Back in the day, flying was one of the few times the traveling businessman got to him(her)self. No computer to work on, no phone calls to make or receive. Then came laptops making it possible to do work on the plane, then in-flight phone calls, and now wireless Internet on flights.
Banning laptops would mean that the business traveler once again legitimately can't get any work done while flying, and has a good reason not to be reachable for the 8-10 hours of the flight (no computer = no real reason to pay for in-flight wifi). Nothing to do but take some time off work, kick back, relax, and catch a movie or two.
You can even live without money - barter for stuff.
I'd pick one or all of these companies. Industrialized farming is what's allowed the population in developed countries to far outgrow their food production capability when it was grown by manual and animal labor. Without them, I'd either be dead of starvation, or working on a farm instead of in tech.
The Russians, for their part, were rushed and a bit sloppy, leaving a trail of evidence that was not enough to prove for certain they were working for the government of President Vladimir V. Putin but which strongly suggested they were part of his broader "information warfare" campaign.
From TFA:
the eventual dump of documents by the attackers included metadata showing Russian versions of Microsoft Office were used to edit some documents, and the name of an employee of a company providing information security services to Russian intelligence organizations was in document metadata showing the last person to edit at least nine documents.
That seems a rather hasty and flimsy conclusion. If I were a hacker wanting to cover my tracks, and I noticed the media seems to be hell-bent on wanting to pin blame for everything on Russian hackers, I would:
Hack an organization and steal information.
Salt the info with some planted evidence suggesting the Russians were behind it.
Release the info with planted evidence publicly.
Let the press jump to their own conclusions.
I'm not saying the Russians aren't hacking other countries. I'm fairly certain they are. Just like the U.S. is, just like UK is, just like China is, just like France is, etc. I'm just pointing out the purported "evidence" here suffers from the conspiracy theory flaw of requiring the People Behind It All to simultaneously be extraordinarily competent (to hack into secure systems) and incompetent (to not know Word leaves editing fingerprints).
Something with as many subgroupings as life expectancy is going to be rife with Simpson's Paradox, so probably best not to read too much causality into these correlations.
The same needs to be done for the other side of the coin - eliminate redundancy in revenue collection. If you think about it, there's no fiscal difference between extracting $5000 in taxes from the economy from one location, vs. $10 taxes from 500 locations. e.g. A corporate tax just gets passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. The only difference is in the cost and manpower needed to collect the taxes. So that huge book of tax laws needs to be thrown out and replaced with a small booklet listing just a handful of taxes, and the IRS shrunk down to about 1/10th its current size.
All the people I know making $500,000/yr or more are workaholics. They willingly work 12-16 hours/day not because they have to, but because they enjoy it. It's not stressful to them, it's fun, even relaxing. To them, stress comes from not being allowed to work. The wife of one of those friends (who makes approx $2 mil/yr) was telling me about their vacation in Hawaii. She had to constantly pull laptops, tablets, and phones out of her husband's hands because he kept trying to work, instead of enjoying the time off with her and their kids. She had to confiscate all his electronics to force him to not-work, like taking away a kid's 3DS. That put him so much on edge that eventually she compromised and allowed him to work on his laptop in the evening at the hotel. But in exchange the rest of the day was no-electronics.
This. Instant runoff voting systems have mathematically been proven to yield better ("fairer") results in elections. The plurality wins system the U.S. uses (and especially the plurality by state + electoral college method) is one of the worst, and is what results in the system gravitating towards two parties who represent the extremes, rather than the mean.
Europe also tends to be more ethnically homogeneous (per country). The U.S., for all its flaws, is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. I've always suspected part of the high violence rate in the U.S. is due to latent racism and cultural biases present everywhere, but coming into conflict with each other much more in the U.S. than in other countries.
The counterargument would be Canada, which is more diverse than the U.S., yet has less violence. But if you stare at that map and a homicide rate map long enough, I think you'll convince yourself that Canada is an outlier, and that in general higher ethnic diversity in a country is correlated with higher violence rates.
You forgot to subtract the fraction of ice which would melt during that 1 year journey.
And we're doing desalination plants wrong. Right now they're usually reverse osmosis using electric pumps to generate the pressure needed force water through the filters. This is because the electric cost of reverse osmosis is less than the electric + heating cost of distillation. Water has a very high specific heat, so it takes a lot of energy to evaporate it.
