Nothing? Not run the story, because it was never a story!
I mean seriously "some guy on the internet made a video from some 20+ year old footage of the president and out logo" Its NOT news. They tried to turn it into another "OMG the sky is falling, the Trump backers are doing violence to everyone..."
It's a story because Trump is once again posting memes that originate with unabashed racists.
One time can be a legitimate "oops", but multiple times? It demonstrates that influences are flowing from fringe racists right into Trump.
They are plenty aware the frenzied mob they have created will destroy his life, and figured they could silence him while they were at using his stuff to fan their flames.
They ONLY reason this is a thing is because CNN decided it was going to be, so its very much on them. So when they basically threaten to then dox this guy, its nothing short of abusive.
The guy apologized and retracted before CNN talked to him.
The reporter was basically in a position where he thought "normally I'd publish this guy's identity because it's newsworthy and he seems to be seeking the notoriety, but he seems to be repentant so I don't want to put him through that", so he decided to protect the anonymity.
But he was worried it was an act so he wanted the option to publish in the future. That's how the last paragraph came to be.
Now it was a dumb idea because regardless of intent it did create an implied threat, instead, publishing the identity should never have been an option. But it was a mistake, not a deliberate threat.
But it's dumber to think that CNN was threatening to dox him. Why the hell would they do that? Their job is to sell papers and a virulent racist that Trump re-tweeted is a great source of news. More to the point, if you're going to blackmail someone why would you literally publish your threat in a news article? It's as stupid as someone admitting to obstruction of justice in an on-camera interview with a reporter!
CNN is terrible network run by terrible people its not even #FakeNews
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
There are plenty generous scientists in public and private institutions that can do the proper research, so that the government can be accurately informed.
And how is the government supposed to get accurately informed without scientific advisors who are informed about that research?
If DT had science advisors they would simply serve his agenda anyway.
I once heard of a doctor who amputated the wrong limb.
It doesn't mean people shouldn't see doctors.
Keep the government serving the people. Not leading it.
It's a nice catchphrase, but I have no idea what it means.
That means limiting the power of the President. Democrats and Republicans in all branches of government don't have to represent anyone when you let loose the reins.
A less powerful government is still a government that needs information to act competently.
After firing men with prejudice she's now backing up a man who took advantage of women in the workplace?
On the topic of Kalanick's personal attitudes towards women we're really making some very big assumptions based on just a handful of public statements and incidents.
Mayer might be biased because he's her friend and she wants to protect her friend (we all have friends with some questionable characteristics). Or Mayer might realize the public has some massive misconceptions about what kind of person Kalanick.
I personally suspect the toxic culture at Uber is a consequence Kalanick and his leadership style. But I also feel like the Internet has a habit of demonizing people, Kalanick isn't some horrible womanizing sociopath, he's just a guy who wasn't quite made for that kind of role.
Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.
Distinction without difference...
Actually there is a real difference. Bezos, Chairman and CEO of Amazon, is a different role than Bezos, owner of Amazon. Ethical people generally recognize the differences in these roles and try to avoid overlap. I don't know if Bezos is a particularly ethical person, but if he is he's made sure that the reporting staff feel perfectly clear to criticize Amazon and/or advocate for issues with which he personally disagrees.
The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:
Bezos despises Trump and is likely to steer WaPo to criticize the President above and beyond what would be fair
Unlikely, if Bezos is ethical he gives the WaPo staff editorial independence (which is very much the standard in the newspaper industry). Now again I don't really know about Bezos's ethics, but I've never heard evidence he was unethical. And frankly, if the WaPo reporters did feel like he was trying to steer coverage they're the kind of reporters who would start complaining in public.
Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role
Though what mechanism? Did the WaPo change stances to be more anti-internet tax after his purchase?
— the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.
Does the WaPo align with his personal politics, and did that play a role in his purchase? Definitely.
Is the WaPo being used to lobby to increase Amazon's profits? I haven't seen a shred of evidence and consider the idea absurd.
This article spends almost its entire length going on and on about things like alternative medicine, but almost nothing about the actual resolution of back pain, except with respect to children (which, the article acknowledges, is not something all chiropractors endorse).
I don't buy into any of the nonsense, and my chiropractor doesn't either, but he uses the Impulse tool which doesn't hurt when it makes adjustments and I leave feeling much better than when I arrived. Before making any adjustment, he massages the back muscle to loosen it up and prevent damage. He's given me exercises to strengthen my back muscles to help keep things in alignment--and they work to the point that I go back about once per year when I do something really stupid and throw something completely out of alignment. He specifically said in my first appointment that if I'm coming back twice a week for years, he's not done his job properly.
Several years ago when I popped my scapula out of place while stretching and pinched a nerve (8-9 on the pain scale, didn't sleep a wink that night), the chiropractor put it back in place and the sharp stab instantly became a dull ache that went away after a few days.
