Why would you assume that? Stores aren't *currently* blocking competition, yet stores are *currently* offering complimentary wi-fi. Why would they stop that if anti-competitive practices were regulated? What are you basing your assumptions on?
Also, I very much doubt any of this would cause the slightest consternation for the average/. user, but it would be effective on the vast majority of the tech-illiterate population.
How long until it's expanded to the neighbour's non-competing store? (It's their wi-fi, they can do what they want with it) How long until it's expanded to the whole shopping mall? (It's their complimentary wi-fi, they can do what they want) How long until it's expanded to your local ISP monopoly? (It's a customer-service that enhances stockholder value, if you don't like it you can always get another ISP)
This kind of abuse should be prohibited by net neutrality regulation, though somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
1. They were all autistic. Autists don't like change and tend to develop rituals and patterns, such as hammering your feet before bedtime or closing/opening the door 9 times before going through. Autists are sometimes also very sharp (though faaar from all of them) when they manage to focus their behavioral patterns on logical problems.
2. This is visibility bias. We are all quirky in some way, but not all of us invented relativity theory. I have a friend that sleeps 11+ hours a day, but she's not a genius, so no-one cares. I had a friend that only ate cereal, but she wasn't a genius so no-one cared. Looking back, most of my friends have had some quirk or other, and I'm guessing that if I spent some time digging I'd find that everyone has at least one. So, these geniuses aren't special on the quirk side, they are simply the ones we notice because they're 'famous'. I bet you all know of some unique quirk belonging to your favorite actor/actress, not because they're quirky, but because they're covered by the press 24/7 in detail.
Let's say that using spaces was taught in the 70s, while tabs was taught in the 80s.
Now let's say we ask people for their style and their income. The older programmers that by now make more money will say they use spaces, while the younger programmers will say tabs. This would account for the differences.
In short, this survey isn't providing enough data to control for any factor, and the likelihood that tabs and spaces actually impact the earnings of any programmer is 0.
Also, any programmer that uses spaces is going to Hell (which runs Windows ME on the user machines)
What I would like to know is "Does it work?". Does it really work to have all/most of your employees working from wherever they want? I would love to believe it does, but I also know that not everyone functions the same way. So, assuming that my previous assertion holds, how do you go about getting everyone, including the undisciplined, to function in an office-less work environment?
Moderate alcohol consumption can impair cognitive function, says study
They say 'can' which means, in standard medical journal lingo, 'might possibly'. This is common. It's just a way to safeguard against the many pitfalls of asserting something too strongly without rigorous backup in the medical community (which is pretty strict on this kind of thing).
So no, they aren't asserting a definite cause-and-effect, just saying 'it might be this way'.
Well no, not even close. Epidemiologically we do not know everything that leads to drinking, nor everything that drinking leads to, which means we have unknown confounders in a complex system. Over 30 years those confounders will grow to a massive interference level.
Consider this conundrum that caused a lot of panic in the early days of epidemiology. Does drinking cause lung cancer? The answer was a surprising yes. Every study came up positive. Today, we know that to be false. Why? Because drinkers also tend to be smokers. When you control for smoking and keeping company with smokers, the effect goes away completely. That is what we call a confounder.
Now we see that moderate drinking leads to hippocampal shrinkage. Does that mean drinking is the problem? Not necessarily. As TFS says, they did control for a host of things, but were those ALL the relevant things? The answer is usually no. Over a period of 30 years things change, ALOT. The lifestyles of the subjects change, their exposure to various environmental effects change, their hormonal setups change. What if drinkers tend to be more social? Just that single difference would introduce them to a whole host of different exposures when compared to non-drinkers, and none of those exposures would have anything to do with drinking itself.
There is no doubt an association between hipppocampal shrinkage and drinking, but what that association consists of is less certain. That is why the original point stands.
Did those people do anything else during the 30 years, or did they simply sit still, staring at the wall, waiting for the next test and drinking alcohol?
I get that this kind of study is very hard to perform with reliable results, but humans are very complex. Trying to boil it all down to a single factor is a disservice to everyone, and won't get us closer to the truth.
In fall 2016, some 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities
This is one trillion five hundred billion dollars.
Fuck You.
I don't want to interrupt your delightful exposition, but as far as I can tell the proposal for tax-funded college doesn't necessarily require that we send everyone to Harvard.
In fact, if I may be so bold, I would tentatively suggest that it could be a tad tricky to fit 20.5 million students into Harvard, as it's only 85 ha (344 km^2) in size. Looking into it, even if we assume that we can squeeze 4 students in per square meter (a proposal that is sure to deflate any hopes of reducing the number of Title IX charges this year), we're still 19.12 million students short! We would need to stack our students 15 stories high, and that doesn't even take into account how we're gonna keep them standing still the entire semester, cause with entropy this thing will rapidly become un-manageable, and good luck keeping your customer satisfaction ratings up then! You can already expect a solid one-star ratings drop from the students the staff will have to park their cars on.