We need to be adding desalination to power plants. Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants generate heat as a waste product. They get rid of it by heating up seawater or river water, or by evaporating water in big cooling towers. Instead of throwing that heat away, using it to distill seawater ends up being cheaper than reverse osmosis.
Trust goes both ways. If you've earned your parents trust enough that they don't feel they have to monitor the phone they bought for you, then good for you. But if they insist on monitoring your phone, they're not violating your trust. It is you who have not yet earned their trust.
And the misconceptions go a lot further than most people think.
The President's budget doesn't go into effect until the year after his inauguration. So the first year of his presidency, he's coasting on the previous President's budget.
The President merely suggests a budget. It's Congress that puts whatever they want into the budget. The President only gets to sign or veto it. No line-item veto. So if you want to blame (or credit) a party, it'd be more accurate to look at which party was in control of the House and Senate the previous year. Do this and there's pretty much no correlation between party and state of the economy.
The economy would go in boom/bust cycles without any Presidential (or government) input. It's what engineers call an underdamped stable system. To truly judge the impact of a President on the economy, you'd have to predict what the economy would've done without any government input, and compare against that. The correlation between President and economy is probably a coincidence because the average time constant of this boom/bust cycle seems to coincide closely with the 4/8 year presidential term.
Is it like credit card debt? Where the average U.S. household has $6000 in credit card debt. But if you look closer at the numbers you find that the vast majority pay off their credit card bill every month or carry a balance of less than $1000, and the average is skewed high because about 10% of households have like $50,000 balances on their credit cards.
So is that 140 min/day app use (in the U.S.) typical of most users? Or is it just a small percentage of hardcore users on their phones every waking minute who are skewing the mean?
Cape Canaveral in Florida. Launches into equatorial orbits are done here because it's the further south of the contiguous 48 states. The closer to the equator you launch from, the higher your eastward velocity, and the less energy you have to expend to achieve equatorial orbit. So the further south you can launch a rocket from, the greater its payload capacity using the same amount of fuel. (The southern tip of Texas would be another option, but any Eastward launch from there would pass over Florida, creating a hazard if a rocket blows up or crashes.)
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Launches into polar orbits are done here because there's nothing to the south but open ocean, and it's part of the contiguous 48 states. Polar orbits are useful for earth-monitoring satellites (both for earth sciences and spying) because the satellite can cover all latitudes. Equatorial orbits generally limit you to about 15-30 degrees north or south of the equator. In theory you could do this over any of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, but that creates a hazard for the Carribean and Central/South American countries if a rocket blows up. The East coast (e.g. Maine) is not an option because you want to launch the rocket slightly to the west, so that the Earth will rotate underneath it allowing coverage of all longitudes.
If this tax does pass, expect companies like SpaceX to move out of California, and either Sea Launch to be revitalized or a new company doing the same thing as Sea Launch (launching rockets from a platform in the middle of the ocean) to spring up.
That deal gave Hulu access to all four major broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. The new live service also includes popular cable networks such as CNN, ESPN, FX, Fox News, TBS, TNT, and the Disney Channel.
Here are the channel lineups for YouTube TV, Sling, DirecTV Now, and Playstation Vue.
YouTube TV does not include CNN, TBS, TNT.
Sling offers all those cable channels except Fox News in their $25/mo plan.
DirecTV Now offers all those cable channels in their cheapest ($35/mo) plan.
Playstation Vue offers all those cable channels in their cheapest ($40/mo) plan.
The main difference is CBS. Only YouTubeTV and Playstation Vue offer CBS; Sling and DirecTV Now do not. But most people can get CBS with an OTA antenna.
If they want to compete, they're gonna have to do so with other features, like DVR and on-demand streams. A tall order since Playstation Vue Access is priced the same, offers 45+ channels, supports 6 simultaneous streams, has full DVR and on-demand support.
That's been their MO for several decades. Someone comes out with a hot product, they copy it, pour gobs of money on marketing it, take losses for the first few years, but eventually take over the market. Unfortunately for them, that MO usually worked because they were able to leverage their Windows monopoly to help the product gain acceptance (Office, Internet Explorer, disk compression, disk encryption, etc). The Xbox is one of their few successes at this independent of Windows, Zune probably the most notable failure.