I fully accept the idea that there are con artists out there who do the things mentioned in this article.
So here's my issue with chiropractors.
In the best case they sit in the healthcare gap between physiotherapists and massage therapists. But I'm not really clear on what legitimate treatment a chiropractor can provide that a physiotherapist or massage therapist can't.
On the downside, they are part of the alternative health care system and the alternative health care system fundamentally bases its treatments on personal experience and anecdotal evidence.
For most cases that works fine, but biology is complicated and not everything is knowable through anecdote and personal experience. For instance, consider that adjustment your chiropractor did. What were the long term effects? What's the underlying cause that causes you to have to visit once a year? Are there rare side effects from the adjustments he did?
I do not accept that it is universal or that chiropractors are incapable of providing any benefit whatsoever.
The problem isn't they're incapable of providing benefit, they clearly are. The problem is that the science based healthcare system is typically a more effective and safer way of getting a benefit.
You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months.
Either way that misses the point. The issue is that society is structured so that wealth accumulates. The wealthier you are the faster you'll accumulate more wealth, taxes aren't the only issue, but they're part of it
So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.
So you're playing the bait and switch of talking about government budgets.
Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?
Have you seen what US Republicans are doing right now? They're so obsessed with giving rich people a tax cut they're willing to destroy the health care market.
> Alphabet says Uber's former CEO, Travis Kalanick, knew about the files but told Levandowski to destroy them.
That sounds like the more honest thing to do. You know, like they weren't out to steal anything...
Levandowski didn't go straight from Waymo to Uber, after leaving Waymo he started Otto, which was promptly bought up by Uber for a ridiculous amount.
It's likely that the docs that Levandowski took from Waymo helped him build Otto, something of which Uber was surely aware. Telling Levandowski to destroy the docs looks more like an attempt to protect themselves legally (while still acquiring the stolen tech via Otto).
If you read the article, you'll notice that Murry has sued a LOT of media companies for critical statements/reporting. The ones mentioned on this article were all dismissed so far.
At what point does the "Coal King" start getting slapped for filing frivolous lawsuits? Filing hopeless lawsuits with the intent of intimidation should not be an effective legal strategy.
Why would the car continue to operate for 37.5 minutes of the trip if the driver didn't have his hands on the steering wheel? If that's a requirement, why didn't the car just pull over and shut off? It seems like Tesla failed to implement some common sense safety protocols here.
Because they trusted that the owner of an $80,000 car had at least some minimal intelligence and even if the driver had blind trust in the car, that when the car says "put your hands on the wheel and pay attention", that the driver would listen.
Yet this driver has demonstrated that people are about as dumb as you think they can be, so now they've implemented a 3 strikes policy that disabled autopilot after 3 reminders.
For the first few days people will be extremely cautious letting the autopilot do anything.
For the first few weeks they'll give it more leeway, but be very attuned to any warnings it gives.
After a few months, if they haven't had any real scares, they'll assume the auto-pilot knows what it's doing and generally ignore warnings.
Some people will be more cautious, but as a software developer this is exactly what I expect to happen with a significant portion of people. Everyone knows the right thing to do, we should backup our data rigorously, always use good unique password, follow the proper procedures, etc. But that's not how people work. If it's not part of a routine, and it's not given an immediate payoff, then people won't do it.
Give people a car that can self-drive in some situations and they will inevitably let it self-drive in every situation they can.
"Geekier dads could be taking longer to start a family and pass on geeky traits to their children"
Possibly, but I think another aspect could be the maturity of the father.
Guys in their 20s spend more time hanging out with other guys doing active social activities
Older guys are going more activities that are well structure and individual in nature.
A child is going to pick up on and emulate those things.
Shared activities also matter, an older father might spend more time deliberately training the child while a younger man might try to act as the child's playmate.
What? That's.. a weird interpretation. If anything, it is a headline that fluffs him for doing away with regulations that exemplify government bloat.
It's not though. If you choose to read it as fluff you can, if you choose to read it as a stab, you can. You can't argue that it doesn't work both ways.
Sure you can and I will. The headline isn't a stab of a fluff, it's a hook. It's designed to be so bizarre that the reader has to read the summary to understand what is going on, and the summary itself is largely positive. My first thought when reading the headline was "I see the word 'Trump', must be another outrage... what... Y2k... now I'm just confused..."
The summary itself is a bit more ambiguous, it's largely complimentary to Trump, but if you really want to read it negatively there's an indication that it's just show and the regulation was irrelevant anyway. But the headline is about as neutral as can be.
I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.
Well, autism itself is considered a mental illness by the DSM, and the incidence of things like schizophrenia and dyslexia is significantly higher in certain fields.
But I don't think they're autistic, maybe some had aspergers, but if they were average intelligence I suspect none would be considered mentally ill.
I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.
