In this role UBER is paying minimum wage and the qualifications are a pulse and a drivers license - this doesn't exactly attract people who would not fit in as extras in Idiocracy.
My thoughts exactly.
You're having someone drive a prototype vehicle where you know focus is going to be an issue. You probably don't need someone with a 4-year degree, but you need to make sure they're responsible and have good work habits.
Instead Uber found the cheapest body they could throw in the driver's seat.
Sure she was negligent for watching Hulu instead of controlling the car, but so was Uber for hiring a test-driver who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay attention while the car was driving.
The problem with this approach is it removes incentives to work. What if you are currently unemployed or underemployed? If this basic income pushes you up by $17,000, then it removes the incentive to find a better job until you find one that makes well in excess of $17,000. If the stipend is removed once you make about a certain amount, you're creating a disincentive to make that amount.
Giving everyone a smaller basic income (regardless of their current income) avoids that trap: You are still incented to work since you'd get the basic income plus whatever job income.
This seems doomed to failure. But since it is a limited, small experiment, it's still worthwhile to gather the data and try and measure the cost tradeoffs (such as, "At what income would a person need to work until the incentive to stay on the basic income goes away?" Hopefully this would provide real data.
You just need the same basic approach as progressive income tax, you don't actually lose money by moving into the higher income bracket because you're only taxed on the amount you make above the previous bracket.
Do something similar here, you don't the benefit the moment you make more than $17k, the benefit just gets smaller.
ie, if your job pays $20k you still get $5k of UBI benefits so that the $20k job is actually worthwhile.
My only concern with this setup is it suddenly makes tax fraud much more enticing, particularly to people at the lower end of the income spectrum who may already have trouble filing their taxes properly.
Ok, For what egomaniacal reason Trump is doing this is beyond me, but devils advocate, I don't hate this idea. If this is what we have to do to fund research into space vessels where large numbers of people can live without the hazards of space cutting their lifespans in half, I am all in. The one thing this country has repeatedly demonstrated is that, while it begrudges nasa every cent, there isn't a military spending bill that won't instantly pass. This could be a back door into developing a second wave of technologies that we export to the rest of the world, much in the same way we stimulated the economy with the first space race.
However, my gut tells me we will just start shooting drones up there.
The Air Force already defends space.
The big problem with a "Space Force" is that it's an announcement that you're weaponizing space, which means that Russia, China, and the EU are now challenged to do the same. So you've now introduced a whole new domain of conflict and the corresponding money drain required to fight in that domain.
It's not that space is entirely peaceful now, satellite defence is a real issue, but symbolic gestures can have pretty big consequences.
This kind of stuff takes a lot of money. Is there any proof or compelling evidence that we *need* a space force separate from what our current military provides?
Sure.
None of them is a major branch of the military founded by Trump.
Trump absolutely escalated the situation, but the de-escalation is far below the "previous level".
The previous level included regular, albeit infrequent nuclear weapons tests and sabre rattling, which included rocks fired toward and even over Japan. The previous administration's response to all North Korean activity was to literally ignore it.
All of those tests were part of a program to get effective reliable Nukes and long range missiles.
They didn't stop the tests because Trump scared them, they stopped the tests because they got their Nukes and missiles working.
I'm not saying another President could have avoided that, but Trump's threats and bluster didn't avoid anything.
Trump, ignoring all of his inelegance, is the first US President to ever meet with a North Korean leader
Which has been a major NK objective forever. Something Trump should have gotten concessions for (recall the GOP scorn and outrage when Obama suggested he could meet without preconditions).
and, like it or not, he offered two very realistic outcomes to them:
1. Face annihilation in a war that they cannot hope to win with a people too starved to support a long war, let alone with the backing to do it (Kim didn't even fly on a North Korean plane to the meeting because they do not have one that can go that far!). 2. Open up and become a more traditional nation internationally, gaining the investment opportunities and thus money that that brings, while also giving up all nuclear ambitions, which should be easier since their testing site imploded.
That's a lot different than the "previous level".
It's the game NK has played forever, work on your Nukes and endure the rising tensions and sanctions. Then play nice and talk up peace and denuclearization in return for sanctions relief.