It would've been a lot easier for them if they'd actually thought ahead to what the future might bring, instead of copying others. Back in the 1990s they managed to displace Palm as the market leader for PDA OSes (by copying Palm but promising to make their OS share the Windows API). By the late 1990s it was obvious to most everyone that PDAs and phones would converge. All Microsoft had to do was add phone support to WinCE (which became Windows Mobile). But a few WinCE PDA companies tried to add phone functionality to their PDAs, and got no help from Microsoft. Their products were panned by reviewers for failing to work consistently as a phone, which is kinda important since phones are historically very reliable. The new smartphone market instead ended up being taken over by Blackberry (in North America) and Nokia (in Europe) who added PDA capability to their phones. And Microsoft has been trying to play catch-up ever since.
Supply/demand market mechanics don't work here. The writer's guild has a coerced monopoly of the supply. if a studio uses a script not written by a guild member, the guild will blacklist the studio, meaning none of their writers will write anything for the studio. Conversely, any writer not wanting to be blacklisted for life from the guild will not write a script for a studio without the guild's OK. That "MAFIAA" moniker is not just an ad hominem attack, it accurately describes how the industry operates.
All of you are wusses. I fabricate my own car components in my Gentool workshop, then assemble them to build a car. If the optimum airflow happens when the blower fan is spinning at 1347 RPM, I fabricate the part so its most efficient turning speed is 1347 RPM.
Actually, I think the main issue will be distribution of electricity. Their distribution system is haphazard, unsafe, poorly or not designed, and in many cases illegal. Now they're proposing doubling or tripling the total amount of electricity delivered over those lines to charge electric vehicles?
Natural gas might actually be worse in terms of CO2 emissions.
The energy from burning fossil fuels comes from combining hydrocarbons (chains of carbon and hydrogen) with oxygen in the air to form CO2 and H2O (primarily). Both CO2 and H2O are at a lower energy state than the original hydrocarbon, and thus their formation gives off energy.
Natural gas (CH4) gives you 1 CO2 + 2 H2O. 2 water for each carbon dioxide molecule generated.
Alkenes are of the form C(n)H(2n+2), where n=4 to 12. So from C4H10 to C12H26. These result in final products of 4 CO2 + 5 H2O, to 12 CO2 + 13 H2O per carbon atoms.
Cycloalkenes are of the form C(n)H(2n+2-2r), where r is the number of carbon-carbon bonds. So are always generate more CO2 than the equivalent alkene (same n).
So gasoline only generates 1.25 or fewer water molecules for each carbon dioxide molecule, compared to natural gas at 2 water molecule for each carbon dioxide molecule.
Natural gas produces the most water per CO2 atom of any hydrocarbon, meaning burning it generates the most energy per CO2 atom emitted of any hydrocarbon. Or put another way, for a given amount of energy generated, natural gas does it with the least CO2 emissions of any hydrocarbon (because a greater portion of its energy comes from forming water). Environmentalists just try to badmouth it because they wanted us to switch to renewables, and instead we switched to a cleaner fossil fuel.
Methane (natural gas) is actually about 10x more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So if you're not gonna burn natural gas to generate energy, you're better off just burning it to convert it into carbon dioxide. Before oil prices rose above about $30/bbl, it wasn't worth it to capture the methane which came up the wells with the petroleum (methane requires high pressure or cryogenic storage). So we were just burning a lot of it without trying to capture its energy. At least now we're using that energy.
OP didn't quite phrase it right. Broken cars slow down to a stop. Broken aircraft speed up until they hit the ground.
Falls start to become fatal from about 50 feet, and are nearly always fatal from above 100 feet. So for flying cars to be reasonably safe, you'd have to limit them to about 50 ft altitude. Factor in uneven terrain, and that altitude ceiling means there's very little advantage to flying cars vs ground-based cars.
It's also worth pointing out that Musk's Boring idea is the same thing as flying cars, except the cars are below the ground instead of above the ground. Both increase the number of cars which can pass any 2-dimensional point by changing the altitude - up for flying cars, down for Boring. With Boring having the notable advantage of car occupants not dropping to their deaths if their engine conks out.
They basically took a CT scan (computed tomography) using radio waves instead of x-rays.