And there's a fair bit of evidence that suppressing them is easier if you are less intelligent. Not dumb, just within one or two standard deviations of average. Misophonia, for example, correlates with high intelligence. Smart people don't have better hearing, but they may be processing more information or filtering less. This applies even to smart people who aren't successful, although success can certainly make it easier to not integrate.
There's also evidence that society dumbs us down in a lot of ways, particularly creative thinking. Children do far better at creative thinking tests than most adults. because they are trained through school to fit into the kind of molds we set for industrial labor. Those unable to conform could be argued to be somewhat shielded from that kind of "brain damage." Granted, this is not directly equivalent to higher innate intelligence, but may end up with the same developmental results.
Alright, I suspect there is a positive correlation between genius + oddity and scientific breakthroughs. Ie, genius and oddity could be completely uncorrelated, but if you happen to be a genius and odd you end up exploring novel areas due to your oddity, and advancing them because of your genius.
Celebrity and power are a bit of a different animal, although there may be some overlap. They are conditioned in a different manner than other people, and thus certain odd behaviors are reinforced, or at least not discouraged, as they would be in a more mundane setting. But this would support part of my argument, as a lot of Trump's success comes from being able to think outside of the DC bubble mindset. He's certainly not intelligent, but when he's not being handled, he occasionally spurts out the obvious things that are unthinkable to normal politicians and journalists, such as money buying policy.
Though money buying policy isn't unthinkable, hell, that was half the uproar over Citizens United. Though most politicians are reluctant to talk about the influence of big donors because that's where they get their campaign funding. Trump only started talking about money buying policy when he couldn't get big donors, and he stopped when they came through.
Trump's talents are a little different, first his experience is showbiz not politics, a typical politician makes fuzzy uninspiring promises because they know how hard it is to get things done, Trump promises the moon because that's what gets the biggest payoff. He also has a tendency to say things that seem obvious, but no one says them because experts realize they're bad ideas.
In other words, a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness.'
I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.
Individuals with exceptionally high intelligence don't tend to integrate fully into society, and society's reaction is largely to consider them broken. As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."
I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.
But when you're successful enough everybody already wants to be your friend so there's no need to normalize, in fact those weird little habits just become part of your trademark.
Celebrities are a good example of this, in fact a great example is Donald Trump. He's obviously not a genius, but he has a lot of odd characteristics that would be big trouble for a person with less wealth and celebrity. Look at older videos from when he was starting out, he was a relatively ordinary person. I think most of his persona comes from his decades of outrageous wealth and celebrity leaving him with no motivation to keep his "quirks" in check.
How big a haircut are you willing to personally so that Apple can do it's civic duty and pay all the taxes on that repatriated capital.
Sure, let's take that to the logical end. Why have any corporate tax law? Why have taxes? They just lower the stock price.
I want to be clear, I'm not some Randian claiming that tax is theft and all that crazy stuff.
I'm claiming that Apple and Google are acting rationally, and put in a similar situation I'd expect most people here to act the same.
The solution is not to say "oh, Apple must be evil now", the solution is to recognize that "oh, Apple is responding to some really strong incentives when it takes all these strategies to reduce its taxes, if we fix those incentives then Apple and a lot of other companies will start paying more tax."
You make this argument because it is Apple, and not a "dirty" oil company, because you likely believe Apple is a "good" socially responsible company, even if they are not.
The problem is that these large companies hire expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make the rules. Apple is also guilty of this. So, this is not a simple case of "oooops, lookey here, i found me a deduction." It is more along the lines of, "I will donate X to your campaign, and you make me a 8x deduction. It is wrong and despicable. Don't forgive companies for doing this.....Especially Apple and Google, who claim to be socially responsible, then hides from paying taxes so less services can be provided. Hypocrites suck. No matter how much they put a good face eon it.
It's more subtle than that, the theory is that we pay taxes to contribute to society, but if we instead do something else that contributes to society we get a break from some taxes. When Apple lobbyists say "hey, if we do X can we get a tax break?" they sincerely believe doing X is the right thing and deserving of a tax break, they believe this because that narrative makes them the good guys.
As for the offshore capital, it's a legitimately tricky and complicated subject on how to tax multinationals, and it's really easy to keep cash in offshore to avoid US taxes. They probably don't believe that keeping the cash offshore is the right thing to do, but like anyone else they don't want to be the sucker who pays way more than they have to.
In politics good people doing bad things is much more common than bad people doing bad things, and confusing the two categories has a habit of making you a member of the former category.
Cellular relates to the method of radio communication used, not the size of the device.
As others have pointed out, such phones were already available back in the 40s (I personally never saw one until the 80s) Yes they were quite large.
Yes the batteries were different. Typically it was a heavy dry cell car battery, and typically that battery was still installed in the car the phone was installed into.
Large whip style antennas were needed too, as that was before the event of fractal antenna design.
I think this is the point, given the tech of the time they were luxury goods with no mass appeal. AT&T probably would have just wasted the spectrum.