I'm sure the same thing will happen again, Kim will say all the right things and get whatever relief he can, up until he thinks his defensive capabilities are falling behind and then he'll start testing again.
Many here (and elsewhere, in the Real World) noted the bizarre disconnect between the treatment of Martin Shkreli (who deserved what he got, and more) and Elizabeth Holmes who was running a far vaster scheme to defraud but mysteriously seemed to escape any real personal consequences.
I'm not sure that's true. Investigations move slowly, Shkreli wasn't charged for hiking the price on the drug, he was charged for financial crimes several years earlier. Based on when the malfeasance was discovered I think the investigation into Holmes actually moved faster.
As for the reputation, Holmes seems to have been an unusually successful con-artist. Shkreli actually seemed to delight in trolling the public.
Really isn't any reasonable way to accept Hillary Clinton's explanation that the "heading" was just the state department logo and not the classification markings in the context of a conversation about sending classified information.
Was the information in question actually classified or just inside a document that was classified due to the presence of other information?
Not saying it wasn't deliberate in this instance, but it's still not clear what the intent or result was.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal. MS had the tech for this about 5 years (Send us a buncha 2d pictures and we'll turn it into a VR set) extrapolating to models isn't that far of a reach.
It sounds like the key difference here is they're predicting parts of the scene they haven't seen, such as what the other side of an object they haven't seen looks like.
I don't know if they do that just based on clues like shadows, or the system says "that looks like the front of a sphere, therefore I can assume it's round on the other side as well."
The #1 rule is that accidents happen - and when reported honestly, will be forgiven. Deliberate violations and lying will ALWAYS result in prosecution.
Unless your name is 'Clinton'.
Except the point is she didn't deliberately expose the classified records, and if you believe she didn't realize classified information ended up on there then she didn't lie either.
(U) Her claim is fucking ridiculous, because in classified documents every page, heading, sentence, and bullet point, and source reference is preceded by note just like this: (U) (FOUO) (C) (S) (TS) (U) Is this painful to read? This is the sort of thing that she claims was missing from her documents.
It's also the thing the FBI claims was missing from her documents: Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey.
(U) You can't get such documents off of the secure network. To get such documents on her private server, she or a lackey uploaded them.
Or someone wrote up some information in an email, either not realizing it was classified or not realizing it shouldn't be sent over email, and clicked send.
(U) Most people who get caught for lesser fuck-ups end up going to jail.
No one doing what Clinton did would be sent to jail, all of the examples of people going to jail are for far more deliberate mishandling of classified data.
What I don't understand about Comey is that he all but threw the election to Trump while panning Trump left and right.
It's easy to understand. Comey and the rest of the beltway didn't even suspect Trump might get elected. The purpose of that farcical reopen/close stunt was to clean the slate; Clinton would win the election and enter office with no outstanding investigative hangups.
That and the FBI was actually pretty pro-Trump.
Giuliani had sources inside the Clinton email investigation and was dropping spoilers, if Comey didn't make the announcement there's a real good change Giuliani would have announced it and used the scoop to claim that the FBI was engaged in a cover-up.
Clinton wasn't accused of using personal email for business. She was accused of transmitting top secret documents over unsecured personal email (very illegal), and using personal email to communicate state business secretly outside of officially logged and recorded channels (also illegal).
Is this what Comey is accused of? If not, everyone can fuck off with their "he did it too" shit.
No.
She was accused of two things:
1) She used personal email for official business. This was against department policy, but I don't think it was against the law as long as she turned over the work related emails for record keeping (which she did, though she had to be reminded).
This is incredibly common, it's what Comey is being accused of, it's human nature, if you talk to your friend about personal business and work business you're sometimes going to talk in the wrong channel. Clinton should certainly be criticized for looking at the grey area and disregarding the rule entirely, but it's not a fraction of the issue it was made out to be.
2) She inadvertently communicated a few classified things over an insecure channel (her personal email). This actually has nothing to do with her personal server as it would have been just as big a problem if she did it over her official State Dept email since that wasn't cleared for classified traffic either.
But it's even less a big deal than the personal server.
Stuff like that happens all the time, when people are constantly sending emails they sometimes include information they're not supposed to. No one gets charged for it because everybody does it, it's only when it's particularly egregious or deliberate that people get in serious trouble.
