When a policeman comes to your house to search it, what is the purpose? To gain information about what you have in your house. To collect data about you. A search and data collection are essentially the same thing.
Sounds like the problem is that the vast majority of the general population doesn't pay any attention to politics except for a couple months every 4 years.
That would depend who you ask. If you ask the hardware guys, it's always a software problem and vice versa. At least that's the way it is with the hardware guys I work with;)
You are the one spreading lies. There have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and it has been concluded that "The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."" and "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes." Seriously, let's put this BS to bed.
You're technically correct but they are only selectively dependent. If you don't die, the fact that you didn't die that year does not change the likelihood that you will die in the next year. This fact is sufficient for P(X and Y) = P(X) * P(Y) to hold for us because we are looking specifically at the probability that you DON'T die from terrorism over your lifetime. We make the dependency when you DO die irrelevant. That's why I took the path I did to answer the question "What are the chances you'll die from terrorism if you would otherwise live 75 years?"
To illustrate this, lets simplify things and take a look at a classic example: picking colored marbles from a jar. We are going to take a step back from the individual perspective and see what the probability is that a specific marble will get picked out of a larger population.
You have a jar with 3 marbles in it. 1 marble is yellow, {Y} (representing you) and 2 marbles are orange, {O1} and {O2} (representing other people). Every year, 1 marble is removed from the jar by a terrorist (representing death). And at the end of every year, 1 orange marble is added to the jar (representing someone else being born).
In year 1, there are 3 possible outcomes. 1 where the yellow marble is chosen. 2 where an orange marble is chosen.
Outcome 1: {Y} Outcome 2: {O1} Outcome 3: {O2}
At the end of year 1, orange marble {O3} is added. In year 2, there are 9 possible outcomes. We can apply the formula from my previous post to this. What does it say?
P(yellow will be picked over 2 years) = 1 - ((1 - (1/3))^2) = 1 - ((2/3)^2) = 1 - 4/9 = 5/9
So we would expect 5 of the outcomes to have yellow picked. Here's a table of the outcomes:
___Yr1__Yr2__ O 1 {Y}__ {O1} U 2 {Y} __{O2} T 3 {Y} __{O3} C 4 {O1}_{Y} O 5 {O1}_{O2} M 6 {O1}_{O3} E 7 {O2}_{Y} # 8 {O2}_{O1} _ 9 {O2}_{O3}
As represented by the math, there are 5 out of 9 outcomes in this table where yellow was picked. You can take this to 3 years and beyond. At 3 years, we would expect to see 8 in 27 outcomes where yellow was not picked. This makes sense if you look at the table above because outcomes 5, 6, 8, and 9 are the only ones that can generate a new outcome where yellow was not picked. In the new table, they generate 2 such outcomes each and 2 * 4 = 8.
Here's what's wrong: my value is a 0 to 1 probability. Yours is a 0-100%. So my overestimation is actually close to yours. That being said, let me explain why I'm not asking how many times you'll die from terrorism over 75 years.
The line was:
P(Terrorist DOESN'T kill you in your lifetime) = P(Terrorist DOESN'T kill you in a specific year) ^ 75
It works like this:
What is the probability that I will survive this year? 0.999999 In order to survive for 2 years, I have to survive this year and survive next year. In statistics, P(X and Y) = P(X) * P(Y).
So the probability that you'll live for two years is 0.99999^2. And to survive 75 years is 0.999999^75
You can figure out the chance you'll die from terrorism with some statistical math if you choose an expected lifetime length and your chance to die from terrorism each year. The math is fairly simple if you assume that your chance of dying from terrorism is roughly constant over your lifetime. It's not perfect but it can give you an idea of the magnitude of the risk involved.
Let P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) be the probability of a terrorist killing you in your lifetime. Then,
P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) = 1 - P(terrorist doesn't kill you in your lifetime)
If we assume that the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is fairly constant over your lifetime then:
P(terrorist doesn't kill you in your lifetime) = P(terrorist doesn't kill you in a specific year) ^ N
Where N is the number of years you expect to live. Lets overestimate the number of people that die from the kinds of terrorists you see on the news in the United States in a year. I do not see headlines about 100 people dying a year from actual terrorists but still I am going to overestimate and say it's a 1 in a million chance. So around 300 people dead a year in the U.S.A.