Tomography has been around for over 80 years. It's why there's no lens when you have a traditional x-ray taken. You just fire the RF rays in a uniform direction (in this case the single WiFi course acts as a point source with all rays radiating radially), and capture them using a flat photographic plate (or in this case, by moving the WiFi receiver around on a plane). What they're doing isn't even as sophisticated as a CT scan because without moving the RF source as well, they can't capture 3D information.
Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them.
You mean racists like folks who advocate putting quotas on how many Asians are accepted to universities and high-paying jobs because they tend to do better than whites? Affirmative action against whites I can kinda understand. The operating premise being that in the past whites obtained their power, influence, and money partially by repressing minorities. And that the aftereffects of those past transgressions still slightly influence people's positions in society, so a counter-influence is needed to level the playing field. But Asians historically were one of those repressed minorities. Applying affirmative action against them just exposes you as a racist - someone who wants other people's position in society to be determined not solely by their ability, but partially by their race according to your unsubstantiated prejudices (in this case, that all races should be equal in everything, even if they're really not).
Despite what I just wrote, I actually agree with what California is doing with Airbnb. If you browse through their listings, the vast majority of properties are listed by landlords doing short-term rentals as a business. Not homeowners renting out their home while they're on vacation. If it's the home you live in with your personal items holding great sentimental value, you can rent it out to whomever you want. If you're only comfortable with people of the same race as you being in your home, then so be it. But if it's a second (or third, or tenth) house you rent out as a business, and your only attachment to the furnishings is their cash replacement value, then anti-discrimination statues should apply.
"The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment."
Motherhood is one factor, but I hesitate to go there first because there is still such a problem with harassment in tech.
Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.
If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.
The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians.
I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the day, flying was one of the few times the traveling businessman got to him(her)self. No computer to work on, no phone calls to make or receive. Then came laptops making it possible to do work on the plane, then in-flight phone calls, and now wireless Internet on flights.
Banning laptops would mean that the business traveler once again legitimately can't get any work done while flying, and has a good reason not to be reachable for the 8-10 hours of the flight (no computer = no real reason to pay for in-flight wifi). Nothing to do but take some time off work, kick back, relax, and catch a movie or two.
You can even live without money - barter for stuff.
I'd pick one or all of these companies. Industrialized farming is what's allowed the population in developed countries to far outgrow their food production capability when it was grown by manual and animal labor. Without them, I'd either be dead of starvation, or working on a farm instead of in tech.
From TFA:
That seems a rather hasty and flimsy conclusion. If I were a hacker wanting to cover my tracks, and I noticed the media seems to be hell-bent on wanting to pin blame for everything on Russian hackers, I would:
I'm not saying the Russians aren't hacking other countries. I'm fairly certain they are. Just like the U.S. is, just like UK is, just like China is, just like France is, etc. I'm just pointing out the purported "evidence" here suffers from the conspiracy theory flaw of requiring the People Behind It All to simultaneously be extraordinarily competent (to hack into secure systems) and incompetent (to not know Word leaves editing fingerprints).
African Americans have the lowest life expectancy, and vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Something with as many subgroupings as life expectancy is going to be rife with Simpson's Paradox, so probably best not to read too much causality into these correlations.
The same needs to be done for the other side of the coin - eliminate redundancy in revenue collection. If you think about it, there's no fiscal difference between extracting $5000 in taxes from the economy from one location, vs. $10 taxes from 500 locations. e.g. A corporate tax just gets passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. The only difference is in the cost and manpower needed to collect the taxes. So that huge book of tax laws needs to be thrown out and replaced with a small booklet listing just a handful of taxes, and the IRS shrunk down to about 1/10th its current size.
All the people I know making $500,000/yr or more are workaholics. They willingly work 12-16 hours/day not because they have to, but because they enjoy it. It's not stressful to them, it's fun, even relaxing. To them, stress comes from not being allowed to work. The wife of one of those friends (who makes approx $2 mil/yr) was telling me about their vacation in Hawaii. She had to constantly pull laptops, tablets, and phones out of her husband's hands because he kept trying to work, instead of enjoying the time off with her and their kids. She had to confiscate all his electronics to force him to not-work, like taking away a kid's 3DS. That put him so much on edge that eventually she compromised and allowed him to work on his laptop in the evening at the hotel. But in exchange the rest of the day was no-electronics.