Steam is a special case. If you can't run the latest Steam client, the licensing on your existing Steam games will stop working, and you won't be able to play them any more. They're making a change which because of DRM will make your old, not-updated games actively break.
It's reasonable they want to update Steam to modern technologies. It would also be reasonable if they left a legacy license server up that will continue to serve licenses to the last version of Steam that ran on those older systems.
Though part of the reason they're forcing the upgrade may be because Win XP/Vista lack DRM features they require. It may not be possible to support XP/Vista legacy systems without leaving those security holes, holes that could even be exploited by newer systems masquerading as legacy systems.
Of course that's just speculation, and I suspect that DRM isn't that important to Steam's success anyway. They make a lot of sales because they offer a convenient platform, not because they're preventing pirates.
Go to youtube. There are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of videos that detailed what went wrong. For one thing, there was an active boycott of Solo (otherwise known as Soylo now among fans for the apparent reveal by the writer that Lando is a pansexual right before the release of the movie). This also probably killed the movie for countless red-state movie goers who were already incensed at the blatant SJW preaching that The Last Jedi seemed to do.
Really though, the stage was set for Solo's downfall with the poor movie (look at Rotten Tomato reviews) of The Last Jedi Returns. Sargon of Akkad has a video called "Gender Wars" that received a million views
The feminist angle in The Last Jedi is a subtext. It does exist, but it's not that big a deal. If I want I can dig into almost any mainstream Hollywood movie and find dozens of cases of sexist tropes going the other way. They might bug me a little, but it doesn't ruin the movie and I don't go on Youtube uploading videos about what a horrible movie it is as a result.
It's Star Wars, it's supposed to be progressive. The original trilogy gave Leia some character and leadership abilities, it put black people in charge of things. I'm pretty sure some people got annoyed at that. Now the women *gasp* mostly made better decisions than their male counterparts in one movie! It's not that big a deal.
If you're seriously that upset that the feminist angle got a bit overbearing, so what? You don't have to make yourself have the movie as a result.
Shooting a movie with an iconic character, defined by an iconic actor? Terrible idea.
The Star Trek remakes got away with it because the roles made the actors more than the actors made the roles (though they're still boring movies).
But Han Solo was cool because Harrison Ford is a top-end actor who absolutely nailed the character of Han Solo. A Han Solo movie without Harrison Ford is basically a movie of going "Boy, that character isn't nearly as interesting as I remember. And that guy still isn't Harrison Ford!"
Tesla responded in a statement, "and before a driver can use Autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that 'Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings.'"
If only the vehicle had some kind of fancy GPS + Computer Vision system that could detect when it was being used in a situation for which it was not designed and either refuse to work, or at least give the user a stern warning.
I once fell asleep driving home late at night on the highway (w/ autopilot on) and got woken up by it beeping + turning off music to wake me up. Would have prob been dead without it... I didn't touch the steering wheel for a couple minutes and then it turned off the music and started beeping.
Possibly, it's also possible that he fell asleep because the Tesla was doing the driving for him.
It should also be noted how ridiculously lucky he is that he wasn't killed when the Tesla woke him up and put his confused half-asleep self back in control of the vehicle. Another Tesla driver was already killed by that exact scenario.
Hasn't worked for 40 years. Explain that. We've tried your system, and it has systematically sucked the wealth out of the country that was created in no small part due to protectionist trade policies in the beginning half of the 20th century.
Or you've been seeing the consequences of a tax policy that's insufficiently progressive to stop the wealthy from using their wealth to accumulate an even larger share of the wealth.
Oh wait, your guy just signed a bill that transferred a massive amount of wealth to the already wealthy... I hope you're ready for another 40 years of the rich getting richer and the rest running in place.
Please don't let this spread to the U.S. I have some problem that makes the touch of metal silverware on my teeth feel like scratching my fingernails on a chalkboard, and I need to request plastic utensils everywhere I go because of that.
Did you consider not biting your cutlery?
Seriously, I don't think anyone likes the feel of cutlery touching their teeth, that's why most people place the fork/spoon in their mouth then pull the cutlery out using their lips to separate the food from the utensil.