P(terrorist doesn't kill you in a specific year) = 1 - P(terrorist kills you in a specific year) = 1 - 0.000001 = 0.999999
So the formula looks like this:
P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) = 1 - ((1 - P(terrorist kills you in a specific year)) ^ N)
For a lifetime of 75 years:
P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) = 1 - (0.999999 ^ 75) = 7.4997 x 10^-5
Which is 2 (a.k.a a couple) orders of magnitude lower than your 1 x 10^-3.
When that next truck bomb detonates at a sporting event or mall, or when that next muslim fan goes on an indiscriminate killing spree through a church, know in your heart that you have allowed that to happen.
I'll enjoy my freedom, thankyouverymuch, even if it does come with an 0.001% chance of dying by terrorist.
0.001%? That's insanely high. The real rate is a couple orders of magnitude lower. It just goes to show how completely terrible human beings are at estimate the risk of extremely rare events.
You don't need to have a crystal ball. The price drop only happened because Saudi Arabia wanted to assert its dominance in the global market. With higher fuel prices, North American companies were investing in more expensive extraction methods that only become profitable when prices are high.
Saudi Arabia has been keeping its production down to drive up fuel prices and decided that enough was enough. They didn't even ramp up production to full capacity and it's been causing oil companies in North America to shutdown sites and lay off workers. Once Saudi Arabia decides that the oil companies get the picture, they will cut production again.
Then, even when prices rise, investors will think twice about risking their money to support oil extraction.
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules.
You can't have one without the other. Unless you deny the entire government the money from the fines, the rich will become the only ones targeted by traffic cops. It's already bad enough that police departments prioritize money over safety. It could perhaps become bad enough that the cops ignore anyone without an extremely nice car because the revenue is not worth it.
After describing their solution to global warming, dropping a giant chunk of ice in the water ever few years: Man: "Thus solving the problem of global warming once and for all!" Little Girl: "But-" Man: "I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL!"
"I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored."
In most states over 10% of the voters register as Independent. How do you gerrymander those to vote Republican?
It doesn't matter what they're registered as. What matters is what they vote for and most will vote predictably.
Democrats cluster in large cities. How do you evenly distribute their votes out into Republican districts on the other side of the state?
You don't have to distribute the democratic votes in the major cities. You assign as many as you can to majority Republican districts and then fit the rest into a district that is as close to 100% Democrat as you can.
Imagine a state with 800 people. Let's ignore the geographical distribution for simplicity. 59% (470) of the people vote purple, 41% (330) will vote orange, and you are in charge of drawing 4 districts such that the orange politicians remain in power. How will you do it?
3 districts with 110 orange people and 90 purple people (that's a 10% lead in elections which is plenty). 1 district with 200 purple people.
Congratulations! The orange people get 3 seats and the purple people get 1 despite the purple voters being a clear majority of the total. Here is a good illustration on wikipedia that also illustrates drawing the borders around geographically distributed voters.
Yesterday's election was a message to Washington that America wants conservatives to represent them! Also, they want legalized pot, increased minimum wage, the right to have an abortion, insurance-provided contraception, and required paid time off at work!
I see, so instead of constructively engaging to modify a plan built on a Republican plan, they decided to take their ball and go home. That's so mature of Republicans
The legislative agenda surrounding the 100% partisan ramming-through of the ACA precluded any Republican involvement. The Republicans put forth a constant barrage of their own ideas and (looking back on them) very accurate predictions about all of the wreckage that the ACA is now causing. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ran the entire show, and shut down any involvement by Republicans.
[...]
The Republicans had no ability to "constructively engage" in the creation and underhanded passage of the ACA. They could only shout out loud about how outrageous so much of it is, since their votes - in committee and generally in the house and senate - were incapable of impacting the law.
A small group of key senators known as the Gang of Six was once looked at as the key to passing a bipartisan health care bill in the Senate.
But the group of Senate Finance Committee members has, instead, proved a time-sucking bust, with no compromise after months of negotiations and plenty of Senate Democrats peeved at the influence ceded to the gang's GOP members.
[...]
"No public option. No play-or-pay. No things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care. No interference with the doctor-patient relationship," says [Republican] Grassley. "About the only place we haven't made progress along the lines of what Republicans are wanting on the bill is in tort reform."
In response to being modded FLAMEBAIT for simply recounting (relatively recent) history, I present to the mods a shit-ton of sources at this location: Tada and that quote by Grassley
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform efforts.
The individual mandate is largely credited as an idea by the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation as an alternative to a system in which the government pays for healthcare. It required each person to pay for their own healthcare and was proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era as a free-market solution that embodies the tenant of personal responsibility that Republicans claim to hold.