Instead, the unused spectrum was reserved for the future expansion of broadcast TV to channels 70-83.
There's an alternate reality where tiny portable phones never caught on and broadcast TV (or its successor, possibly 2-way chatting TVs) really needed the extra spectrum.
I don't think the FCC erred here, the spectrum is a limited resource and they couldn't predict the biggest user of the future. Accommodating the current environment was the right call.
I've seen a lot of liberal friends who were throwing a lot of shade Ubers way after the recent news stories about them and harassment. Many of them said they have switched to Left and will never look back.
It made me wonder - what can a company even do for absolution once the mob has decided they are to be punished?
They need to do the same thing as people need to do, they need to demonstrate that they recognize their prior behaviour is wrong and make a sincere effort to change.
So far their actions only show they're afraid of the consequences of getting caught, which is better, but it also means the moment they feel the scrutiny is off they're likely to revert to their prior behaviour. Hence the tendency for people like myself to assume that there hasn't been a fundamental change.
Completely revamping their workplace culture and respect for the law, that's the real change that's required. Whether Kalanick stays or goes is only relevant to the extent that he's capable of carrying out that change.
Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.
If we're going to be honest it's terrorism. He was explicitly trying to terrorize member of an ethnic and religious minority to leave the US.
Comey never confirmed interference in the Clinton investigation by anybody. What he said is that the Clinton's meeting with Lynch, the leader of the DOJ, tarnished the ability of the DOJ to credibly lead the investigation.
So Comey took it over to restore public credibility.
Claiming that he confirmed actual "direct interference" is an outrageous lie.
The rest of us know (and Trump himself knows) that the tweets are meaningless and valueless in and of themselves, but they distract the MSM from what is really going on, and in a way that makes the left look like gibbering imbeciles.
He's been doing this since about *a year* prior to the election, and your side hasn't caught on even yet!
Has Trump tweeted as a distraction? Definitely, there's some evidence that he was deliberately doing outrageous things to grab media attention during the primary.
But for the most part Trump is usually Tweeting nonsense and usually involved in policy actions that are really bad news, that the two often coincide isn't by design, it's just math.
But this image of Trump as some brilliant schemer who plays the fool is nonsense.
There's a model of Trump that does a really good job of explaining pretty much everything he's done.
1) He's a pure bullshitter, you talk to him and he'll tell you everything you want to hear, regardless of its connection to reality.
2) He has an extremely short attention span. He doesn't know the first thing about major policy issues because he can't dedicate sufficient attention to understand them. This also makes him impulsive because he can't resist the instant gratification of saying (or tweeting) something stupid. (This may not apply to real estate or certain aspects of business that do genuinely interest him, but I don't have sufficient information for that.)
3) He has no ideals. His only reason for running for President was to do well in the primary (and then the general election). He probably doesn't have a single policy he wouldn't flip if you surrounded him with the right set of advisors. And because he doesn't have ideals he evaluates people through extremely shortsighted personal measures, like choosing personal loyalty over competence and adherence to duty.
4) He is at least partially aware of 1-3, and he's extremely insecure about it.
That really is about all there is to Trump and it was pretty obvious from the start.
The relevance of the Tweets is they show his current train of thought, and because of his impulsiveness that train of though can turn into policy.
Yes, some will be genuine falsifications. But some WILL be genuine results.
You write a paper on a list of 1000 tosses of a coin, noting each result. The chance for the coin to land on edge in one toss is around 1 in 100,000.
Then your paper is reviewed along with 100,000 others. If you have the coin land on edge more than once in your dataset, it's flagged as a falsified dataset.
Roughly 10 papers in the 100,000 tested flagged as falsified will be false positives.
You're assuming the authors of the study weren't very good at stats.
If their standard for false data was 2/1000 coins landing on edge then yes, they got false positives.
If their standard was 100/1000 coins landing on their edge then I'm pretty sure those data sets were wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing? Not run the story, because it was never a story!
I mean seriously "some guy on the internet made a video from some 20+ year old footage of the president and out logo" Its NOT news. They tried to turn it into another "OMG the sky is falling, the Trump backers are doing violence to everyone..."
It's a story because Trump is once again posting memes that originate with unabashed racists.
One time can be a legitimate "oops", but multiple times? It demonstrates that influences are flowing from fringe racists right into Trump.
They are plenty aware the frenzied mob they have created will destroy his life, and figured they could silence him while they were at using his stuff to fan their flames.
They ONLY reason this is a thing is because CNN decided it was going to be, so its very much on them. So when they basically threaten to then dox this guy, its nothing short of abusive.
The guy apologized and retracted before CNN talked to him.
The reporter was basically in a position where he thought "normally I'd publish this guy's identity because it's newsworthy and he seems to be seeking the notoriety, but he seems to be repentant so I don't want to put him through that", so he decided to protect the anonymity.