I'm pretty confident I go weeks at a time eating without cutlery touching my teeth.
It doesn't sound like anyone is denied effective treatment in the current system
The FDA is one of the toughest regulatory agencies in the world for getting a treatment approved.
I don't think that's relevant because we're not talking about approved treatments, this is about unapproved experimental treatments.
And the FDA already has a system for allowing critically ill patients to access unapproved treatments. To the extent that people still can't access these treatments it's the Drug Companies, not the FDA, who are the problem.
It doesn't sound like anyone is denied effective treatment in the current system (unless they end up control in a clinical trial) so I'm not sure what the new bill is going to do other than potentially open the doors to snake oil sellers.
The bill protects doctors and pharmaceutical companies from liability for giving experimental treatments to terminally ill patients, which is one of the reasons drug companies don't want to give these out. Drug company liability has gone bonkers in the last few years - people are suing because chemotherapy drugs are causing their hair to fall out, and blood thinners are causing them to bleed more easily. It's insane.
As long as the doctors and patients are fully informed that the drug is experimental I don't see a problem with this.
Finally, expanded-access programs could bring liability exposure. Litigation in this arena, however, has been limited to obtaining access rather than seeking redress of treatment-related harm. The lack of adverse-event lawsuits may reflect the willingness of such patients to assume risks as well as the adequacy of existing regulatory and manufacturer safeguards.
It sounds like a great idea, give patients a last chance they'd otherwise lack, but according to the article:
The measure, championed by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is designed to give patients an alternative way to obtain drugs not approved by the FDA. Currently, there are two options for patients seeking experimental medications: enrolling in clinical trials if they are eligible or participating in the FDA's "expanded access" program. The agency has said that it approves almost all such requests to that program.
and
Critics also note that drug companies, not the FDA, are the main obstacle to seriously ill patients getting unapproved drugs outside clinical trials. Manufacturers sometimes don't have large enough supplies to provide drugs outside trials or don't want to risk a safety problem involving a drug that has not yet passed FDA muster.
It doesn't sound like anyone is denied effective treatment in the current system (unless they end up control in a clinical trial) so I'm not sure what the new bill is going to do other than potentially open the doors to snake oil sellers.
'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability
Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.
Except when someone says "will" involving climate change, then you scream "a prediction isn't falsifiable!".
Being falsifiable is a requirement for being scientific.
So you think polling science exists? I'd say a lot of what 538 does qualifies as science, despite not going through the full scientific process, and they almost exclusively work in probabilistic outcomes. They also routinely falsify the claims of other polling outfits by demonstrating their errors.
As for this research it has plenty of falsifiable aspects, in fact there's two falsifiable statements in the summary, heck, there's one in the headline!
"$20 Trillion" Where does that number come from? Did they get part from calculating the cost of relocating people? Maybe their figure was unrealistically large and you can knock it down to $15 trillion just like that. Now it's falsified!
And 60%, where does that come from? Are they looking at probabilities of certain climate outcomes? Maybe they're relying on a bad climate model, show the odds of that outcome are wrong and you've shown 60% is wrong. Again it's false!
It's in trumps style of negotiation. He's always going to go for the BEST deal that he can get, and this is not at all out of the ordinary for Trump.
Back when it was first announced, Scott adams almost immediately said "expect one of them, probably trump, to walk away at least once before any actual negotiations take place".
Fun to see these types of negotiating dynamics playing out on the world stage.
They aren't just pulling $20 trillion and 60% out of their ass
Then they should've said "Will". Saying "could" makes the statement just what I said, unfalsifiable. And that in turn makes in unscientific.
So you could then criticize them for making an authoritative prediction they could not possibly justify.
'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability or scientificness, it's scientific and falsifiable because their "could" is justified with research.
Slashdot Mirror
In this role UBER is paying minimum wage and the qualifications are a pulse and a drivers license - this doesn't exactly attract people who would not fit in as extras in Idiocracy.
My thoughts exactly.
You're having someone drive a prototype vehicle where you know focus is going to be an issue. You probably don't need someone with a 4-year degree, but you need to make sure they're responsible and have good work habits.
Instead Uber found the cheapest body they could throw in the driver's seat.