This. Instant runoff voting systems have mathematically been proven to yield better ("fairer") results in elections. The plurality wins system the U.S. uses (and especially the plurality by state + electoral college method) is one of the worst, and is what results in the system gravitating towards two parties who represent the extremes, rather than the mean.
Europe also tends to be more ethnically homogeneous (per country). The U.S., for all its flaws, is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. I've always suspected part of the high violence rate in the U.S. is due to latent racism and cultural biases present everywhere, but coming into conflict with each other much more in the U.S. than in other countries.
The counterargument would be Canada, which is more diverse than the U.S., yet has less violence. But if you stare at that map and a homicide rate map long enough, I think you'll convince yourself that Canada is an outlier, and that in general higher ethnic diversity in a country is correlated with higher violence rates.
We still have a long ways to go as a species.
You forgot to subtract the fraction of ice which would melt during that 1 year journey.
And we're doing desalination plants wrong. Right now they're usually reverse osmosis using electric pumps to generate the pressure needed force water through the filters. This is because the electric cost of reverse osmosis is less than the electric + heating cost of distillation. Water has a very high specific heat, so it takes a lot of energy to evaporate it.
We need to be adding desalination to power plants. Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants generate heat as a waste product. They get rid of it by heating up seawater or river water, or by evaporating water in big cooling towers. Instead of throwing that heat away, using it to distill seawater ends up being cheaper than reverse osmosis.
Trust goes both ways. If you've earned your parents trust enough that they don't feel they have to monitor the phone they bought for you, then good for you. But if they insist on monitoring your phone, they're not violating your trust. It is you who have not yet earned their trust.
Is it like credit card debt? Where the average U.S. household has $6000 in credit card debt. But if you look closer at the numbers you find that the vast majority pay off their credit card bill every month or carry a balance of less than $1000, and the average is skewed high because about 10% of households have like $50,000 balances on their credit cards.
So is that 140 min/day app use (in the U.S.) typical of most users? Or is it just a small percentage of hardcore users on their phones every waking minute who are skewing the mean?
If this tax does pass, expect companies like SpaceX to move out of California, and either Sea Launch to be revitalized or a new company doing the same thing as Sea Launch (launching rockets from a platform in the middle of the ocean) to spring up.
All companies launching spacecraft that are based on California will promptly move out of California.
Here are the channel lineups for YouTube TV, Sling, DirecTV Now, and Playstation Vue.
The main difference is CBS. Only YouTubeTV and Playstation Vue offer CBS; Sling and DirecTV Now do not. But most people can get CBS with an OTA antenna.
If they want to compete, they're gonna have to do so with other features, like DVR and on-demand streams. A tall order since Playstation Vue Access is priced the same, offers 45+ channels, supports 6 simultaneous streams, has full DVR and on-demand support.
That's been their MO for several decades. Someone comes out with a hot product, they copy it, pour gobs of money on marketing it, take losses for the first few years, but eventually take over the market. Unfortunately for them, that MO usually worked because they were able to leverage their Windows monopoly to help the product gain acceptance (Office, Internet Explorer, disk compression, disk encryption, etc). The Xbox is one of their few successes at this independent of Windows, Zune probably the most notable failure.
It would've been a lot easier for them if they'd actually thought ahead to what the future might bring, instead of copying others. Back in the 1990s they managed to displace Palm as the market leader for PDA OSes (by copying Palm but promising to make their OS share the Windows API). By the late 1990s it was obvious to most everyone that PDAs and phones would converge. All Microsoft had to do was add phone support to WinCE (which became Windows Mobile). But a few WinCE PDA companies tried to add phone functionality to their PDAs, and got no help from Microsoft. Their products were panned by reviewers for failing to work consistently as a phone, which is kinda important since phones are historically very reliable. The new smartphone market instead ended up being taken over by Blackberry (in North America) and Nokia (in Europe) who added PDA capability to their phones. And Microsoft has been trying to play catch-up ever since.
Supply/demand market mechanics don't work here. The writer's guild has a coerced monopoly of the supply. if a studio uses a script not written by a guild member, the guild will blacklist the studio, meaning none of their writers will write anything for the studio. Conversely, any writer not wanting to be blacklisted for life from the guild will not write a script for a studio without the guild's OK. That "MAFIAA" moniker is not just an ad hominem attack, it accurately describes how the industry operates.