But he was worried it was an act so he wanted the option to publish in the future. That's how the last paragraph came to be.
Now it was a dumb idea because regardless of intent it did create an implied threat, instead, publishing the identity should never have been an option. But it was a mistake, not a deliberate threat.
But it's dumber to think that CNN was threatening to dox him. Why the hell would they do that? Their job is to sell papers and a virulent racist that Trump re-tweeted is a great source of news. More to the point, if you're going to blackmail someone why would you literally publish your threat in a news article? It's as stupid as someone admitting to obstruction of justice in an on-camera interview with a reporter!
CNN is terrible network run by terrible people its not even #FakeNews
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
There are plenty generous scientists in public and private institutions that can do the proper research, so that the government can be accurately informed.
And how is the government supposed to get accurately informed without scientific advisors who are informed about that research?
If DT had science advisors they would simply serve his agenda anyway.
I once heard of a doctor who amputated the wrong limb.
It doesn't mean people shouldn't see doctors.
Keep the government serving the people. Not leading it.
It's a nice catchphrase, but I have no idea what it means.
That means limiting the power of the President. Democrats and Republicans in all branches of government don't have to represent anyone when you let loose the reins.
A less powerful government is still a government that needs information to act competently.
After firing men with prejudice she's now backing up a man who took advantage of women in the workplace?
On the topic of Kalanick's personal attitudes towards women we're really making some very big assumptions based on just a handful of public statements and incidents.
Mayer might be biased because he's her friend and she wants to protect her friend (we all have friends with some questionable characteristics). Or Mayer might realize the public has some massive misconceptions about what kind of person Kalanick.
I personally suspect the toxic culture at Uber is a consequence Kalanick and his leadership style. But I also feel like the Internet has a habit of demonizing people, Kalanick isn't some horrible womanizing sociopath, he's just a guy who wasn't quite made for that kind of role.
Distinction without difference...
Actually there is a real difference. Bezos, Chairman and CEO of Amazon, is a different role than Bezos, owner of Amazon. Ethical people generally recognize the differences in these roles and try to avoid overlap. I don't know if Bezos is a particularly ethical person, but if he is he's made sure that the reporting staff feel perfectly clear to criticize Amazon and/or advocate for issues with which he personally disagrees.
The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:
Unlikely, if Bezos is ethical he gives the WaPo staff editorial independence (which is very much the standard in the newspaper industry). Now again I don't really know about Bezos's ethics, but I've never heard evidence he was unethical. And frankly, if the WaPo reporters did feel like he was trying to steer coverage they're the kind of reporters who would start complaining in public.
Bezos is likely to have purchased WaPo with tax-considerations paying at least a partial role
Though what mechanism? Did the WaPo change stances to be more anti-internet tax after his purchase?
— the other big concern, no doubt, was to save money on lobbying, by flat-out owning the biggest loudspeaker in the capital.
Does the WaPo align with his personal politics, and did that play a role in his purchase? Definitely.
Is the WaPo being used to lobby to increase Amazon's profits? I haven't seen a shred of evidence and consider the idea absurd.
This article spends almost its entire length going on and on about things like alternative medicine, but almost nothing about the actual resolution of back pain, except with respect to children (which, the article acknowledges, is not something all chiropractors endorse).
I don't buy into any of the nonsense, and my chiropractor doesn't either, but he uses the Impulse tool which doesn't hurt when it makes adjustments and I leave feeling much better than when I arrived. Before making any adjustment, he massages the back muscle to loosen it up and prevent damage. He's given me exercises to strengthen my back muscles to help keep things in alignment--and they work to the point that I go back about once per year when I do something really stupid and throw something completely out of alignment. He specifically said in my first appointment that if I'm coming back twice a week for years, he's not done his job properly.
Several years ago when I popped my scapula out of place while stretching and pinched a nerve (8-9 on the pain scale, didn't sleep a wink that night), the chiropractor put it back in place and the sharp stab instantly became a dull ache that went away after a few days.
I fully accept the idea that there are con artists out there who do the things mentioned in this article.
So here's my issue with chiropractors.
In the best case they sit in the healthcare gap between physiotherapists and massage therapists. But I'm not really clear on what legitimate treatment a chiropractor can provide that a physiotherapist or massage therapist can't.
On the downside, they are part of the alternative health care system and the alternative health care system fundamentally bases its treatments on personal experience and anecdotal evidence.
For most cases that works fine, but biology is complicated and not everything is knowable through anecdote and personal experience. For instance, consider that adjustment your chiropractor did. What were the long term effects? What's the underlying cause that causes you to have to visit once a year? Are there rare side effects from the adjustments he did?
I do not accept that it is universal or that chiropractors are incapable of providing any benefit whatsoever.
The problem isn't they're incapable of providing benefit, they clearly are. The problem is that the science based healthcare system is typically a more effective and safer way of getting a benefit.
