It might be a bit spur of the moment kind of attack (on the other hand, he got whatever he used to stab with from somewhere) and he had things he wanted to handle before going to prison.
Not really. The sunken cost fallacy states that you should ignore past cost paid when making decisions. I.e. it would only apply here if you went to a movie with movie pass you normally would not have gone to EVEN if it was free. The even part is important.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
I am assuming you mean top 100 performing stocks, and that would be false. Trump would have approximately the same net worth if he had invested all his money in the stock market index companies, so his performance with his companies is about average despite the occasional illegal and many unethical things he has done to try and ensure their success.
No, I meant top 100 largest. I thought these index companies would be the biggest companies and would be expected to have as good a leader as money can buy. Hence he is roughly as good at running companies as money can buy (doing illegal stuff doesnt really detract from that - it would go on a cons list instead of this pros list). Is this incorrect?
Note, I agree that Trump isnt a nice guy to put it mildly, and I would much have prefered Hilary (or Sanders to Hilary)- I was trying to provide a pro list, since it was asked for and I think it is important to be able to see the strengths people have, even if I dislike them.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
Define "enough", two million more people voted for her. Most of the vote broke down along party lines and the negative campaigning was just enough to depress the Democratic vote to allow Trump to eek out a narrow victory in the electoral college.
Well, a simple to understand but not nice reason is that by giving money to businesses close to you, they will get more employees, which means more people around you are employed which in turn makes them less likely to do some kinds of crimes like robberies. (Naturally in reality, it is more threshold based and there are certain other effects like people moving to areas with more jobs, but in general, I think it sounds like a reasonable belief that more money spend in an area leads to a larger fraction of people with jobs in that area).
I do not like Trump, but things he is good at: He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it. He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff, Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says. He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it. He seemes to value family highly. He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
If I remember that study correctly, it was based on gene testing and only done when people were suspicious. So in 4/5 cases where people were suspicious, it turned out to be a false alarm. It seemes very reasonable to suggest that if you are not suspicious, then the odds are higher that the child is your own.
The obvious problem is that humans are bad at randomization and computers are reasonably good at that. If the computer then does something at random, the humans will not be able to copy it.
Actually I got the opposite question. How can they not be hugely profitable? In your example: Ubers cut is 20% of that $7, which is $1.40. For that they need to keep their system online and thats basically it as far as I can see. The driver needs to pay for everything to do with the car.
This is not really the point made. It is true as you say that in expectation after 100 coin flips you will have as many tails as heads, however it is also true that the absolute difference between number of heads and tails are 10 in expecatation. More precisely, after k^2 coin flips, you get k more heads than tails or k more tails than heads in expectation. This is his suggested resolution to the problem - we are simply in the 10 more heads case (he is wrong in thinking that this occours because of how it started though - it is not because the first 10 was something in particular that you get this).
Then you should be happy! A large fraction of a scientist time is dedicated to writing grants, which is basically asking for money like you want - typically not to the public though. I personly consider it stupid. After having shown that you are able to produce very good reseach - and requiring basically just that to get a position - your job becomes teaching, marketing (grants), supervision and a small amount of research.
There can be bad side effects but it is better for everybody that nearly everybody else are vaccinated. It might be better for each person not to be vaccinated, when most everybody else are though (the probaility to get any of these diseases is quite low right now because of the vaccines). Not getting vaccinated without a good reason (such as very weak immune system), ensures that most people aint vaccinated however, so I think this is one of the examples where we need goverments to enforce a non-stable outcome (it is not stable since each person are better off not doing it).
Reading the titel: I know he mattered alot but Steve Jobs have been dead for half a decade by now and while it is clearly a huge lose of creativity (rounded conners and all) I do not think we need to transit to UCI over it.
My gf and I tested the medicine prize (itch on one arm + scratch on other arm = relief). It works somewhat but not as much as scratching the right one.
It would be closer to the post and courier services. The post has to deliver a mail to anywhere and not just the easy places. This is not the case for courier services.
The taxi companies (at least many places - I do not know if it concretely the case in Massachusetts) has to drive you were you want to go, even if it is to a part of town the taxi driver wants to stay out of. This is not the case for Uber/Lyft.
Well, you are not allowed to sign your self into slavery, so there are business deals you cannot make. Is privacy a good enough reason to make a transaction illigal? Note that Europe cares more about privacy than the US, so the culture might matter for the answer.
Also, you can call peoples phones through skype, so it is not really clear that all involved people will know that their conversation is used for ads. Is that fair?