All of you are wusses. I fabricate my own car components in my Gentool workshop, then assemble them to build a car. If the optimum airflow happens when the blower fan is spinning at 1347 RPM, I fabricate the part so its most efficient turning speed is 1347 RPM.
You can generate plasma at home for a few bucks.
Actually, I think the main issue will be distribution of electricity. Their distribution system is haphazard, unsafe, poorly or not designed, and in many cases illegal. Now they're proposing doubling or tripling the total amount of electricity delivered over those lines to charge electric vehicles?
The energy from burning fossil fuels comes from combining hydrocarbons (chains of carbon and hydrogen) with oxygen in the air to form CO2 and H2O (primarily). Both CO2 and H2O are at a lower energy state than the original hydrocarbon, and thus their formation gives off energy.
Natural gas (CH4) gives you 1 CO2 + 2 H2O. 2 water for each carbon dioxide molecule generated.
Gasoline consists mostly of alkenes and cycloalkenes.
So gasoline only generates 1.25 or fewer water molecules for each carbon dioxide molecule, compared to natural gas at 2 water molecule for each carbon dioxide molecule.
Natural gas produces the most water per CO2 atom of any hydrocarbon, meaning burning it generates the most energy per CO2 atom emitted of any hydrocarbon. Or put another way, for a given amount of energy generated, natural gas does it with the least CO2 emissions of any hydrocarbon (because a greater portion of its energy comes from forming water). Environmentalists just try to badmouth it because they wanted us to switch to renewables, and instead we switched to a cleaner fossil fuel.
Methane (natural gas) is actually about 10x more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So if you're not gonna burn natural gas to generate energy, you're better off just burning it to convert it into carbon dioxide. Before oil prices rose above about $30/bbl, it wasn't worth it to capture the methane which came up the wells with the petroleum (methane requires high pressure or cryogenic storage). So we were just burning a lot of it without trying to capture its energy. At least now we're using that energy.
OP didn't quite phrase it right. Broken cars slow down to a stop. Broken aircraft speed up until they hit the ground.
Falls start to become fatal from about 50 feet, and are nearly always fatal from above 100 feet. So for flying cars to be reasonably safe, you'd have to limit them to about 50 ft altitude. Factor in uneven terrain, and that altitude ceiling means there's very little advantage to flying cars vs ground-based cars.
It's also worth pointing out that Musk's Boring idea is the same thing as flying cars, except the cars are below the ground instead of above the ground. Both increase the number of cars which can pass any 2-dimensional point by changing the altitude - up for flying cars, down for Boring. With Boring having the notable advantage of car occupants not dropping to their deaths if their engine conks out.
They basically took a CT scan (computed tomography) using radio waves instead of x-rays.
Tomography has been around for over 80 years. It's why there's no lens when you have a traditional x-ray taken. You just fire the RF rays in a uniform direction (in this case the single WiFi course acts as a point source with all rays radiating radially), and capture them using a flat photographic plate (or in this case, by moving the WiFi receiver around on a plane). What they're doing isn't even as sophisticated as a CT scan because without moving the RF source as well, they can't capture 3D information.
You mean racists like folks who advocate putting quotas on how many Asians are accepted to universities and high-paying jobs because they tend to do better than whites? Affirmative action against whites I can kinda understand. The operating premise being that in the past whites obtained their power, influence, and money partially by repressing minorities. And that the aftereffects of those past transgressions still slightly influence people's positions in society, so a counter-influence is needed to level the playing field. But Asians historically were one of those repressed minorities. Applying affirmative action against them just exposes you as a racist - someone who wants other people's position in society to be determined not solely by their ability, but partially by their race according to your unsubstantiated prejudices (in this case, that all races should be equal in everything, even if they're really not).
Despite what I just wrote, I actually agree with what California is doing with Airbnb. If you browse through their listings, the vast majority of properties are listed by landlords doing short-term rentals as a business. Not homeowners renting out their home while they're on vacation. If it's the home you live in with your personal items holding great sentimental value, you can rent it out to whomever you want. If you're only comfortable with people of the same race as you being in your home, then so be it. But if it's a second (or third, or tenth) house you rent out as a business, and your only attachment to the furnishings is their cash replacement value, then anti-discrimination statues should apply.
Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.
If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.
The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians.
I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.