Cutting taxes is not giving.
Taking less then.
You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months.
Really? They control 12% of the wealth in the US.
Either way that misses the point. The issue is that society is structured so that wealth accumulates. The wealthier you are the faster you'll accumulate more wealth, taxes aren't the only issue, but they're part of it
So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.
So you're playing the bait and switch of talking about government budgets.
Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?
Have you seen what US Republicans are doing right now? They're so obsessed with giving rich people a tax cut they're willing to destroy the health care market.
> Alphabet says Uber's former CEO, Travis Kalanick, knew about the files but told Levandowski to destroy them.
That sounds like the more honest thing to do. You know, like they weren't out to steal anything...
Levandowski didn't go straight from Waymo to Uber, after leaving Waymo he started Otto, which was promptly bought up by Uber for a ridiculous amount.
It's likely that the docs that Levandowski took from Waymo helped him build Otto, something of which Uber was surely aware. Telling Levandowski to destroy the docs looks more like an attempt to protect themselves legally (while still acquiring the stolen tech via Otto).
If you read the article, you'll notice that Murry has sued a LOT of media companies for critical statements/reporting. The ones mentioned on this article were all dismissed so far.
At what point does the "Coal King" start getting slapped for filing frivolous lawsuits? Filing hopeless lawsuits with the intent of intimidation should not be an effective legal strategy.
Why would the car continue to operate for 37.5 minutes of the trip if the driver didn't have his hands on the steering wheel? If that's a requirement, why didn't the car just pull over and shut off? It seems like Tesla failed to implement some common sense safety protocols here.
Because they trusted that the owner of an $80,000 car had at least some minimal intelligence and even if the driver had blind trust in the car, that when the car says "put your hands on the wheel and pay attention", that the driver would listen.
Yet this driver has demonstrated that people are about as dumb as you think they can be, so now they've implemented a 3 strikes policy that disabled autopilot after 3 reminders.
For the first few days people will be extremely cautious letting the autopilot do anything.
For the first few weeks they'll give it more leeway, but be very attuned to any warnings it gives.
After a few months, if they haven't had any real scares, they'll assume the auto-pilot knows what it's doing and generally ignore warnings.
Some people will be more cautious, but as a software developer this is exactly what I expect to happen with a significant portion of people. Everyone knows the right thing to do, we should backup our data rigorously, always use good unique password, follow the proper procedures, etc. But that's not how people work. If it's not part of a routine, and it's not given an immediate payoff, then people won't do it.
Give people a car that can self-drive in some situations and they will inevitably let it self-drive in every situation they can.
"Geekier dads could be taking longer to start a family and pass on geeky traits to their children"
Possibly, but I think another aspect could be the maturity of the father.
Guys in their 20s spend more time hanging out with other guys doing active social activities
Older guys are going more activities that are well structure and individual in nature.
A child is going to pick up on and emulate those things.
Shared activities also matter, an older father might spend more time deliberately training the child while a younger man might try to act as the child's playmate.
What? That's.. a weird interpretation. If anything, it is a headline that fluffs him for doing away with regulations that exemplify government bloat.
It's not though. If you choose to read it as fluff you can, if you choose to read it as a stab, you can. You can't argue that it doesn't work both ways.
Sure you can and I will. The headline isn't a stab of a fluff, it's a hook. It's designed to be so bizarre that the reader has to read the summary to understand what is going on, and the summary itself is largely positive. My first thought when reading the headline was "I see the word 'Trump', must be another outrage... what... Y2k... now I'm just confused..."
The summary itself is a bit more ambiguous, it's largely complimentary to Trump, but if you really want to read it negatively there's an indication that it's just show and the regulation was irrelevant anyway. But the headline is about as neutral as can be.
Well, autism itself is considered a mental illness by the DSM, and the incidence of things like schizophrenia and dyslexia is significantly higher in certain fields.
But I don't think they're autistic, maybe some had aspergers, but if they were average intelligence I suspect none would be considered mentally ill.
And there's a fair bit of evidence that suppressing them is easier if you are less intelligent. Not dumb, just within one or two standard deviations of average. Misophonia, for example, correlates with high intelligence. Smart people don't have better hearing, but they may be processing more information or filtering less. This applies even to smart people who aren't successful, although success can certainly make it easier to not integrate.
There's also evidence that society dumbs us down in a lot of ways, particularly creative thinking. Children do far better at creative thinking tests than most adults. because they are trained through school to fit into the kind of molds we set for industrial labor. Those unable to conform could be argued to be somewhat shielded from that kind of "brain damage." Granted, this is not directly equivalent to higher innate intelligence, but may end up with the same developmental results.
Alright, I suspect there is a positive correlation between genius + oddity and scientific breakthroughs. Ie, genius and oddity could be completely uncorrelated, but if you happen to be a genius and odd you end up exploring novel areas due to your oddity, and advancing them because of your genius.