Sure she was negligent for watching Hulu instead of controlling the car, but so was Uber for hiring a test-driver who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay attention while the car was driving.
The problem with this approach is it removes incentives to work. What if you are currently unemployed or underemployed? If this basic income pushes you up by $17,000, then it removes the incentive to find a better job until you find one that makes well in excess of $17,000. If the stipend is removed once you make about a certain amount, you're creating a disincentive to make that amount.
Giving everyone a smaller basic income (regardless of their current income) avoids that trap: You are still incented to work since you'd get the basic income plus whatever job income.
This seems doomed to failure. But since it is a limited, small experiment, it's still worthwhile to gather the data and try and measure the cost tradeoffs (such as, "At what income would a person need to work until the incentive to stay on the basic income goes away?" Hopefully this would provide real data.
You just need the same basic approach as progressive income tax, you don't actually lose money by moving into the higher income bracket because you're only taxed on the amount you make above the previous bracket.
Do something similar here, you don't the benefit the moment you make more than $17k, the benefit just gets smaller.
ie, if your job pays $20k you still get $5k of UBI benefits so that the $20k job is actually worthwhile.
My only concern with this setup is it suddenly makes tax fraud much more enticing, particularly to people at the lower end of the income spectrum who may already have trouble filing their taxes properly.
Ok, For what egomaniacal reason Trump is doing this is beyond me, but devils advocate, I don't hate this idea. If this is what we have to do to fund research into space vessels where large numbers of people can live without the hazards of space cutting their lifespans in half, I am all in. The one thing this country has repeatedly demonstrated is that, while it begrudges nasa every cent, there isn't a military spending bill that won't instantly pass. This could be a back door into developing a second wave of technologies that we export to the rest of the world, much in the same way we stimulated the economy with the first space race.
However, my gut tells me we will just start shooting drones up there.
The Air Force already defends space.
The big problem with a "Space Force" is that it's an announcement that you're weaponizing space, which means that Russia, China, and the EU are now challenged to do the same. So you've now introduced a whole new domain of conflict and the corresponding money drain required to fight in that domain.
It's not that space is entirely peaceful now, satellite defence is a real issue, but symbolic gestures can have pretty big consequences.
This kind of stuff takes a lot of money. Is there any proof or compelling evidence that we *need* a space force separate from what our current military provides?
Sure.
None of them is a major branch of the military founded by Trump.
Trump absolutely escalated the situation, but the de-escalation is far below the "previous level".
The previous level included regular, albeit infrequent nuclear weapons tests and sabre rattling, which included rocks fired toward and even over Japan. The previous administration's response to all North Korean activity was to literally ignore it.
All of those tests were part of a program to get effective reliable Nukes and long range missiles.
They didn't stop the tests because Trump scared them, they stopped the tests because they got their Nukes and missiles working.
I'm not saying another President could have avoided that, but Trump's threats and bluster didn't avoid anything.
Trump, ignoring all of his inelegance, is the first US President to ever meet with a North Korean leader
Which has been a major NK objective forever. Something Trump should have gotten concessions for (recall the GOP scorn and outrage when Obama suggested he could meet without preconditions).
and, like it or not, he offered two very realistic outcomes to them:
1. Face annihilation in a war that they cannot hope to win with a people too starved to support a long war, let alone with the backing to do it (Kim didn't even fly on a North Korean plane to the meeting because they do not have one that can go that far!).
2. Open up and become a more traditional nation internationally, gaining the investment opportunities and thus money that that brings, while also giving up all nuclear ambitions, which should be easier since their testing site imploded.
That's a lot different than the "previous level".
It's the game NK has played forever, work on your Nukes and endure the rising tensions and sanctions. Then play nice and talk up peace and denuclearization in return for sanctions relief.
I'm sure the same thing will happen again, Kim will say all the right things and get whatever relief he can, up until he thinks his defensive capabilities are falling behind and then he'll start testing again.
Many here (and elsewhere, in the Real World) noted the bizarre disconnect between the treatment of Martin Shkreli (who deserved what he got, and more) and Elizabeth Holmes who was running a far vaster scheme to defraud but mysteriously seemed to escape any real personal consequences.