Just a small point, but Denmark is losing money on supporting Greenland. Indeed the deal between them is that Denmark pays some fixed stipend, then receives half the income from resources, as long as the latter is smaller than the former.
I think both are right, really. We do NOT know what goes on in a black hole. We DO know that you will get ripped to shreds before you get inside, though.
Alot of the current posts suggests that it is redicules to listen to a former minister of economics from Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, on economics. He is also "Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Athens and a private consultant for Valve Corporation" (Wikipedia), however.
While being minister of economics from Greece might not be good for your credentials (not with standing that he was the guy Greece called in to deal witht the crisis), being a professor at University of Athens and a private consultant for Valve does sound fairly good.
Obviously, in the USA (and most other countries), they would treat this man far worse. Most places he would have been executed.
According to Wikipedia, there are 36 countries where execution are used in practice, another 51 there execution is not used in practice, but still on the books, 7 where it is only used for war crimes (or similar) and 103 where it is not used. Even if we assume that it would have been called a war crime and that he would be executed if there was a law allowing for such (even if it was never used in practice), then Breivik would still not have been executed in half the countries of the world. On the other hand, over half the worlds population lives in one of the countries were execution is used in practice.
With that said, while I'm not in favor of harsh punitive treatment in prisons IF it doesn't help prevent crime, nothing in the article sounds unreasonable. He is a dangerous killer - he killed 77 people. It's not unreasonable for his jailers to try to prevent it from becoming 78. He's so dangerous that making him wear cuffs when moving him between cells and preventing him from coming into proximity with other prisoners seem like reasonable precautions.
As others have noted, the crime this is meant to prevent is his murder. His crime was committed with weapons. I have not heard anything about him being especially dangerous without such.
I also think it absurd that 60% of rapes could be stopped by stopping people after the second rape. That means that the average rapist has raped 5 times. I *hope* that is waaaay to high.
If it is real, then yes, something should be done about it, even if it is quite rare.
I think you misunderstand what will happen if the conditions in a country becomes unlivable over a longer period (this compared to say a volcano or something, where the problem occurs suddenly). Specifically, the likelihood of war does not exactly decrease.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be a bit spur of the moment kind of attack (on the other hand, he got whatever he used to stab with from somewhere) and he had things he wanted to handle before going to prison.
Not really. The sunken cost fallacy states that you should ignore past cost paid when making decisions. I.e. it would only apply here if you went to a movie with movie pass you normally would not have gone to EVEN if it was free. The even part is important.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
I am assuming you mean top 100 performing stocks, and that would be false. Trump would have approximately the same net worth if he had invested all his money in the stock market index companies, so his performance with his companies is about average despite the occasional illegal and many unethical things he has done to try and ensure their success.
No, I meant top 100 largest. I thought these index companies would be the biggest companies and would be expected to have as good a leader as money can buy. Hence he is roughly as good at running companies as money can buy (doing illegal stuff doesnt really detract from that - it would go on a cons list instead of this pros list). Is this incorrect?
Note, I agree that Trump isnt a nice guy to put it mildly, and I would much have prefered Hilary (or Sanders to Hilary)- I was trying to provide a pro list, since it was asked for and I think it is important to be able to see the strengths people have, even if I dislike them.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
Define "enough", two million more people voted for her. Most of the vote broke down along party lines and the negative campaigning was just enough to depress the Democratic vote to allow Trump to eek out a narrow victory in the electoral college.
Enough = he didnt need more voters - he won.
Well, a simple to understand but not nice reason is that by giving money to businesses close to you, they will get more employees, which means more people around you are employed which in turn makes them less likely to do some kinds of crimes like robberies. (Naturally in reality, it is more threshold based and there are certain other effects like people moving to areas with more jobs, but in general, I think it sounds like a reasonable belief that more money spend in an area leads to a larger fraction of people with jobs in that area).
I do not like Trump, but things he is good at:
He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it.
He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff,
Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
He seemes to value family highly.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
If I remember that study correctly, it was based on gene testing and only done when people were suspicious. So in 4/5 cases where people were suspicious, it turned out to be a false alarm. It seemes very reasonable to suggest that if you are not suspicious, then the odds are higher that the child is your own.
No, this is not true. You need to bluff to play optimally. See for instance, http://cs.au.dk/~bromille/Pape...
The obvious problem is that humans are bad at randomization and computers are reasonably good at that. If the computer then does something at random, the humans will not be able to copy it.
Actually I got the opposite question. How can they not be hugely profitable? In your example: Ubers cut is 20% of that $7, which is $1.40. For that they need to keep their system online and thats basically it as far as I can see. The driver needs to pay for everything to do with the car.