However, I'm sure you have already considered this before enlightening us all with your sparkling wit. So, with great anticipation and rock-hard nipples, I await your solution.
Oh please, the only reason people use the 'it's legal therefore fine' argument is because it's the "right" side punishing the "bad" offenders. Were the ideological stances juxtaposed, it would no longer be 'fine cause it's legal', it would be censorship and abuse of power. It has nothing to do with autism and everything to do with double moral.
Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but it almost sounds as if someone wants to unload his shares in Twitter onto the only demographic dumb enough to buy shares in Twitter.
Perhaps the secret is that the algorithm is a black box method, and no-one actually knows exactly why it scores the way it does? Neural networks are all the rage now, and they are one of the absolutely worst when it comes to transparency and intelligibility.
Had the company worked with rule-based classifiers or other transparent machine learning I'm sure they'd be happy to show just how smart they are, snippet by snippet. After all, we only want to avoid showing others when we're doing something simple or stupid (or unethical, which might also be the case here).
It was softly worded and didn't point towards either side as being the aggressor. It would require some effort to take offense or feel singled out by such phrasing.
You're absolutely right, all we'll have to contend with is massive displacement across the world, global famine, and the plethora of wars that will come from scarcity of living space and resources. It's fine, really. No biggie.
7. In the U.S. in 2016, 60 percent of the most highly valued tech companies were founded by first- or second-generation Americans and are responsible for 1.5 million employees. Those companies include tech titans Apple, Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook.
It sounds like this bulletpoint had to be massaged multiple times before it gave the "right" answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you assume that? Stores aren't *currently* blocking competition, yet stores are *currently* offering complimentary wi-fi. Why would they stop that if anti-competitive practices were regulated? What are you basing your assumptions on?
Also, I very much doubt any of this would cause the slightest consternation for the average /. user, but it would be effective on the vast majority of the tech-illiterate population.
This is disturbing on so many levels.
How long until it's expanded to the neighbour's non-competing store? (It's their wi-fi, they can do what they want with it)
How long until it's expanded to the whole shopping mall? (It's their complimentary wi-fi, they can do what they want)
How long until it's expanded to your local ISP monopoly? (It's a customer-service that enhances stockholder value, if you don't like it you can always get another ISP)
This kind of abuse should be prohibited by net neutrality regulation, though somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
I see two distinct, yet likely, possibilities.
1. They were all autistic. Autists don't like change and tend to develop rituals and patterns, such as hammering your feet before bedtime or closing/opening the door 9 times before going through. Autists are sometimes also very sharp (though faaar from all of them) when they manage to focus their behavioral patterns on logical problems.
2. This is visibility bias. We are all quirky in some way, but not all of us invented relativity theory. I have a friend that sleeps 11+ hours a day, but she's not a genius, so no-one cares. I had a friend that only ate cereal, but she wasn't a genius so no-one cared. Looking back, most of my friends have had some quirk or other, and I'm guessing that if I spent some time digging I'd find that everyone has at least one. So, these geniuses aren't special on the quirk side, they are simply the ones we notice because they're 'famous'. I bet you all know of some unique quirk belonging to your favorite actor/actress, not because they're quirky, but because they're covered by the press 24/7 in detail.
I thought it was going to be another sextape.
Let's say that using spaces was taught in the 70s, while tabs was taught in the 80s.
Now let's say we ask people for their style and their income. The older programmers that by now make more money will say they use spaces, while the younger programmers will say tabs. This would account for the differences.
In short, this survey isn't providing enough data to control for any factor, and the likelihood that tabs and spaces actually impact the earnings of any programmer is 0.
Also, any programmer that uses spaces is going to Hell (which runs Windows ME on the user machines)
I'm taking bets on how long until this guy gets v& on Trumped-up (harhar) national security charges.
I bet a lot of conservatives don't want their history on hotmale.com exposed.
What I would like to know is "Does it work?". Does it really work to have all/most of your employees working from wherever they want?
I would love to believe it does, but I also know that not everyone functions the same way.
So, assuming that my previous assertion holds, how do you go about getting everyone, including the undisciplined, to function in an office-less work environment?
All the stupidity in the text can be explained with two words - "The Verge"
Moderate alcohol consumption can impair cognitive function, says study
They say 'can' which means, in standard medical journal lingo, 'might possibly'. This is common. It's just a way to safeguard against the many pitfalls of asserting something too strongly without rigorous backup in the medical community (which is pretty strict on this kind of thing).