I'm not sure that's true. Investigations move slowly, Shkreli wasn't charged for hiking the price on the drug, he was charged for financial crimes several years earlier. Based on when the malfeasance was discovered I think the investigation into Holmes actually moved faster.
As for the reputation, Holmes seems to have been an unusually successful con-artist. Shkreli actually seemed to delight in trolling the public.
Except it was actually deliberate and Hillary Clinton clearly lied to the FBI about it:
"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."
Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/08/boom-in-newlyreleased-email-hillary-orders-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680
Really isn't any reasonable way to accept Hillary Clinton's explanation that the "heading" was just the state department logo and not the classification markings in the context of a conversation about sending classified information.
Was the information in question actually classified or just inside a document that was classified due to the presence of other information?
Not saying it wasn't deliberate in this instance, but it's still not clear what the intent or result was.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal. MS had the tech for this about 5 years (Send us a buncha 2d pictures and we'll turn it into a VR set) extrapolating to models isn't that far of a reach.
It sounds like the key difference here is they're predicting parts of the scene they haven't seen, such as what the other side of an object they haven't seen looks like.
I don't know if they do that just based on clues like shadows, or the system says "that looks like the front of a sphere, therefore I can assume it's round on the other side as well."
The #1 rule is that accidents happen - and when reported honestly, will be forgiven. Deliberate violations and lying will ALWAYS result in prosecution.
Unless your name is 'Clinton'.
Except the point is she didn't deliberately expose the classified records, and if you believe she didn't realize classified information ended up on there then she didn't lie either.
(U) Her claim is fucking ridiculous, because in classified documents every page, heading, sentence, and bullet point, and source reference is preceded by note just like this: (U) (FOUO) (C) (S) (TS)
(U) Is this painful to read? This is the sort of thing that she claims was missing from her documents.
It's also the thing the FBI claims was missing from her documents:
Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey.
(U) You can't get such documents off of the secure network. To get such documents on her private server, she or a lackey uploaded them.
Or someone wrote up some information in an email, either not realizing it was classified or not realizing it shouldn't be sent over email, and clicked send.
(U) Most people who get caught for lesser fuck-ups end up going to jail.
No one doing what Clinton did would be sent to jail, all of the examples of people going to jail are for far more deliberate mishandling of classified data.
What I don't understand about Comey is that he all but threw the election to Trump while panning Trump left and right.
It's easy to understand. Comey and the rest of the beltway didn't even suspect Trump might get elected. The purpose of that farcical reopen/close stunt was to clean the slate; Clinton would win the election and enter office with no outstanding investigative hangups.
That and the FBI was actually pretty pro-Trump.
Giuliani had sources inside the Clinton email investigation and was dropping spoilers, if Comey didn't make the announcement there's a real good change Giuliani would have announced it and used the scoop to claim that the FBI was engaged in a cover-up.
Ok
Clinton wasn't accused of using personal email for business. She was accused of transmitting top secret documents over unsecured personal email (very illegal), and using personal email to communicate state business secretly outside of officially logged and recorded channels (also illegal).
Is this what Comey is accused of? If not, everyone can fuck off with their "he did it too" shit.
No.
She was accused of two things:
1) She used personal email for official business. This was against department policy, but I don't think it was against the law as long as she turned over the work related emails for record keeping (which she did, though she had to be reminded).
This is incredibly common, it's what Comey is being accused of, it's human nature, if you talk to your friend about personal business and work business you're sometimes going to talk in the wrong channel. Clinton should certainly be criticized for looking at the grey area and disregarding the rule entirely, but it's not a fraction of the issue it was made out to be.
2) She inadvertently communicated a few classified things over an insecure channel (her personal email). This actually has nothing to do with her personal server as it would have been just as big a problem if she did it over her official State Dept email since that wasn't cleared for classified traffic either.
But it's even less a big deal than the personal server.
Stuff like that happens all the time, when people are constantly sending emails they sometimes include information they're not supposed to. No one gets charged for it because everybody does it, it's only when it's particularly egregious or deliberate that people get in serious trouble.
Steam is a special case. If you can't run the latest Steam client, the licensing on your existing Steam games will stop working, and you won't be able to play them any more. They're making a change which because of DRM will make your old, not-updated games actively break.
