience is that it is most important to be consistent in your usage and conscious of the possibility of confusion. If you always use an Oxford comma, people will read your lists as lists rather than appositives. You can make this even more clear by using the alternative ordering ("God and my mother, Ayn Rand") when you do want to use an appositive. Similarly, if you avoid the Oxford comma, people will learn to read your lists that way, and you can clarify by using a colon to separate a description from the list it's describing ("the serial sexual harassers: Bill Clinton and Al Franken"). These things only become really unclear if you are inconsistent about your punctuation.
I went in expecting the usual Linus ranting, and although he doesn't disappoint in that department, he also has a valid point.
Linus usually has a valid point when he goes on one of his rants. They aren't just a cranky guy slagging people at random; they're his way of calling out especially bad bullshit. That's the only reason people are willing to put up with them.
THIS is how The Invisible Hand eliminates greenhouse gas emissions.
So long as you ignore all the help the invisible hand had getting to this point. There's been a lot of government investment in developing those renewable energy technologies. That's not to say there's anything wrong with the government stepping in and helping to develop new tech- government funding has helped a huge amount of new tech in practically every field- just to point out that this isn't purely the result of private enterprise operating without government intervention.
We know something. If he had done something obviously threatening, the police would be shouting it from the rooftops and releasing all their bodycam footage to provide justification. When they clam up and give only the fewest details possible, you know they have no excuses.
Because the management thinking is that it's hard to quantify the use of a support department like IT, so it's easier/safer give money to the departments who "produce stuff".
In some ways it's worse than that, because a key factor support people tend to use when judging which projects deserve to be treated as urgent is the political pull of the people demanding them. The net result is that upper management is the last to personally encounter problems from support departments being understaffed because their work always gets handled promptly.
Slashdot Mirror
Good catch, though the source I found said their milk was "only" 22% fat. It's still a lot higher even than water buffalo.
False negatives are much less of a big deal in investing than false positives. One of the basic problems with venture capital is that there are way more investment opportunities than any firm has money to invest. That means you're always going to have missed opportunities no matter how smart your decision making process is. As long as you find enough good opportunities, it doesn't really matter than you missed others.
[[Citation Needed]]. A quick check of the best references I have available says the typical level for cow's milk is 4%. It varies by breed, but even the richest breeds, like Jersey, have just a bit above 5%. 8% is what you'd expect from something like water buffalo milk, which is the richest of any of the animals humans regularly use as a milk source.
That's not to say that "whole" milk is whole. As I understand it, typical milk processing involves separating the fat from the rest of the milk and then recombining it at specified levels to create a standardized product. So "whole" milk will always be 4% fat, even if it comes from a breed that naturally produces more fat than that; the rest of the fat is removed for products like cream and butter.
I would think that flagrantly and blatantly refusing to interoperate with a competitor would be the kind of thing that would attract attention from anti-trust authorities.
Of course that's not how they look at the chance of death. They're talking about the chance of death in a specific time interval. To make up some numbers, a 60 year old man who doesn't drink coffee might have a 1% chance of dying in the next year, which a 60 year old man who drinks coffee might have a 0.88% chance of dying in the next year. That would classify as a 12% reduction in the risk of death.
There's increasing evidence that fake sugar is worse for you than real sugar. My understanding is that the fake sugar affects the sugar receptors in the rest of your body the same way it does the ones in your tongue, which makes it prone to induce type II diabetes- almost exactly the opposite effect from what you want.
The result showing decaf might have a similar effect is possibly the most interesting point in the study. It suggests that the effect is from something other than caffeine, which would mean there's more interesting chemicals in coffee.
I don't have anything to hide when I'm taking a shower, but that doesn't mean I'm OK with somebody recording it.
The only sensible course is to refuse to sign. Any reviewer can still buy their products at retail without having to sign anything; they just don't get advance access to the products or a chance to pick the company's brains. Their reviews will be a little bit later than those who sign and get to use the product before its official release, but the kind of buyer who wants the new product as soon as it's released wasn't going to listen to reviews anyway.
The other thing to do is to make it explicit that you didn't sign an NDA to get the product you reviewed. There's a reason the most serious reviewers already make sure to review retail products rather than company provided ones: companies have been known to provide a different product to reviewers from what they sell to the general public. Any reviewer who's signing an NDA and getting what may be a custom, tuned product rather than what an ordinary buyer would get isn't trustworthy anyway.
The 4 billion tons is the amount of uranium in the ocean, not the amount of water. The oceans have a volume of over a billion cubic kilometers, and one cubic kilometer is about a billion tons, so the total mass of the oceans is more than a billion billion tons.
This is the key, though. The criminal uses of cryptocurrency depend on there being enough legitimate uses to provide effective cover. If those legitimate uses dry up, the cover is blown. If only criminals use cryptocurrency, then using cryptocurrency is enough to get the police to investigate you.
The difference between precious metals and cryptocurrencies is that precious metals have some practical uses. Apart from their use in jewelry- which in many cases is ultimately a form of bullion- they have industrial uses. Admittedly, those uses alone would result in a lower price than the current one, but they do provide some kind of absolute price floor. In contrast, cryptocurrencies have no use except as a medium of exchange, and their price will fall to zero if people decide to stop using them that way.