Celebrity and power are a bit of a different animal, although there may be some overlap. They are conditioned in a different manner than other people, and thus certain odd behaviors are reinforced, or at least not discouraged, as they would be in a more mundane setting. But this would support part of my argument, as a lot of Trump's success comes from being able to think outside of the DC bubble mindset. He's certainly not intelligent, but when he's not being handled, he occasionally spurts out the obvious things that are unthinkable to normal politicians and journalists, such as money buying policy.
Though money buying policy isn't unthinkable, hell, that was half the uproar over Citizens United. Though most politicians are reluctant to talk about the influence of big donors because that's where they get their campaign funding. Trump only started talking about money buying policy when he couldn't get big donors, and he stopped when they came through.
Trump's talents are a little different, first his experience is showbiz not politics, a typical politician makes fuzzy uninspiring promises because they know how hard it is to get things done, Trump promises the moon because that's what gets the biggest payoff. He also has a tendency to say things that seem obvious, but no one says them because experts realize they're bad ideas.
In other words, a lot of geniuses were probably autistic or had other conditions we generally consider to be 'mental illness.'
I'm sure a few were somewhere on the spectrum but I don't see any reason to think they had what we'd consider mental illnesses.
Individuals with exceptionally high intelligence don't tend to integrate fully into society, and society's reaction is largely to consider them broken. As a great philosopher once said, "Only shooting stars break the mold."
I think that's close, but misses the mark. Most of us have oddities and quirks, but we tend to suppress them because we want friends and jobs. A crazy hat is fine up until you realize the girl you like doesn't dig it.
But when you're successful enough everybody already wants to be your friend so there's no need to normalize, in fact those weird little habits just become part of your trademark.
Celebrities are a good example of this, in fact a great example is Donald Trump. He's obviously not a genius, but he has a lot of odd characteristics that would be big trouble for a person with less wealth and celebrity. Look at older videos from when he was starting out, he was a relatively ordinary person. I think most of his persona comes from his decades of outrageous wealth and celebrity leaving him with no motivation to keep his "quirks" in check.
As the article points out, no one was really applying these regulations. Ultimately, this is grand standing more than anything else.
In other words, it's the greatest accomplishment of Trump's administration!
How big a haircut are you willing to personally so that Apple can do it's civic duty and pay all the taxes on that repatriated capital.
Sure, let's take that to the logical end. Why have any corporate tax law? Why have taxes? They just lower the stock price.
I want to be clear, I'm not some Randian claiming that tax is theft and all that crazy stuff.
I'm claiming that Apple and Google are acting rationally, and put in a similar situation I'd expect most people here to act the same.
The solution is not to say "oh, Apple must be evil now", the solution is to recognize that "oh, Apple is responding to some really strong incentives when it takes all these strategies to reduce its taxes, if we fix those incentives then Apple and a lot of other companies will start paying more tax."
but like anyone else they don't want to be the sucker who pays way more than they have to
When you have 246B USD socked away my compassion goes out the window.
Who is "they"? If you have mutual funds you're part of that "they", more so if you're a small investor with some Apple stock.
How big a haircut are you willing to personally so that Apple can do it's civic duty and pay all the taxes on that repatriated capital.
You make this argument because it is Apple, and not a "dirty" oil company, because you likely believe Apple is a "good" socially responsible company, even if they are not.
The problem is that these large companies hire expensive lawyers and lobbyists to make the rules. Apple is also guilty of this. So, this is not a simple case of "oooops, lookey here, i found me a deduction." It is more along the lines of, "I will donate X to your campaign, and you make me a 8x deduction. It is wrong and despicable. Don't forgive companies for doing this.....Especially Apple and Google, who claim to be socially responsible, then hides from paying taxes so less services can be provided. Hypocrites suck. No matter how much they put a good face eon it.
It's more subtle than that, the theory is that we pay taxes to contribute to society, but if we instead do something else that contributes to society we get a break from some taxes. When Apple lobbyists say "hey, if we do X can we get a tax break?" they sincerely believe doing X is the right thing and deserving of a tax break, they believe this because that narrative makes them the good guys.
As for the offshore capital, it's a legitimately tricky and complicated subject on how to tax multinationals, and it's really easy to keep cash in offshore to avoid US taxes. They probably don't believe that keeping the cash offshore is the right thing to do, but like anyone else they don't want to be the sucker who pays way more than they have to.
In politics good people doing bad things is much more common than bad people doing bad things, and confusing the two categories has a habit of making you a member of the former category.
Cellular relates to the method of radio communication used, not the size of the device.
As others have pointed out, such phones were already available back in the 40s (I personally never saw one until the 80s)
Yes they were quite large.
Yes the batteries were different. Typically it was a heavy dry cell car battery, and typically that battery was still installed in the car the phone was installed into.