It's reasonable they want to update Steam to modern technologies. It would also be reasonable if they left a legacy license server up that will continue to serve licenses to the last version of Steam that ran on those older systems.
Though part of the reason they're forcing the upgrade may be because Win XP/Vista lack DRM features they require. It may not be possible to support XP/Vista legacy systems without leaving those security holes, holes that could even be exploited by newer systems masquerading as legacy systems.
Of course that's just speculation, and I suspect that DRM isn't that important to Steam's success anyway. They make a lot of sales because they offer a convenient platform, not because they're preventing pirates.
Go to youtube. There are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of videos that detailed what went wrong. For one thing, there was an active boycott of Solo (otherwise known as Soylo now among fans for the apparent reveal by the writer that Lando is a pansexual right before the release of the movie). This also probably killed the movie for countless red-state movie goers who were already incensed at the blatant SJW preaching that The Last Jedi seemed to do.
Really though, the stage was set for Solo's downfall with the poor movie (look at Rotten Tomato reviews) of The Last Jedi Returns. Sargon of Akkad has a video called "Gender Wars" that received a million views
The feminist angle in The Last Jedi is a subtext. It does exist, but it's not that big a deal. If I want I can dig into almost any mainstream Hollywood movie and find dozens of cases of sexist tropes going the other way. They might bug me a little, but it doesn't ruin the movie and I don't go on Youtube uploading videos about what a horrible movie it is as a result.
It's Star Wars, it's supposed to be progressive. The original trilogy gave Leia some character and leadership abilities, it put black people in charge of things. I'm pretty sure some people got annoyed at that. Now the women *gasp* mostly made better decisions than their male counterparts in one movie! It's not that big a deal.
If you're seriously that upset that the feminist angle got a bit overbearing, so what? You don't have to make yourself have the movie as a result.
Telling a completely new story in a great universe? Great idea.
Telling a derivative story in a great universe? Good idea.
Shooting a remake of a great movie? Decent idea.
Shooting a movie with an iconic character, defined by an iconic actor? Terrible idea.
The Star Trek remakes got away with it because the roles made the actors more than the actors made the roles (though they're still boring movies).
But Han Solo was cool because Harrison Ford is a top-end actor who absolutely nailed the character of Han Solo. A Han Solo movie without Harrison Ford is basically a movie of going "Boy, that character isn't nearly as interesting as I remember. And that guy still isn't Harrison Ford!"
It's not like there were a lack of stories to tell in the Star Wars universe.
Tesla responded in a statement, "and before a driver can use Autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that 'Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings.'"
If only the vehicle had some kind of fancy GPS + Computer Vision system that could detect when it was being used in a situation for which it was not designed and either refuse to work, or at least give the user a stern warning.
I once fell asleep driving home late at night on the highway (w/ autopilot on) and got woken up by it beeping + turning off music to wake me up. Would have prob been dead without it... I didn't touch the steering wheel for a couple minutes and then it turned off the music and started beeping.
Possibly, it's also possible that he fell asleep because the Tesla was doing the driving for him.
It should also be noted how ridiculously lucky he is that he wasn't killed when the Tesla woke him up and put his confused half-asleep self back in control of the vehicle. Another Tesla driver was already killed by that exact scenario.
All of these chicken littles view these changes in nature as if they are happening in a vacuum.
Nature is like a beanbag. Push here and it pops out there. One change spawns another change. Nothing is static and nature isn't in a vacuum.
Tell that to the Mammoths, Dinosaurs, and the obligate anaerobes that predated cyanobacteria.
Just because a system is resilient doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want to it and come out fine.
Hasn't worked for 40 years. Explain that. We've tried your system, and it has systematically sucked the wealth out of the country that was created in no small part due to protectionist trade policies in the beginning half of the 20th century.
Or you've been seeing the consequences of a tax policy that's insufficiently progressive to stop the wealthy from using their wealth to accumulate an even larger share of the wealth.
Oh wait, your guy just signed a bill that transferred a massive amount of wealth to the already wealthy... I hope you're ready for another 40 years of the rich getting richer and the rest running in place.
