A comprehensive list a review shouldn't be necessary at the start of papers, yet it's frequently expected in the peer review process. Citing prior literature is important, but just to the extent necessary to support the hypothesis that the paper intends to examine.
I think "support" is too narrow, very often you want to cite papers that are "sideways" to your own and explain how your research is different from theirs, like for example how it's not fully applicable, limitations of the model, choice of methodology, data quality issues and so on. I think it's also important to remember that citations was science's way of linking things together before you had hyperlinks and search engines, it's what set your research in context with other work in the field. It should be fairly relevant to what you're doing though, not just list everything marginally related.
Look, the outcry is real and fair. But let's not call it illegal, because it's their software and you clicked to agree to updates.
Legally they're in the clear, but I find that permission is given almost under duress. Like you can either agree to this or hackers can root your computer, steal your identity and blackmail you through cryptolockers. It's like refusing safety recalls to your car only worse because they're remotely exploitable, like if someone honks three times your brakes stop working. What sane, responsible person wants to run an Internet-facing piece of software with no support or security patches?
So I understand they need my permission for that but when I say "you do what you gotta do" it doesn't mean I'm happy when they replace my cup holder because the interior decorator doesn't fancy it anymore. Sadly more and more software is turning to the Darth Vaderesque style of updates, if you want to keep using it there's a new agreement, a new look and it works differently. Pray that I don't alter it further. You can wrap it in all the "constantly enhancing the user experience" marketing bullshit you want, but really I want my security-only updates back.
They should have transitioned this over ten years like digital TV in the US.
Actually it was more like 22 years:
The DAB standard was initiated as a European research project in the 1980s.[1] The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) launched the first DAB channel in the world on 1 June 1995 (NRK Klassisk)
Long story short, they bet on the wrong horse because with 3G/LTE/5G data transmission you can listen to anything. Most people are unsatisfied with DAB, it's a broadcast solution for a unicast present and future. And the actual broadcast needs like emergency transmissions etc. were better covered by FM. It's the radio companies pushing through a transition that is now unneeded because they've got huge sunk costs that would otherwise be worthless. And quite a few customers have been suckered in too. They play it out like we're the first of many but I'm guessing we just went down a dead end.
Which won't mean dick if they have the wrong business model. I'm not pretending I can pick the winner here or making any sort of assertion about either companies chances but I think it would be foolish to underestimate Netflix. They've already put at least one much larger competitor in the grave (Blockbuster).
Yeah, except Netflix is - willingly or unwillingly - being forced into the traditional movie/TV production company model rather than being universal gateways like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal etc. are for music. Like Disney got Frozen, Moana etc., HBO got GoT, Westworld etc., Netflix got The Crown, Stranger Things etc. and people buy the service because of that exclusive content. That's just a new competitor in an old market, not something revolutionary. Which I suppose could work okay like on Steam you buy one and one game, it's not like you buy a "Steam subscription". If you could shop content like that, but I expect that instead you'll have five different services with five different clients and five different quirks and none of the non-mainstream content. The one-stop "shop" will still be torrents...
A simple press release, without any drama, would have been more than enough. By proceeding the way the are, NASA are stirring up false expectations in the public.
If you don't want the public to be aware that NASA is doing anything at all, sure. It's a bit sad that they have to resort to such a clickbait tactic, but at least by creating a bit of fuss and mystery the press feels compelled to run the main story because of all those who'll click to get the answer. Otherwise it's just another yawner from NASA who only a few space nerds will click on that might not even be worth running. People are already apathetic and indifferent, unless it's alien life or a warp drive it probably won't affect them one bit. True, Musk got some momentum going for Mars but in NASA's plans it's in the 2030s and you can't keep the excitement that long. The analogy doesn't work anyway, the day NASA really got breaking news they'll all be running the story no matter what.
Snopes provides a more critical take on that article
I've read that "rebuttal" before and I find it extremely wishy-washy. They even throw in at the top:
This item is (...) more fairly labeled as "Partly true, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."
I find the essential elements are true, who built most of the early road network? The Romans. Already 450 BC in the Law of the Twelve Tables they decided on the standard width of a road and over many centuries built them through almost all of Europe and that standardization applied to the carts and carriages too. Of course anything drawn by two horses will be roughly the same width but without their empire it wouldn't be that uniform across so vast areas. Once the standard is set then obviously you build new carriages to match the existing roads and new roads to match the existing carriages. And that's true as long as you use horses for transportation. The other essential element is that many early railroad carriages were made based on horse carriages with the same width.
The counterpoint is that you only use the existing solution because it's not worth changing it just a little for some marginal benefit once everyone has switched, if the benefits were great enough you'd do it. Take for example the QWERTY layout, is it ideal now that we don't use typewriters that jam? Maybe not, but it's close enough we don't bother to retrain the world and repaint all the keyboards. We use two horse-ass wide trains because it was an okay width, if they needed to be double that or half that we'd make a new standard. I guess the corollary to "Don't reinvent the wheel" is "Don't reinvent the carriage either".
Well, I just can't understand how most of Europe and Canada do it without actually going bankrupt.