Large whip style antennas were needed too, as that was before the event of fractal antenna design.
I think this is the point, given the tech of the time they were luxury goods with no mass appeal. AT&T probably would have just wasted the spectrum.
Instead, the unused spectrum was reserved for the future expansion of broadcast TV to channels 70-83.
There's an alternate reality where tiny portable phones never caught on and broadcast TV (or its successor, possibly 2-way chatting TVs) really needed the extra spectrum.
I don't think the FCC erred here, the spectrum is a limited resource and they couldn't predict the biggest user of the future. Accommodating the current environment was the right call.
I've seen a lot of liberal friends who were throwing a lot of shade Ubers way after the recent news stories about them and harassment. Many of them said they have switched to Left and will never look back.
It made me wonder - what can a company even do for absolution once the mob has decided they are to be punished?
They need to do the same thing as people need to do, they need to demonstrate that they recognize their prior behaviour is wrong and make a sincere effort to change.
So far their actions only show they're afraid of the consequences of getting caught, which is better, but it also means the moment they feel the scrutiny is off they're likely to revert to their prior behaviour. Hence the tendency for people like myself to assume that there hasn't been a fundamental change.
Completely revamping their workplace culture and respect for the law, that's the real change that's required. Whether Kalanick stays or goes is only relevant to the extent that he's capable of carrying out that change.
Not *entirely*... it also requires developed nations to give $100 billion annually to the less-developed nations.
Really. The agreement has no enforceable requirements,
Well if it's not enforceable it's not really a requirement then is it?
the goals are paltry and minor, and yet sends $100 billion to undeveloped nations to waste on corruption.
The money is so they can invest in green tech so they don't have to pollute as much when they grow their economies.
And if they're just wasting the money on corruption we stop sending it.
And the US is already one of the least polluting nations
WTF?
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
Because you're living in another reality. It actually makes a lot of sense in this one.
Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.
If we're going to be honest it's terrorism. He was explicitly trying to terrorize member of an ethnic and religious minority to leave the US.
You mean the part where he confirmed that the Obama DOJ(Lynch) directly interfered with the investigation into Hillary? Yep, much lying, much obstructing.
Yes much lying, by you right now.
Comey never confirmed interference in the Clinton investigation by anybody. What he said is that the Clinton's meeting with Lynch, the leader of the DOJ, tarnished the ability of the DOJ to credibly lead the investigation.
So Comey took it over to restore public credibility.
Claiming that he confirmed actual "direct interference" is an outrageous lie.
The rest of us know (and Trump himself knows) that the tweets are meaningless and valueless in and of themselves, but they distract the MSM from what is really going on, and in a way that makes the left look like gibbering imbeciles.
He's been doing this since about *a year* prior to the election, and your side hasn't caught on even yet!
Has Trump tweeted as a distraction? Definitely, there's some evidence that he was deliberately doing outrageous things to grab media attention during the primary.
But for the most part Trump is usually Tweeting nonsense and usually involved in policy actions that are really bad news, that the two often coincide isn't by design, it's just math.
But this image of Trump as some brilliant schemer who plays the fool is nonsense.
There's a model of Trump that does a really good job of explaining pretty much everything he's done.
1) He's a pure bullshitter, you talk to him and he'll tell you everything you want to hear, regardless of its connection to reality.
2) He has an extremely short attention span. He doesn't know the first thing about major policy issues because he can't dedicate sufficient attention to understand them. This also makes him impulsive because he can't resist the instant gratification of saying (or tweeting) something stupid. (This may not apply to real estate or certain aspects of business that do genuinely interest him, but I don't have sufficient information for that.)
3) He has no ideals. His only reason for running for President was to do well in the primary (and then the general election). He probably doesn't have a single policy he wouldn't flip if you surrounded him with the right set of advisors. And because he doesn't have ideals he evaluates people through extremely shortsighted personal measures, like choosing personal loyalty over competence and adherence to duty.
4) He is at least partially aware of 1-3, and he's extremely insecure about it.
That really is about all there is to Trump and it was pretty obvious from the start.
The relevance of the Tweets is they show his current train of thought, and because of his impulsiveness that train of though can turn into policy.
Seems like artifact of randomness - Prosecutor's Fallacy.
Yes, some will be genuine falsifications. But some WILL be genuine results.
You write a paper on a list of 1000 tosses of a coin, noting each result. The chance for the coin to land on edge in one toss is around 1 in 100,000.
Then your paper is reviewed along with 100,000 others. If you have the coin land on edge more than once in your dataset, it's flagged as a falsified dataset.
Roughly 10 papers in the 100,000 tested flagged as falsified will be false positives.
You're assuming the authors of the study weren't very good at stats.
If their standard for false data was 2/1000 coins landing on edge then yes, they got false positives.
If their standard was 100/1000 coins landing on their edge then I'm pretty sure those data sets were wrong.
No.