This is not really the point made. It is true as you say that in expectation after 100 coin flips you will have as many tails as heads, however it is also true that the absolute difference between number of heads and tails are 10 in expecatation. More precisely, after k^2 coin flips, you get k more heads than tails or k more tails than heads in expectation. This is his suggested resolution to the problem - we are simply in the 10 more heads case (he is wrong in thinking that this occours because of how it started though - it is not because the first 10 was something in particular that you get this).
Then you should be happy! A large fraction of a scientist time is dedicated to writing grants, which is basically asking for money like you want - typically not to the public though. I personly consider it stupid. After having shown that you are able to produce very good reseach - and requiring basically just that to get a position - your job becomes teaching, marketing (grants), supervision and a small amount of research.
There can be bad side effects but it is better for everybody that nearly everybody else are vaccinated. It might be better for each person not to be vaccinated, when most everybody else are though (the probaility to get any of these diseases is quite low right now because of the vaccines). Not getting vaccinated without a good reason (such as very weak immune system), ensures that most people aint vaccinated however, so I think this is one of the examples where we need goverments to enforce a non-stable outcome (it is not stable since each person are better off not doing it).
Reading the titel: I know he mattered alot but Steve Jobs have been dead for half a decade by now and while it is clearly a huge lose of creativity (rounded conners and all) I do not think we need to transit to UCI over it.
My gf and I tested the medicine prize (itch on one arm + scratch on other arm = relief). It works somewhat but not as much as scratching the right one.
Well, in this case the people (Ireland) that stands to collect appealed...
It would be closer to the post and courier services. The post has to deliver a mail to anywhere and not just the easy places. This is not the case for courier services.
The taxi companies (at least many places - I do not know if it concretely the case in Massachusetts) has to drive you were you want to go, even if it is to a part of town the taxi driver wants to stay out of. This is not the case for Uber/Lyft.
Well, you are not allowed to sign your self into slavery, so there are business deals you cannot make. Is privacy a good enough reason to make a transaction illigal? Note that Europe cares more about privacy than the US, so the culture might matter for the answer.
Also, you can call peoples phones through skype, so it is not really clear that all involved people will know that their conversation is used for ads. Is that fair?
Perhaps you should keep guns away from your toddler? Just saying ;)
Just a small point, but Denmark is losing money on supporting Greenland. Indeed the deal between them is that Denmark pays some fixed stipend, then receives half the income from resources, as long as the latter is smaller than the former.
I think what you are saying sounds alot like this XKCD comic:
https://xkcd.com/1497/
I think both are right, really. We do NOT know what goes on in a black hole. We DO know that you will get ripped to shreds before you get inside, though.
Alot of the current posts suggests that it is redicules to listen to a former minister of economics from Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, on economics. He is also "Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Athens and a private consultant for Valve Corporation" (Wikipedia), however.
While being minister of economics from Greece might not be good for your credentials (not with standing that he was the guy Greece called in to deal witht the crisis), being a professor at University of Athens and a private consultant for Valve does sound fairly good.
Obviously, in the USA (and most other countries), they would treat this man far worse. Most places he would have been executed.
According to Wikipedia, there are 36 countries where execution are used in practice, another 51 there execution is not used in practice, but still on the books, 7 where it is only used for war crimes (or similar) and 103 where it is not used. Even if we assume that it would have been called a war crime and that he would be executed if there was a law allowing for such (even if it was never used in practice), then Breivik would still not have been executed in half the countries of the world. On the other hand, over half the worlds population lives in one of the countries were execution is used in practice.
With that said, while I'm not in favor of harsh punitive treatment in prisons IF it doesn't help prevent crime, nothing in the article sounds unreasonable. He is a dangerous killer - he killed 77 people. It's not unreasonable for his jailers to try to prevent it from becoming 78. He's so dangerous that making him wear cuffs when moving him between cells and preventing him from coming into proximity with other prisoners seem like reasonable precautions.
As others have noted, the crime this is meant to prevent is his murder. His crime was committed with weapons. I have not heard anything about him being especially dangerous without such.
I also think it absurd that 60% of rapes could be stopped by stopping people after the second rape. That means that the average rapist has raped 5 times. I *hope* that is waaaay to high.
If it is real, then yes, something should be done about it, even if it is quite rare.
I think you misunderstand what will happen if the conditions in a country becomes unlivable over a longer period (this compared to say a volcano or something, where the problem occurs suddenly). Specifically, the likelihood of war does not exactly decrease.