Once adopted by the Democrats and proposed in a bill on September 17, 2009, the Republicans staunchly opposed the measure. The Republicans, some of whom have been around long enough to have supported a similar bill during the Clinton administration, claimed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional assault on freedom.
After 3 weeks of debate and town hall meetings, the bill passed through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate. The Democrats attempted to gain the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennet, Mike Enzi, and Chuck Grassley. However, the moderate Republicans found themselves subject to intense pressure by the party to fall in line and oppose any healthcare reform effots.
The bill continued to be opposed by conservatives in the Senate who claimed that the bill's "public option" was a deal-breaker. The public option was government-run healthcare insurance that would be available to people alongside private health insurance in the market. Conservatives claimed that the public option would put private insurance out of business because the government is under no pressure to compete or turn a profit. After over 3 months of debate, the public option was dropped from the bill. Senator Grassley was quoted as saying:
"No public option. No play-or-pay. No things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care. No interference with the doctor-patient relationship," says Grassley. "About the only place we haven't made progress along the lines of what Republicans are wanting on the bill is in tort reform."
Despite this, it still took several last-minute concessions for conservatives to get the bill passed through the Senate on December 24, 2009, with support from independents and conservative Democrats to overcome the Republican threat of fillibuster.
The bill languished in the House of Representatives for 3 more months. In order to gets the admendments made to the bill back in the House, the Democrats had to win support from pro-life Representatives who worried that the bill would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To assuage anti-abortion politicians' fears, Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 21, 2010 to affirm that no federal funds could or would be used to fund abortions. The amendments were finally passed through the House and signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010 (over 6 months after being proposed).
Slashdot Mirror
The Phantom Pain? Like the pain that amputees feel in the location of their removed limbs? That is truly an awful name for a game.
When a policeman comes to your house to search it, what is the purpose? To gain information about what you have in your house. To collect data about you. A search and data collection are essentially the same thing.
Sounds like the problem is that the vast majority of the general population doesn't pay any attention to politics except for a couple months every 4 years.
That would depend who you ask. If you ask the hardware guys, it's always a software problem and vice versa. At least that's the way it is with the hardware guys I work with ;)
You are the one spreading lies. There have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and it has been concluded that "The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."" and "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes." Seriously, let's put this BS to bed.
You're technically correct but they are only selectively dependent. If you don't die, the fact that you didn't die that year does not change the likelihood that you will die in the next year. This fact is sufficient for P(X and Y) = P(X) * P(Y) to hold for us because we are looking specifically at the probability that you DON'T die from terrorism over your lifetime. We make the dependency when you DO die irrelevant. That's why I took the path I did to answer the question "What are the chances you'll die from terrorism if you would otherwise live 75 years?"
To illustrate this, lets simplify things and take a look at a classic example: picking colored marbles from a jar. We are going to take a step back from the individual perspective and see what the probability is that a specific marble will get picked out of a larger population.
You have a jar with 3 marbles in it. 1 marble is yellow, {Y} (representing you) and 2 marbles are orange, {O1} and {O2} (representing other people). Every year, 1 marble is removed from the jar by a terrorist (representing death). And at the end of every year, 1 orange marble is added to the jar (representing someone else being born).
In year 1, there are 3 possible outcomes. 1 where the yellow marble is chosen. 2 where an orange marble is chosen.
Outcome 1: {Y}
Outcome 2: {O1}
Outcome 3: {O2}
At the end of year 1, orange marble {O3} is added. In year 2, there are 9 possible outcomes. We can apply the formula from my previous post to this. What does it say?
P(yellow will be picked over 2 years) = 1 - ((1 - (1/3))^2) = 1 - ((2/3)^2) = 1 - 4/9 = 5/9
So we would expect 5 of the outcomes to have yellow picked. Here's a table of the outcomes:
___Yr1__Yr2__
O 1 {Y}__ {O1}
U 2 {Y} __{O2}
T 3 {Y} __{O3}
C 4 {O1}_{Y}
O 5 {O1}_{O2}
M 6 {O1}_{O3}
E 7 {O2}_{Y}
# 8 {O2}_{O1}
_ 9 {O2}_{O3}
As represented by the math, there are 5 out of 9 outcomes in this table where yellow was picked. You can take this to 3 years and beyond. At 3 years, we would expect to see 8 in 27 outcomes where yellow was not picked. This makes sense if you look at the table above because outcomes 5, 6, 8, and 9 are the only ones that can generate a new outcome where yellow was not picked. In the new table, they generate 2 such outcomes each and 2 * 4 = 8.
Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
Here's what's wrong: my value is a 0 to 1 probability. Yours is a 0-100%. So my overestimation is actually close to yours. That being said, let me explain why I'm not asking how many times you'll die from terrorism over 75 years.
The line was:
P(Terrorist DOESN'T kill you in your lifetime) = P(Terrorist DOESN'T kill you in a specific year) ^ 75
It works like this:
What is the probability that I will survive this year? 0.999999
In order to survive for 2 years, I have to survive this year and survive next year. In statistics, P(X and Y) = P(X) * P(Y).
So the probability that you'll live for two years is 0.99999^2. And to survive 75 years is 0.999999^75
You can figure out the chance you'll die from terrorism with some statistical math if you choose an expected lifetime length and your chance to die from terrorism each year. The math is fairly simple if you assume that your chance of dying from terrorism is roughly constant over your lifetime. It's not perfect but it can give you an idea of the magnitude of the risk involved.
Let P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) be the probability of a terrorist killing you in your lifetime. Then,
P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) = 1 - P(terrorist doesn't kill you in your lifetime)
If we assume that the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is fairly constant over your lifetime then:
P(terrorist doesn't kill you in your lifetime) = P(terrorist doesn't kill you in a specific year) ^ N
Where N is the number of years you expect to live. Lets overestimate the number of people that die from the kinds of terrorists you see on the news in the United States in a year. I do not see headlines about 100 people dying a year from actual terrorists but still I am going to overestimate and say it's a 1 in a million chance. So around 300 people dead a year in the U.S.A.
P(terrorist doesn't kill you in a specific year) = 1 - P(terrorist kills you in a specific year) = 1 - 0.000001 = 0.999999
So the formula looks like this:
P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) = 1 - ((1 - P(terrorist kills you in a specific year)) ^ N)
For a lifetime of 75 years:
P(terrorist kills you in your lifetime) = 1 - (0.999999 ^ 75) = 7.4997 x 10^-5
Which is 2 (a.k.a a couple) orders of magnitude lower than your 1 x 10^-3.
When that next truck bomb detonates at a sporting event or mall, or when that next muslim fan goes on an indiscriminate killing spree through a church, know in your heart that you have allowed that to happen.
I'll enjoy my freedom, thankyouverymuch, even if it does come with an 0.001% chance of dying by terrorist.
0.001%? That's insanely high. The real rate is a couple orders of magnitude lower. It just goes to show how completely terrible human beings are at estimate the risk of extremely rare events.
You don't need to have a crystal ball. The price drop only happened because Saudi Arabia wanted to assert its dominance in the global market. With higher fuel prices, North American companies were investing in more expensive extraction methods that only become profitable when prices are high.
Saudi Arabia has been keeping its production down to drive up fuel prices and decided that enough was enough. They didn't even ramp up production to full capacity and it's been causing oil companies in North America to shutdown sites and lay off workers. Once Saudi Arabia decides that the oil companies get the picture, they will cut production again.
Then, even when prices rise, investors will think twice about risking their money to support oil extraction.
The US revolutionaries fought for freedom for rich white men while enslaivng Africans and ignoring everyone else.
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules.
You can't have one without the other. Unless you deny the entire government the money from the fines, the rich will become the only ones targeted by traffic cops. It's already bad enough that police departments prioritize money over safety. It could perhaps become bad enough that the cops ignore anyone without an extremely nice car because the revenue is not worth it.
"Look at those evil Muslims killing innocent people to further their political goals! They are barbaric demonspawn! NUKE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST!"
Of course, people with this view (I know a few) are completely unaware of the incredible irony...
After describing their solution to global warming, dropping a giant chunk of ice in the water ever few years:
Man: "Thus solving the problem of global warming once and for all!"
Little Girl: "But-"
Man: "I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL!"
Who would the Democrats win points with? No one knows what Net Neutrality is and nobody cares.
That should say PRIVATE sector job openings....
Which indications are those?
GDP, Public Sector Job Openings, Employment Rate, Stock Market, Consumer Spending, Consumer Confidence, Housing Prices...
What are you looking for?
"I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored."
From a Republican even.
In most states over 10% of the voters register as Independent. How do you gerrymander those to vote Republican?
It doesn't matter what they're registered as. What matters is what they vote for and most will vote predictably.
Democrats cluster in large cities. How do you evenly distribute their votes out into Republican districts on the other side of the state?
You don't have to distribute the democratic votes in the major cities. You assign as many as you can to majority Republican districts and then fit the rest into a district that is as close to 100% Democrat as you can.