It's because US people put up a straw man and cut it down. A single payer system means it's funded almost entirely by taxes (here in Norway co-pay is ~$30/visit and capped at ~$250/year), it doesn't mean they got infinite money or resources and it doesn't mean they deliver everything the patients want or need. There's only so many hospitals, doctors and nurses as the budget permits. Treatments are granted based on medical need and ranked based on quality-adjusted years of life. Waiting lists are prioritized on urgency and impact. It's not the best care money can buy, it's trying to be the most fairly distributed level of care possible at that funding level.
Single payer doesn't mean exclusively public employees, there are many private doctors and institutions delivering services into the public system. But apart from that there's also truly private insurance and private healthcare, if you can afford it. It's not subsidized, you don't get a tax refund and it caters to a market that won't wait and won't take anything less than excellence. LIke if a pro sports player is injured and need surgery, they often use that because in the public system they're not special and you can't pay to get to the head of the line. Same way some people bankroll certain medications we've rejected to give because of cost, typically >$100k/year. Even though they're medically proven to work and the patient will die sooner.
So if it's not a happy wonderland, why is it working better? Because we don't have insurance people trying to save costs by denying coverage. We don't have doctors that earn more by billing more or get kickbacks from selling brand drugs. While there's an ever ongoing pressure to reduce costs, we're not looking to cherry pick profitable patients and hospitals don't get stuck with unprofitable ones. For the most part we simply have medical personnel and administrators trying to balance out the limited resources based on who needs it most. And they're actually pretty good at it, as long as they don't get other personal incentives.
Just to take one example, there's a national standard for average ambulance response time which says it should be <12 minutes in >90% of the cases in urban areas and <25 minutes in >90% of the cases in rural areas. Poor or rich area? Easy or hard geography? Doesn't really matter. The money is distributed so it's mostly uniform no matter where you live, we're not quite hitting that metric but then we'd rather fall a little short most places rather than fail spectacularly in a few. Those are the stretch goals, on the low end you have a standard of adequate healthcare which is like a legal minimum. It's a pretty low bar though where violations are usually human error, flaws or failures in the system like say no ambulance is actually dispatched. It's not your typical triage.
I can't help but think that when protesters are corralled into specific areas out of sight of visiting dignitaries and politicians they don't really have the right of assembly, or freedom of speech. Genuine question, by the way. I'm not particularly conversant with US law.
Making freedom of assembly some absolute right to occupy any public property at any time, in any way would be chaos. You could block off a freeway, block a store front or simply make people unable to get out of the house in the morning. So the courts have decided there can be limits on the time, place and manner of protest like that you may protest outside the store front but not block people coming or going. Unfortunately the moment there's some small concession given that restrictions are permitted the door is open to abuse. The test for content neutrality is fairly easy, would you have been equally punished for a different message? If so, it's an illegal restriction on content. That doesn't stop anyone from blocking all forms of demonstrations where they don't want them though.
I think there's been put too much emphasis on protester versus spectator. Like, if this is an public space open to the general public when they're making no statement at all then they should also be allowed to peacefully protest without being sent to a particular "troublemaker" zone. Unfortunately the courts haven't really seen it that way, if the police asks you to go to a "Free Speech Zone" you don't get to say no even if there's good reason to believe they're singling you out because you are protesting. It's hard to make a balanced patch to the legal framework though.
Legally run OS X. For some folks, that's justification.
You may be joking but that is actually 100% correct.
Which is quite odd when you consider how much pro software is actually Mac-exclusive. Photoshop & friends have run on Windows forever and the only OS X-exclusive video editor is Final Cut Pro X. Every time I look at the "pro" Macs I get the impression this is a form of squeeze play by some artsy, fickle folks in the marketing department where they don't want to run an uncool Windows PeeCee and the employers figure it's better to just pay up than to lose good people over what's ultimately not that much relative to salary, benefits, recruitment and turnover costs. If it was a $5k Mac or $2k PC and a $1k/year pay raise I imagine you'd see a lot more Windows but it doesn't work like that.
It's fun to call our Chromebooks a "workstation", but traditionally that's not remotely what it means.
Yeah, traditionally we'd call that kind of computing power a "supercomputer". Unless it has some special hardware for those "technical and scientific applications" like one of those Titan V compute cards I find there's really nothing that makes it a workstation anymore, it's just a high performance general purpose computer. Unless you count ECC RAM as the "workstation" feature...
The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.
And it should be noted - increasingly difficult certification. They're not launching by Space Shuttle standards, to get a new launch system approved they have to be three times safer than the shuttle at least on paper. That said, I think a lot of it is red tape because the SLS will allegedly be crewed on its third launch and the first in a Crew 1B configuration and I really doubt you can make that sort of guarantee on so little data.
A person who prays provides their own answer even if they're not realizing that is the case, so unlike a chat bot there's actually some intelligence there.
Have you ever started talking to a coworker about some sort of issue and in the process of explaining it figured out the solution yourself? How often does a therapist really any have true insight versus simply talking you through your emotions? I think you've fallen off the deep end if you think a chat bot "understands you", but I have no doubt that it can have a big effect to verbalize your thoughts even if you're talking to a teddy bear or rag doll, picture or grave of the deceased or some other inanimate object. And then a chat bot could potentially be better, if it'll ask the thorny questions.