Please don't let this spread to the U.S. I have some problem that makes the touch of metal silverware on my teeth feel like scratching my fingernails on a chalkboard, and I need to request plastic utensils everywhere I go because of that.
Did you consider not biting your cutlery?
Seriously, I don't think anyone likes the feel of cutlery touching their teeth, that's why most people place the fork/spoon in their mouth then pull the cutlery out using their lips to separate the food from the utensil.
I'm pretty confident I go weeks at a time eating without cutlery touching my teeth.
The FDA is one of the toughest regulatory agencies in the world for getting a treatment approved.
I don't think that's relevant because we're not talking about approved treatments, this is about unapproved experimental treatments.
And the FDA already has a system for allowing critically ill patients to access unapproved treatments. To the extent that people still can't access these treatments it's the Drug Companies, not the FDA, who are the problem.
It doesn't sound like anyone is denied effective treatment in the current system (unless they end up control in a clinical trial) so I'm not sure what the new bill is going to do other than potentially open the doors to snake oil sellers.
The bill protects doctors and pharmaceutical companies from liability for giving experimental treatments to terminally ill patients, which is one of the reasons drug companies don't want to give these out. Drug company liability has gone bonkers in the last few years - people are suing because chemotherapy drugs are causing their hair to fall out, and blood thinners are causing them to bleed more easily. It's insane.
As long as the doctors and patients are fully informed that the drug is experimental I don't see a problem with this.
Doesn't sound like that's a problem:
Finally, expanded-access programs could bring liability exposure. Litigation in this arena, however, has been limited to obtaining access rather than seeking redress of treatment-related harm. The lack of adverse-event lawsuits may reflect the willingness of such patients to assume risks as well as the adequacy of existing regulatory and manufacturer safeguards.
It sounds like a great idea, give patients a last chance they'd otherwise lack, but according to the article:
The measure, championed by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is designed to give patients an alternative way to obtain drugs not approved by the FDA. Currently, there are two options for patients seeking experimental medications: enrolling in clinical trials if they are eligible or participating in the FDA's "expanded access" program. The agency has said that it approves almost all such requests to that program.
and
Critics also note that drug companies, not the FDA, are the main obstacle to seriously ill patients getting unapproved drugs outside clinical trials. Manufacturers sometimes don't have large enough supplies to provide drugs outside trials or don't want to risk a safety problem involving a drug that has not yet passed FDA muster.
It doesn't sound like anyone is denied effective treatment in the current system (unless they end up control in a clinical trial) so I'm not sure what the new bill is going to do other than potentially open the doors to snake oil sellers.
'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability
Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.
Except when someone says "will" involving climate change, then you scream "a prediction isn't falsifiable!".
Being falsifiable is a requirement for being scientific.
So you think polling science exists? I'd say a lot of what 538 does qualifies as science, despite not going through the full scientific process, and they almost exclusively work in probabilistic outcomes. They also routinely falsify the claims of other polling outfits by demonstrating their errors.
As for this research it has plenty of falsifiable aspects, in fact there's two falsifiable statements in the summary, heck, there's one in the headline!
"$20 Trillion" Where does that number come from? Did they get part from calculating the cost of relocating people? Maybe their figure was unrealistically large and you can knock it down to $15 trillion just like that. Now it's falsified!
And 60%, where does that come from? Are they looking at probabilities of certain climate outcomes? Maybe they're relying on a bad climate model, show the odds of that outcome are wrong and you've shown 60% is wrong. Again it's false!
It's in trumps style of negotiation. He's always going to go for the BEST deal that he can get, and this is not at all out of the ordinary for Trump.
Back when it was first announced, Scott adams almost immediately said "expect one of them, probably trump, to walk away at least once before any actual negotiations take place".
Fun to see these types of negotiating dynamics playing out on the world stage.
It sounds like Kim is the one who effectively walked away by threatening to pull out and then simply ignoring the US's entreaties.
Does that make Kim the master negotiator now?
Then they should've said "Will". Saying "could" makes the statement just what I said, unfalsifiable. And that in turn makes in unscientific.
So you could then criticize them for making an authoritative prediction they could not possibly justify.
'Will' vs 'Could' has nothing to do with falsifiability or scientificness, it's scientific and falsifiable because their "could" is justified with research.