And yes, you can say something similar about any fiat currency, too; there's no inherent value to dollars, euros, or yen. The practical difference there is that governments demand you use their currencies to pay taxes, which provides a real world use for them that isn't going away any time soon.
"Fruit" exists as both a botanical category and as a culinary category*. The two have some overlap, but many things that are botanical fruits are not culinary fruits, and a few things that are culinary fruits are not botanical fruits. The problem was that Congress was vague when defining what they meant by fruit; they didn't say if they meant it as a botanical category or a culinary category. One role of the courts is to rule what laws mean when they're vague, and in this case the Supreme Court decided that because the tomatoes in question were being imported as food it made more sense to tax them according to their culinary category (vegetable) than their botanical category (fruit).
*It is also used in a literary sense to mean product, e.g. fruit of our labors, fruit of my loins, Fruit-of-the-Loom.
Sorry, but the reason is obvious. They only want the sales tax law applied when there's an actual connection to the state because a resident of the state is buying something. That's a different case from gun, abortion, marriage, etc. laws which would be applied to activities taking place entirely outside the state.
I'm sure he has access to more information about USPS than the rest of us. I'm also sure he's not looking at that information because it would require reading, which he is apparently unwilling to do. He is most likely basing his complaints about USPS on his personal grudge against Jeff Bezos and some misinformation he heard on Fox News, since personal grudges and TV propaganda are the same tools he uses to make all his other decisions.
Yes, it has been established the USPS's biggest problem is their need to pre-fund all their pensions for the next 75 years. There's also an established Republican desire to privatize USPS, probably so some private equity firm can suck that pension fund dry and discard the useless husk. If you want to preserve the USPS, get ready to fight to defend it.
This kind of thing is always a potential problem. If you allow uncontrolled inputs, you always need to check if somebody is acting maliciously. Technical improvements could obviously help, but it's at least as important to have legal mechanisms to back them up. Spoofing the system needs to be illegal with real penalties for violations and reasonable mechanisms for spotting the spoofers. This is the new equivalent of making it illegal to use emergency lights if you aren't an emergency vehicle.
I'm not sure I'd expect a continued downward trend. The big efficiency gains you get from upgrading your lighting and TV are one-time things. To see continued efficiency gains, you'll need to find more and more potential gains like those, and there aren't any obvious candidates. At the same time, there are potential new consumers of electricity that could drive demand higher, like electric vehicles. The only way we're likely to see decreasing utility demand is if we continue aggressively installing local generation (e.g. rooftop solar) to power those things.
The way you stay in business despite losing $4.5 billion is to start with a lot more than $4.5 billion in the bank. Uber raised a lot of money and has substantial reserves. The basic idea behind the company has always been to spend heavily developing their brand, expanding their reach, and getting customers used to dealing with them rather than conventional cabs. Once they're well enough established, they'll be able to raise prices and/or pay drivers less to bring themselves to profitability. This kind of thing is very common among start-ups; they burn through a lot of money getting started in the hopes of big profits later.
As far as I can tell, Uber has two hopes for why they'll be profitable enough to justify eating all those losses up front. One is that they'll be able to get driverless cabs before the rest of the market and make big money by not needing to pay drivers. The other is that they'll be able to drive the conventional cab companies out of business and have the market to themselves. If they can charge monopoly rates, they could become very profitable indeed.
In this case, you can also reorder the sentence to make the appositive clearer. "Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old-demigod, and a dildo collector" is potentially ambiguous. "A dildo collector and Nelson Mandela, an 800-year old demigod" is unambiguous.
My general experience is that it is most important to be consistent in your usage and conscious of the possibility of confusion. If you always use an Oxford comma, people will read your lists as lists rather than appositives. You can make this even more clear by using the alternative ordering ("God and my mother, Ayn Rand") when you do want to use an appositive. Similarly, if you avoid the Oxford comma, people will learn to read your lists that way, and you can clarify by using a colon to separate a description from the list it's describing ("the serial sexual harassers: Bill Clinton and Al Franken"). These things only become really unclear if you are inconsistent about your punctuation.
Linus usually has a valid point when he goes on one of his rants. They aren't just a cranky guy slagging people at random; they're his way of calling out especially bad bullshit. That's the only reason people are willing to put up with them.
So long as you ignore all the help the invisible hand had getting to this point. There's been a lot of government investment in developing those renewable energy technologies. That's not to say there's anything wrong with the government stepping in and helping to develop new tech- government funding has helped a huge amount of new tech in practically every field- just to point out that this isn't purely the result of private enterprise operating without government intervention.
We know something. If he had done something obviously threatening, the police would be shouting it from the rooftops and releasing all their bodycam footage to provide justification. When they clam up and give only the fewest details possible, you know they have no excuses.
In some ways it's worse than that, because a key factor support people tend to use when judging which projects deserve to be treated as urgent is the political pull of the people demanding them. The net result is that upper management is the last to personally encounter problems from support departments being understaffed because their work always gets handled promptly.