This indicates a problem with understanding technology and technological explanations on your side, nothing else. "Safety in numbers" does not work for software.
Technology has its share of doomsday prophets, it doesn't necessarily mean the end is nigh. I've casually used Ubuntu post-systemd though not as a server, haven't seen the problem. Maybe it's there, maybe I just haven't run into it yet but... WORKS4ME. If a lot of people say that, you have to wonder if it's really the problem it's made out to be or it's just people bitching that those fancy new automobiles can't run on grass, needs tires instead of horseshoes and doesn't run well in the terrain. Or the people who says EVs are stupid and don't work for anyone because they need to drive 500 miles non-stop, refuel in 5 minutes and drive 500 miles back. Maybe it's just you and the one thing you care so extremely about isn't actually a big deal to most people.
I think a lot of stagnation in human lifespan is due to our extremely sloppy diets and an overabundance of food.
The statistics don't really support that. There's quite a few people living very healthy and their lifespan is obviously longer, but not extremely so. Once you're quite old death seems more and more random with less and less connection to how you lived years ago. Like if you're 90 years old then how you lived the first 80 years of your life isn't much worth in predicting who'll become 100. There's just too many things people in their 90s die from where it doesn't matter. Anecdotally, when they interview the record holders and such they're often not the stellar example of healthy living you might think. Granted, good health will help you avoid a "premature" death. But that last bit from quite old to really old seems to be mostly luck.
We've gotten *very* good at dealing with sick people. But we haven't really made any big progress on making healthy people healthier by slowing the effect of aging. Being in "good health" means entirely different things for a 20yo and an 80yo. I think it's because it's very ethically challenging to experiment on healthy people, like if you got cancer obviously we'll treat that. But if you're "only" getting older, do we really dare mess that up? I'd say the answer is overwhelmingly no, unless there's nothing wrong with you we'll do nothing. Okay eat healthy, exercise but nothing to truly stall the decline.
Something you will never hear any consumer ask themselves. Well, apart from wondering if it's a "Rollex" they're buying. The whole idea of capitalism is that money should go to the business that's most efficient, how can you tell if they're just brilliant at process automation and reducing overhead or exploiting the employees? And it's usually not their employees, it's a conglomerate of vendors, sub-contractors, partners, shipping/distribution/sales channels and so on that's five steps removed from the label on the box.
I'll admit that here I expect other regulatory bodies to step in and make sure what's happening is done legally, like those who oversee commercial transportation and work/rest hours, regulations on wages and overtime pay and so on. The general public is not supposed to have that level of internal detail to inspect it themselves, since it'd be a treasure trove of competition-sensitive information. All you'd get are haphazard reactions to real or manufactured scandals leaking to the press.
True, in a few limited areas like child labor, animal testing of products, trees from the rain forest and the use of certain chemicals pressure from the top has actually made an impact. But on basic working conditions like wages and such I don't think that'll ever be effective. It's either the government stepping in through law or the workers uniting through unions. To expect consumers to solve that problem for them I think is foolish. I'm not always going to go with the lowest bidder, but I'm going with the best offer for me.
Autocratic governments? I'm trying real hard to think of a government that would NOT do such things. Maybe Norway?
I'd say we're doing pretty good on the rest, but even in Norway there's a constant push for more data and more tracking usually with some form of regulation in mind. Probably the biggest debate right now is whether businesses should be forced to continue taking payments in cash. Between a high degree of online banking (>90%) and electronic invoicing, a very cheap national debit card (BankAxept) and most recently a very successful friend-to-friend payment system (Vipps) via phone numbers (which are all linked to national IDs, no anonymous phones) cash use is in extreme decline. If you pay a business more than $1200 in cash you can become guilty of assisting in tax fraud. A lot of public transport has made buying tickets in cash extremely expensive and only single trips, the rest is electronic tickets. At the doctor's office now you can't pay in cash, you can technically get a paper bill that you can go to the post office and pay in cash for a huge fee but it's getting increasingly impractical and expensive.
A lot of stores now actually want to stop taking cash altogether, for now they're forced to accept it. Basically the costs of handling cash are higher than electronic payments and the loss of business would be trivial in many sectors, it's not something the market will fix. Maybe not grocery stores but finer restaurants, dentists etc. where you get a service and taking payment is a very small bit of what they do. Of course everything that's e-tail is already overwhelmingly electronic, technically you can pay at the post office but for a $6 fee to businesses, as a private person I'd have to pay $25 for a package where the recipient is paying me. On top of the actual delivery charge, that is. Even if we do get to keep it it's almost only as a last resort when everything else is down.
A licence, regardless of which country's laws, or international law, cannot forbid the use of other things having the same licence. That would be a ridiculous ability for a licence to have.
A license can obviously only retract rights to the same work it grants rights for. But the conditions for that can very well be external to the work, for example you can look at the patent retaliation clause in the Apache license which pretty much says if you sue anyone for violating any other patent infringed by this work, then all your patent licenses are terminated. As such it would be entirely possible to write a license where any other GPL violation would terminate this license. Now if that was a standard clause, all your licenses would terminate at once and you'd have no right to use any GPL code.