So no, they aren't asserting a definite cause-and-effect, just saying 'it might be this way'.
Well no, not even close. Epidemiologically we do not know everything that leads to drinking, nor everything that drinking leads to, which means we have unknown confounders in a complex system. Over 30 years those confounders will grow to a massive interference level.
Consider this conundrum that caused a lot of panic in the early days of epidemiology. Does drinking cause lung cancer? The answer was a surprising yes. Every study came up positive.
Today, we know that to be false. Why? Because drinkers also tend to be smokers. When you control for smoking and keeping company with smokers, the effect goes away completely. That is what we call a confounder.
Now we see that moderate drinking leads to hippocampal shrinkage. Does that mean drinking is the problem? Not necessarily. As TFS says, they did control for a host of things, but were those ALL the relevant things? The answer is usually no.
Over a period of 30 years things change, ALOT. The lifestyles of the subjects change, their exposure to various environmental effects change, their hormonal setups change. What if drinkers tend to be more social? Just that single difference would introduce them to a whole host of different exposures when compared to non-drinkers, and none of those exposures would have anything to do with drinking itself.
There is no doubt an association between hipppocampal shrinkage and drinking, but what that association consists of is less certain. That is why the original point stands.
Did those people do anything else during the 30 years, or did they simply sit still, staring at the wall, waiting for the next test and drinking alcohol?
I get that this kind of study is very hard to perform with reliable results, but humans are very complex. Trying to boil it all down to a single factor is a disservice to everyone, and won't get us closer to the truth.
So...Rob a Bank, get a free education?
In fall 2016, some 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities
This is one trillion five hundred billion dollars.
Fuck You.
I don't want to interrupt your delightful exposition, but as far as I can tell the proposal for tax-funded college doesn't necessarily require that we send everyone to Harvard.
In fact, if I may be so bold, I would tentatively suggest that it could be a tad tricky to fit 20.5 million students into Harvard, as it's only 85 ha (344 km^2) in size.
Looking into it, even if we assume that we can squeeze 4 students in per square meter (a proposal that is sure to deflate any hopes of reducing the number of Title IX charges this year), we're still 19.12 million students short!
We would need to stack our students 15 stories high, and that doesn't even take into account how we're gonna keep them standing still the entire semester, cause with entropy this thing will rapidly become un-manageable, and good luck keeping your customer satisfaction ratings up then! You can already expect a solid one-star ratings drop from the students the staff will have to park their cars on.
However, I'm sure you have already considered this before enlightening us all with your sparkling wit. So, with great anticipation and rock-hard nipples, I await your solution.
Thank you.
When Reality finally struck, no-one went home a Winner :(
Oh please, the only reason people use the 'it's legal therefore fine' argument is because it's the "right" side punishing the "bad" offenders. Were the ideological stances juxtaposed, it would no longer be 'fine cause it's legal', it would be censorship and abuse of power. It has nothing to do with autism and everything to do with double moral.
The amazing thing about Twitter is that when you are forced to condense your thoughts into piece-meal slogans you are forced to truly consid
Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but it almost sounds as if someone wants to unload his shares in Twitter onto the only demographic dumb enough to buy shares in Twitter.
Perhaps the secret is that the algorithm is a black box method, and no-one actually knows exactly why it scores the way it does?
Neural networks are all the rage now, and they are one of the absolutely worst when it comes to transparency and intelligibility.
Had the company worked with rule-based classifiers or other transparent machine learning I'm sure they'd be happy to show just how smart they are, snippet by snippet. After all, we only want to avoid showing others when we're doing something simple or stupid (or unethical, which might also be the case here).
Bleeeeeeee!
It was softly worded and didn't point towards either side as being the aggressor. It would require some effort to take offense or feel singled out by such phrasing.
Judging by the moderation on my apparently controversial question I'd say you have it correct.
In all fairness, don't you think that could somehow be connected to the genital wars that have surrounded the movie since its announcement?
Wow, that is an excellent analysis, and a highly entertaining one to boot. Kudos.
Isn't that why SNL said they would stop doing parodies of him? They couldn't match the absurdity of the real deal.
You're absolutely right, all we'll have to contend with is massive displacement across the world, global famine, and the plethora of wars that will come from scarcity of living space and resources. It's fine, really. No biggie.
7. In the U.S. in 2016, 60 percent of the most highly valued tech companies were founded by first- or second-generation Americans and are responsible for 1.5 million employees. Those companies include tech titans Apple, Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook.
It sounds like this bulletpoint had to be massaged multiple times before it gave the "right" answer.