Imagine a state with 800 people. Let's ignore the geographical distribution for simplicity. 59% (470) of the people vote purple, 41% (330) will vote orange, and you are in charge of drawing 4 districts such that the orange politicians remain in power. How will you do it?
3 districts with 110 orange people and 90 purple people (that's a 10% lead in elections which is plenty).
1 district with 200 purple people.
Congratulations! The orange people get 3 seats and the purple people get 1 despite the purple voters being a clear majority of the total. Here is a good illustration on wikipedia that also illustrates drawing the borders around geographically distributed voters.
Yesterday's election was a message to Washington that America wants conservatives to represent them! Also, they want legalized pot, increased minimum wage, the right to have an abortion, insurance-provided contraception, and required paid time off at work!
Wait, what?
I see, so instead of constructively engaging to modify a plan built on a Republican plan, they decided to take their ball and go home. That's so mature of Republicans
The legislative agenda surrounding the 100% partisan ramming-through of the ACA precluded any Republican involvement. The Republicans put forth a constant barrage of their own ideas and (looking back on them) very accurate predictions about all of the wreckage that the ACA is now causing. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi ran the entire show, and shut down any involvement by Republicans.
[...]
The Republicans had no ability to "constructively engage" in the creation and underhanded passage of the ACA. They could only shout out loud about how outrageous so much of it is, since their votes - in committee and generally in the house and senate - were incapable of impacting the law.
I guess this never happened. I quote:
A small group of key senators known as the Gang of Six was once looked at as the key to passing a bipartisan health care bill in the Senate.
But the group of Senate Finance Committee members has, instead, proved a time-sucking bust, with no compromise after months of negotiations and plenty of Senate Democrats peeved at the influence ceded to the gang's GOP members.
[...]
"No public option. No play-or-pay. No things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care. No interference with the doctor-patient relationship," says [Republican] Grassley. "About the only place we haven't made progress along the lines of what Republicans are wanting on the bill is in tort reform."
In response to being modded FLAMEBAIT for simply recounting (relatively recent) history, I present to the mods a shit-ton of sources at this location: Tada and that quote by Grassley
Lets look at the history of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Back in 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama ran a campaign with healthcare reform as one of its central issues. He advocated for universal healthcare but opposed an individual mandate. However, after input from experts that claimed that government-guaranteed healthcare would encourage too many free-riders, Obama decided to include an individual mandate as a central part of his healthcare reform efforts.
The individual mandate is largely credited as an idea by the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation as an alternative to a system in which the government pays for healthcare. It required each person to pay for their own healthcare and was proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era as a free-market solution that embodies the tenant of personal responsibility that Republicans claim to hold.
Once adopted by the Democrats and proposed in a bill on September 17, 2009, the Republicans staunchly opposed the measure. The Republicans, some of whom have been around long enough to have supported a similar bill during the Clinton administration, claimed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional assault on freedom.
After 3 weeks of debate and town hall meetings, the bill passed through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate. The Democrats attempted to gain the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Bob Bennet, Mike Enzi, and Chuck Grassley. However, the moderate Republicans found themselves subject to intense pressure by the party to fall in line and oppose any healthcare reform effots.
The bill continued to be opposed by conservatives in the Senate who claimed that the bill's "public option" was a deal-breaker. The public option was government-run healthcare insurance that would be available to people alongside private health insurance in the market. Conservatives claimed that the public option would put private insurance out of business because the government is under no pressure to compete or turn a profit. After over 3 months of debate, the public option was dropped from the bill. Senator Grassley was quoted as saying:
"No public option. No play-or-pay. No things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care. No interference with the doctor-patient relationship," says Grassley. "About the only place we haven't made progress along the lines of what Republicans are wanting on the bill is in tort reform."
Despite this, it still took several last-minute concessions for conservatives to get the bill passed through the Senate on December 24, 2009, with support from independents and conservative Democrats to overcome the Republican threat of fillibuster.
The bill languished in the House of Representatives for 3 more months. In order to gets the admendments made to the bill back in the House, the Democrats had to win support from pro-life Representatives who worried that the bill would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortions. To assuage anti-abortion politicians' fears, Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 21, 2010 to affirm that no federal funds could or would be used to fund abortions. The amendments were finally passed through the House and signed into law by Obama on March 23, 2010 (over 6 months after being proposed).
The link in the summary leads to "Sapphire manufacturer and Apple agree to part ways “amicably”" GJ Editors
I want to state, for the record, that I know that 10,000x is actually REALLY low for a gold and diamond encrusted watch....