Another variation that would achieve the same thing is to create a license where you're always contributing code to a single virtual work and say that violating the license for any part of the work terminates all rights to the entire work. That would essentially be the same logic used to terminate access to an entire work for violating a part of it today, only supercharged. So legally it's possible but yes, it would be a form of doomsday weapon which might scare away a lot of potential contributors.
If he's the only copyright holder, the decision to sue or not is entirely in his hands. Nobody else would have a right to sue.
In civil court yes, but I think it would be possible to file a criminal complaint. Like if I'm an author and I've sold you the exclusive right to sell my book in the US, but we've had a falling-out and now I'm playing scorched earth. Can I now say "fuck you, not enforcing my copyright" and implicitly let everyone else print and sell my book? If it amounts to commercial copyright infringement it's the public prosecutor making the charge, not the victim. Of course you couldn't get damages, you couldn't stop non-criminal infringement and the standard of evidence is now "beyond a reasonable doubt" so the contract should have been better but I don't think you're completely helpless. Not sure if it would actually work in practice though, since it'd be up to the attorney general's office whether or not to prosecute.
I'm not sure how to formulate it properly but it's about provable skills vs actual skills. As in, when you're job hunting it doesn't matter if you're really good at something if nobody knows about it or nobody believes you. You get a stack of resumes and... what does it say really? From and to dates and a title. You probably have referrals, but almost everyone can get someone to speak positively about them. A short test on the interview probably says more about who's a smooth talker and how they handle a quiz than everyday work. Ideally you want tangible proofs that you're an accomplished professional or passionate developer, second best is networks and people who'll vouch for you and third are degrees, certificates and other formal papers.
I think it also depends on how big of a niche you're in, despite living in a >100k city I find that many of the same people are circulating around the same oh, maybe 50-100 jobs. I don't feel the need to really actively "market" myself, people I've worked with in the past either at other companies or have left for other companies means then you've seeded quite a few ex-coworkers who hopefully have a good impression of you. But you have to make that impression, you can't just hide in a corner and do your own little thing. Personally I don't think I could, I got fingers in way too many pies and is actively trying to *not* get caught up in more. Mostly because I'm the one stuck cleaning up the train wrecks when things derail.
If the cameras are not actually running while tenants are present, there is no need to disclose their presence.
Considering AirBnB's terms says otherwise, it's at minimum a breach of contract. And none of what you said describes a reasonable need for hidden cameras, even if that was so for aesthetic reasons there should at minimum be a notice. I wouldn't call you or the company if I found a hidden camera in my AirBnB, I'd call the cops and let them work out if you have been conducting illegal surveillance or not.
I find the whole "X or Y" discussion a little funny. If you have a system X that can prevent some cases of problems, and a system Y that can prevent some other cases of problems, then the logical solution would be to combine those systems, so that when of of the systems doesn't detect an oncoming accident the other does.
And if it were computer systems who have no other thoughts, never get bored and paid full attention 100% of the time that would be a great idea. How long could you watch the car drive before your mind starts to wander, five minutes? Fifteen? Maybe you'd pay attention the first time. The tenth? Hundredth? There's a reason semi-autonomous driving systems have tons of checks and warnings to make sure you're paying attention because otherwise we wouldn't do that. In fact many people try to cheat the systems already in place so they don't have to. The idea that human drivers could function as "co-pilots" has been so thoroughly studied and discredited I wonder which rock you've lived under for the last decade.
Can't say I've seen much of it myself, but I imagine most inappropriate behavior would happen when there's nobody else around. I mean if you're engaging in behavior most people would find objectionable it's pretty stupid to do it in front of witnesses. As for flirting and persistence most people have a pretty good idea what's acceptable at any stage of a courting process. Like, you don't start by grabbing her tits and ass or pulling your dick out. If she doesn't fancy you keep trying, but if you're clearly being rejected then stop.
Most of the stories I read either start out bad or they sound like "when in trouble, double" like if she's refusing your initial advances, try even harder. And I don't mean like serenades, candy and flowers harder but like start grabbing her and implying that she's the one provoking it or secretly likes it or wants it or is playing hard to get or that she will enjoy it. That's not persistence, that's ignoring the facts and replacing them with your fantasy that she's actually into you. Basically the light version of a stalker.
I don't think work should be a totally sterile environment where all non-professional activity should be on Tinder. At the same time, I feel work should be a place you can go to do a job and nothing more. Which IMHO makes it the wrong place for persistence because you can't tell your boss or coworkers to really go away or walk away without losing your job. That can make sexual remarks and advances something you endure, whereas at a bar you'd tell the guy trying for the second or third time to get lost or walk out on him.
We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row so we'll only be partially screwed and will have a chance to recover.
Meh, any civilization trying to rebuild is going to have a damn hard time no matter what because of economic efficiency. All the easily accessible ore? Gone. Oil? Pumped up. Coal? Mined. Sure we have plenty of it still, but only deep down where only high tech can reach it. And I expect a collapsing civilization will kill off most remaining large animals, fish and other resources as the excess population starves to death. Sure we could try passing knowledge, but you'd probably be back to struggling with the basics which made 90% work in agriculture a few centuries ago.
Slashdot Mirror
A comprehensive list a review shouldn't be necessary at the start of papers, yet it's frequently expected in the peer review process. Citing prior literature is important, but just to the extent necessary to support the hypothesis that the paper intends to examine.
I think "support" is too narrow, very often you want to cite papers that are "sideways" to your own and explain how your research is different from theirs, like for example how it's not fully applicable, limitations of the model, choice of methodology, data quality issues and so on. I think it's also important to remember that citations was science's way of linking things together before you had hyperlinks and search engines, it's what set your research in context with other work in the field. It should be fairly relevant to what you're doing though, not just list everything marginally related.
Look, the outcry is real and fair. But let's not call it illegal, because it's their software and you clicked to agree to updates.
Legally they're in the clear, but I find that permission is given almost under duress. Like you can either agree to this or hackers can root your computer, steal your identity and blackmail you through cryptolockers. It's like refusing safety recalls to your car only worse because they're remotely exploitable, like if someone honks three times your brakes stop working. What sane, responsible person wants to run an Internet-facing piece of software with no support or security patches?
So I understand they need my permission for that but when I say "you do what you gotta do" it doesn't mean I'm happy when they replace my cup holder because the interior decorator doesn't fancy it anymore. Sadly more and more software is turning to the Darth Vaderesque style of updates, if you want to keep using it there's a new agreement, a new look and it works differently. Pray that I don't alter it further. You can wrap it in all the "constantly enhancing the user experience" marketing bullshit you want, but really I want my security-only updates back.
They should have transitioned this over ten years like digital TV in the US.
Actually it was more like 22 years:
The DAB standard was initiated as a European research project in the 1980s.[1] The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) launched the first DAB channel in the world on 1 June 1995 (NRK Klassisk)
Long story short, they bet on the wrong horse because with 3G/LTE/5G data transmission you can listen to anything. Most people are unsatisfied with DAB, it's a broadcast solution for a unicast present and future. And the actual broadcast needs like emergency transmissions etc. were better covered by FM. It's the radio companies pushing through a transition that is now unneeded because they've got huge sunk costs that would otherwise be worthless. And quite a few customers have been suckered in too. They play it out like we're the first of many but I'm guessing we just went down a dead end.
Which won't mean dick if they have the wrong business model. I'm not pretending I can pick the winner here or making any sort of assertion about either companies chances but I think it would be foolish to underestimate Netflix. They've already put at least one much larger competitor in the grave (Blockbuster).
Yeah, except Netflix is - willingly or unwillingly - being forced into the traditional movie/TV production company model rather than being universal gateways like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal etc. are for music. Like Disney got Frozen, Moana etc., HBO got GoT, Westworld etc., Netflix got The Crown, Stranger Things etc. and people buy the service because of that exclusive content. That's just a new competitor in an old market, not something revolutionary. Which I suppose could work okay like on Steam you buy one and one game, it's not like you buy a "Steam subscription". If you could shop content like that, but I expect that instead you'll have five different services with five different clients and five different quirks and none of the non-mainstream content. The one-stop "shop" will still be torrents...
A simple press release, without any drama, would have been more than enough. By proceeding the way the are, NASA are stirring up false expectations in the public.
If you don't want the public to be aware that NASA is doing anything at all, sure. It's a bit sad that they have to resort to such a clickbait tactic, but at least by creating a bit of fuss and mystery the press feels compelled to run the main story because of all those who'll click to get the answer. Otherwise it's just another yawner from NASA who only a few space nerds will click on that might not even be worth running. People are already apathetic and indifferent, unless it's alien life or a warp drive it probably won't affect them one bit. True, Musk got some momentum going for Mars but in NASA's plans it's in the 2030s and you can't keep the excitement that long. The analogy doesn't work anyway, the day NASA really got breaking news they'll all be running the story no matter what.
Snopes provides a more critical take on that article
I've read that "rebuttal" before and I find it extremely wishy-washy. They even throw in at the top:
This item is (...) more fairly labeled as "Partly true, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."
I find the essential elements are true, who built most of the early road network? The Romans. Already 450 BC in the Law of the Twelve Tables they decided on the standard width of a road and over many centuries built them through almost all of Europe and that standardization applied to the carts and carriages too. Of course anything drawn by two horses will be roughly the same width but without their empire it wouldn't be that uniform across so vast areas. Once the standard is set then obviously you build new carriages to match the existing roads and new roads to match the existing carriages. And that's true as long as you use horses for transportation. The other essential element is that many early railroad carriages were made based on horse carriages with the same width.
The counterpoint is that you only use the existing solution because it's not worth changing it just a little for some marginal benefit once everyone has switched, if the benefits were great enough you'd do it. Take for example the QWERTY layout, is it ideal now that we don't use typewriters that jam? Maybe not, but it's close enough we don't bother to retrain the world and repaint all the keyboards. We use two horse-ass wide trains because it was an okay width, if they needed to be double that or half that we'd make a new standard. I guess the corollary to "Don't reinvent the wheel" is "Don't reinvent the carriage either".
Well, I just can't understand how most of Europe and Canada do it without actually going bankrupt.
It's because US people put up a straw man and cut it down. A single payer system means it's funded almost entirely by taxes (here in Norway co-pay is ~$30/visit and capped at ~$250/year), it doesn't mean they got infinite money or resources and it doesn't mean they deliver everything the patients want or need. There's only so many hospitals, doctors and nurses as the budget permits. Treatments are granted based on medical need and ranked based on quality-adjusted years of life. Waiting lists are prioritized on urgency and impact. It's not the best care money can buy, it's trying to be the most fairly distributed level of care possible at that funding level.
Single payer doesn't mean exclusively public employees, there are many private doctors and institutions delivering services into the public system. But apart from that there's also truly private insurance and private healthcare, if you can afford it. It's not subsidized, you don't get a tax refund and it caters to a market that won't wait and won't take anything less than excellence. LIke if a pro sports player is injured and need surgery, they often use that because in the public system they're not special and you can't pay to get to the head of the line. Same way some people bankroll certain medications we've rejected to give because of cost, typically >$100k/year. Even though they're medically proven to work and the patient will die sooner.
So if it's not a happy wonderland, why is it working better? Because we don't have insurance people trying to save costs by denying coverage. We don't have doctors that earn more by billing more or get kickbacks from selling brand drugs. While there's an ever ongoing pressure to reduce costs, we're not looking to cherry pick profitable patients and hospitals don't get stuck with unprofitable ones. For the most part we simply have medical personnel and administrators trying to balance out the limited resources based on who needs it most. And they're actually pretty good at it, as long as they don't get other personal incentives.
Just to take one example, there's a national standard for average ambulance response time which says it should be <12 minutes in >90% of the cases in urban areas and <25 minutes in >90% of the cases in rural areas. Poor or rich area? Easy or hard geography? Doesn't really matter. The money is distributed so it's mostly uniform no matter where you live, we're not quite hitting that metric but then we'd rather fall a little short most places rather than fail spectacularly in a few. Those are the stretch goals, on the low end you have a standard of adequate healthcare which is like a legal minimum. It's a pretty low bar though where violations are usually human error, flaws or failures in the system like say no ambulance is actually dispatched. It's not your typical triage.
I can't help but think that when protesters are corralled into specific areas out of sight of visiting dignitaries and politicians they don't really have the right of assembly, or freedom of speech. Genuine question, by the way. I'm not particularly conversant with US law.
Making freedom of assembly some absolute right to occupy any public property at any time, in any way would be chaos. You could block off a freeway, block a store front or simply make people unable to get out of the house in the morning. So the courts have decided there can be limits on the time, place and manner of protest like that you may protest outside the store front but not block people coming or going. Unfortunately the moment there's some small concession given that restrictions are permitted the door is open to abuse. The test for content neutrality is fairly easy, would you have been equally punished for a different message? If so, it's an illegal restriction on content. That doesn't stop anyone from blocking all forms of demonstrations where they don't want them though.
I think there's been put too much emphasis on protester versus spectator. Like, if this is an public space open to the general public when they're making no statement at all then they should also be allowed to peacefully protest without being sent to a particular "troublemaker" zone. Unfortunately the courts haven't really seen it that way, if the police asks you to go to a "Free Speech Zone" you don't get to say no even if there's good reason to believe they're singling you out because you are protesting. It's hard to make a balanced patch to the legal framework though.
Legally run OS X. For some folks, that's justification.
You may be joking but that is actually 100% correct.
Which is quite odd when you consider how much pro software is actually Mac-exclusive. Photoshop & friends have run on Windows forever and the only OS X-exclusive video editor is Final Cut Pro X. Every time I look at the "pro" Macs I get the impression this is a form of squeeze play by some artsy, fickle folks in the marketing department where they don't want to run an uncool Windows PeeCee and the employers figure it's better to just pay up than to lose good people over what's ultimately not that much relative to salary, benefits, recruitment and turnover costs. If it was a $5k Mac or $2k PC and a $1k/year pay raise I imagine you'd see a lot more Windows but it doesn't work like that.
It's fun to call our Chromebooks a "workstation", but traditionally that's not remotely what it means.
Yeah, traditionally we'd call that kind of computing power a "supercomputer". Unless it has some special hardware for those "technical and scientific applications" like one of those Titan V compute cards I find there's really nothing that makes it a workstation anymore, it's just a high performance general purpose computer. Unless you count ECC RAM as the "workstation" feature...
The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.
And it should be noted - increasingly difficult certification. They're not launching by Space Shuttle standards, to get a new launch system approved they have to be three times safer than the shuttle at least on paper. That said, I think a lot of it is red tape because the SLS will allegedly be crewed on its third launch and the first in a Crew 1B configuration and I really doubt you can make that sort of guarantee on so little data.
A person who prays provides their own answer even if they're not realizing that is the case, so unlike a chat bot there's actually some intelligence there.
Have you ever started talking to a coworker about some sort of issue and in the process of explaining it figured out the solution yourself? How often does a therapist really any have true insight versus simply talking you through your emotions? I think you've fallen off the deep end if you think a chat bot "understands you", but I have no doubt that it can have a big effect to verbalize your thoughts even if you're talking to a teddy bear or rag doll, picture or grave of the deceased or some other inanimate object. And then a chat bot could potentially be better, if it'll ask the thorny questions.
This indicates a problem with understanding technology and technological explanations on your side, nothing else. "Safety in numbers" does not work for software.
Technology has its share of doomsday prophets, it doesn't necessarily mean the end is nigh. I've casually used Ubuntu post-systemd though not as a server, haven't seen the problem. Maybe it's there, maybe I just haven't run into it yet but... WORKS4ME. If a lot of people say that, you have to wonder if it's really the problem it's made out to be or it's just people bitching that those fancy new automobiles can't run on grass, needs tires instead of horseshoes and doesn't run well in the terrain. Or the people who says EVs are stupid and don't work for anyone because they need to drive 500 miles non-stop, refuel in 5 minutes and drive 500 miles back. Maybe it's just you and the one thing you care so extremely about isn't actually a big deal to most people.
I think a lot of stagnation in human lifespan is due to our extremely sloppy diets and an overabundance of food.
The statistics don't really support that. There's quite a few people living very healthy and their lifespan is obviously longer, but not extremely so. Once you're quite old death seems more and more random with less and less connection to how you lived years ago. Like if you're 90 years old then how you lived the first 80 years of your life isn't much worth in predicting who'll become 100. There's just too many things people in their 90s die from where it doesn't matter. Anecdotally, when they interview the record holders and such they're often not the stellar example of healthy living you might think. Granted, good health will help you avoid a "premature" death. But that last bit from quite old to really old seems to be mostly luck.
We've gotten *very* good at dealing with sick people. But we haven't really made any big progress on making healthy people healthier by slowing the effect of aging. Being in "good health" means entirely different things for a 20yo and an 80yo. I think it's because it's very ethically challenging to experiment on healthy people, like if you got cancer obviously we'll treat that. But if you're "only" getting older, do we really dare mess that up? I'd say the answer is overwhelmingly no, unless there's nothing wrong with you we'll do nothing. Okay eat healthy, exercise but nothing to truly stall the decline.
Something you will never hear any consumer ask themselves. Well, apart from wondering if it's a "Rollex" they're buying. The whole idea of capitalism is that money should go to the business that's most efficient, how can you tell if they're just brilliant at process automation and reducing overhead or exploiting the employees? And it's usually not their employees, it's a conglomerate of vendors, sub-contractors, partners, shipping/distribution/sales channels and so on that's five steps removed from the label on the box.
I'll admit that here I expect other regulatory bodies to step in and make sure what's happening is done legally, like those who oversee commercial transportation and work/rest hours, regulations on wages and overtime pay and so on. The general public is not supposed to have that level of internal detail to inspect it themselves, since it'd be a treasure trove of competition-sensitive information. All you'd get are haphazard reactions to real or manufactured scandals leaking to the press.
True, in a few limited areas like child labor, animal testing of products, trees from the rain forest and the use of certain chemicals pressure from the top has actually made an impact. But on basic working conditions like wages and such I don't think that'll ever be effective. It's either the government stepping in through law or the workers uniting through unions. To expect consumers to solve that problem for them I think is foolish. I'm not always going to go with the lowest bidder, but I'm going with the best offer for me.
Autocratic governments? I'm trying real hard to think of a government that would NOT do such things. Maybe Norway?
I'd say we're doing pretty good on the rest, but even in Norway there's a constant push for more data and more tracking usually with some form of regulation in mind. Probably the biggest debate right now is whether businesses should be forced to continue taking payments in cash. Between a high degree of online banking (>90%) and electronic invoicing, a very cheap national debit card (BankAxept) and most recently a very successful friend-to-friend payment system (Vipps) via phone numbers (which are all linked to national IDs, no anonymous phones) cash use is in extreme decline. If you pay a business more than $1200 in cash you can become guilty of assisting in tax fraud. A lot of public transport has made buying tickets in cash extremely expensive and only single trips, the rest is electronic tickets. At the doctor's office now you can't pay in cash, you can technically get a paper bill that you can go to the post office and pay in cash for a huge fee but it's getting increasingly impractical and expensive.
A lot of stores now actually want to stop taking cash altogether, for now they're forced to accept it. Basically the costs of handling cash are higher than electronic payments and the loss of business would be trivial in many sectors, it's not something the market will fix. Maybe not grocery stores but finer restaurants, dentists etc. where you get a service and taking payment is a very small bit of what they do. Of course everything that's e-tail is already overwhelmingly electronic, technically you can pay at the post office but for a $6 fee to businesses, as a private person I'd have to pay $25 for a package where the recipient is paying me. On top of the actual delivery charge, that is. Even if we do get to keep it it's almost only as a last resort when everything else is down.
A licence, regardless of which country's laws, or international law, cannot forbid the use of other things having the same licence. That would be a ridiculous ability for a licence to have.
A license can obviously only retract rights to the same work it grants rights for. But the conditions for that can very well be external to the work, for example you can look at the patent retaliation clause in the Apache license which pretty much says if you sue anyone for violating any other patent infringed by this work, then all your patent licenses are terminated. As such it would be entirely possible to write a license where any other GPL violation would terminate this license. Now if that was a standard clause, all your licenses would terminate at once and you'd have no right to use any GPL code.
Another variation that would achieve the same thing is to create a license where you're always contributing code to a single virtual work and say that violating the license for any part of the work terminates all rights to the entire work. That would essentially be the same logic used to terminate access to an entire work for violating a part of it today, only supercharged. So legally it's possible but yes, it would be a form of doomsday weapon which might scare away a lot of potential contributors.
If he's the only copyright holder, the decision to sue or not is entirely in his hands. Nobody else would have a right to sue.
In civil court yes, but I think it would be possible to file a criminal complaint. Like if I'm an author and I've sold you the exclusive right to sell my book in the US, but we've had a falling-out and now I'm playing scorched earth. Can I now say "fuck you, not enforcing my copyright" and implicitly let everyone else print and sell my book? If it amounts to commercial copyright infringement it's the public prosecutor making the charge, not the victim. Of course you couldn't get damages, you couldn't stop non-criminal infringement and the standard of evidence is now "beyond a reasonable doubt" so the contract should have been better but I don't think you're completely helpless. Not sure if it would actually work in practice though, since it'd be up to the attorney general's office whether or not to prosecute.
I'm not sure how to formulate it properly but it's about provable skills vs actual skills. As in, when you're job hunting it doesn't matter if you're really good at something if nobody knows about it or nobody believes you. You get a stack of resumes and... what does it say really? From and to dates and a title. You probably have referrals, but almost everyone can get someone to speak positively about them. A short test on the interview probably says more about who's a smooth talker and how they handle a quiz than everyday work. Ideally you want tangible proofs that you're an accomplished professional or passionate developer, second best is networks and people who'll vouch for you and third are degrees, certificates and other formal papers.
I think it also depends on how big of a niche you're in, despite living in a >100k city I find that many of the same people are circulating around the same oh, maybe 50-100 jobs. I don't feel the need to really actively "market" myself, people I've worked with in the past either at other companies or have left for other companies means then you've seeded quite a few ex-coworkers who hopefully have a good impression of you. But you have to make that impression, you can't just hide in a corner and do your own little thing. Personally I don't think I could, I got fingers in way too many pies and is actively trying to *not* get caught up in more. Mostly because I'm the one stuck cleaning up the train wrecks when things derail.
If the cameras are not actually running while tenants are present, there is no need to disclose their presence.
Considering AirBnB's terms says otherwise, it's at minimum a breach of contract. And none of what you said describes a reasonable need for hidden cameras, even if that was so for aesthetic reasons there should at minimum be a notice. I wouldn't call you or the company if I found a hidden camera in my AirBnB, I'd call the cops and let them work out if you have been conducting illegal surveillance or not.
I find the whole "X or Y" discussion a little funny. If you have a system X that can prevent some cases of problems, and a system Y that can prevent some other cases of problems, then the logical solution would be to combine those systems, so that when of of the systems doesn't detect an oncoming accident the other does.
And if it were computer systems who have no other thoughts, never get bored and paid full attention 100% of the time that would be a great idea. How long could you watch the car drive before your mind starts to wander, five minutes? Fifteen? Maybe you'd pay attention the first time. The tenth? Hundredth? There's a reason semi-autonomous driving systems have tons of checks and warnings to make sure you're paying attention because otherwise we wouldn't do that. In fact many people try to cheat the systems already in place so they don't have to. The idea that human drivers could function as "co-pilots" has been so thoroughly studied and discredited I wonder which rock you've lived under for the last decade.
Can't say I've seen much of it myself, but I imagine most inappropriate behavior would happen when there's nobody else around. I mean if you're engaging in behavior most people would find objectionable it's pretty stupid to do it in front of witnesses. As for flirting and persistence most people have a pretty good idea what's acceptable at any stage of a courting process. Like, you don't start by grabbing her tits and ass or pulling your dick out. If she doesn't fancy you keep trying, but if you're clearly being rejected then stop.
Most of the stories I read either start out bad or they sound like "when in trouble, double" like if she's refusing your initial advances, try even harder. And I don't mean like serenades, candy and flowers harder but like start grabbing her and implying that she's the one provoking it or secretly likes it or wants it or is playing hard to get or that she will enjoy it. That's not persistence, that's ignoring the facts and replacing them with your fantasy that she's actually into you. Basically the light version of a stalker.
I don't think work should be a totally sterile environment where all non-professional activity should be on Tinder. At the same time, I feel work should be a place you can go to do a job and nothing more. Which IMHO makes it the wrong place for persistence because you can't tell your boss or coworkers to really go away or walk away without losing your job. That can make sexual remarks and advances something you endure, whereas at a bar you'd tell the guy trying for the second or third time to get lost or walk out on him.
We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row so we'll only be partially screwed and will have a chance to recover.
Meh, any civilization trying to rebuild is going to have a damn hard time no matter what because of economic efficiency. All the easily accessible ore? Gone. Oil? Pumped up. Coal? Mined. Sure we have plenty of it still, but only deep down where only high tech can reach it. And I expect a collapsing civilization will kill off most remaining large animals, fish and other resources as the excess population starves to death. Sure we could try passing knowledge, but you'd probably be back to struggling with the basics which made 90% work in agriculture a few centuries ago.
The guy who bought 20*300 = 6000 euro worth of bitcoins and couldn't be bothered to remember/store the password? Moron.
Reading comprehension fail, 20 euro worth of BTC != 20 BTC. So he lost 0.15 BTC = $1500, it's money I guess but not exactly the lottery jackpot.