It probably is, or at least a sizable portion of it is. There's some temperature difference that will result in the death of 50% of all coral, just like there's a dosage for any substance that will be lethal for 50% of people. It might not be two degrees, but it's some amount.
That really isn't the point though, as once you've killed off that bottom 50%, the surviving population that will pass on its genes are the 50% that are more tolerant of heat. Assuming the change doesn't happen to rapidly as to cause an extinction, the parts of the population with the genes most fit for the new environment will be more reproductively successful and you eventually end up with a population that is more suited to its environment.
Life as a whole is pretty damned resilient. After Chernobyl, there were some people who thought it would be a lifeless radioactive hellscape for some time, but it didn't take long for some plants to develop a tolerance for the radiation and thrive in an area that would be deadly for everything else that didn't adapt to it. I don't think we should use this is an excuse to allow ourselves to damage the environment, but rather that we should reject arguments calling for radical action because otherwise life will perish.
The cards themselves aren't that much different or better. Typically, they have more memory (possibly ECC as well) than your run of the mill gaming card and NVidia might include tensor cores or other specialized hardware in some of these high-end lines, but otherwise it's the same design as their consumer cards. What you're really paying for is the professional drivers. Basically you pay extra to get a lot of optimizations for your CAD program as well as certification that it will produce reliable results in those applications.
If you were talking about compensating those who suffered the original injustice, you might have a better argument. However, keeping a broken system in place that continues to churn out people that are going to continue the cycle of suffering is horrible. The people who are sitting there now are a younger generation, who have suffered only the injustice of being kept in a terrible system perpetuated by the guilt of everyone who insists that they fucking deserve it without realizing the kind of hell we've trapped these people in.
Maybe there are a lot of proposals (e.g. forced integration into larger society) that are awful for other reasons, but you can't look at the reservation systems and the Native American population and think that it's something that should continue on as it is. Look at the statistics for these communities. It's as bad as inner city ghettos or rustbelt towns that lost the factory and gained an opioid epidemic. At least nobody is cheerleading for those because we all recognize they're tragically broken.
Why? Do they owe Epic something? Is Epic paying them for the link? No, on both counts. Epic made their choice to cut Google out, Google doesn't have to do a damn thing that helps them.
I never said they did and if they were to do something like this, other developers would jump ship from Google's store as well. Why pay 30% when you don't need to because Google will just direct traffic your way (just as they would with web search) for free?
The point I was making was in the context of the post I replied to which stated that Google had no warnings or special response to this until it became a bigger story precisely because as I pointed out, the algorithms handling things don't notice these things.
Someone will always disagree no matter how objective your evaluation criteria might be, but when the platform allows for multiple stores, it hardly matters if one of them doesn't have an app. You can always go to another store (or download it directly from the author if they publish it online) if you really want it.
The point really isn't that I get the 10 undisputed best of N choices for any given category, but that I don't get the N - 10 worst choices along with them. There are probably some categories where there are fewer than 10 good choices, so realistically the store shouldn't give me more than 3 if everything else is a serious step down in quality.
I can see why they would never in a million years do such a thing, but they could just provide a link to The site where Epic has put the installer.
The real answer is that a lot of what goes on at Google is done by algorithms that are uncaring about things such as this. Eventually enough of a stink is made or someone higher up sees the bad press and human intervention is made. Ask anyone who has ever had to deal without Google support and they will tell you that this kind of thing is par for the course and has been for years. The human intervention always comes off as hamfisted because the person making the decision has little idea of what is actually going on and no one can really fill them in since an algorithm has been steering the ship up to this point. Maybe the algorithm gets tweaked a little bit in response, but probably not.
Android does allow for other sites to exist. You could always find a different one. Personally, I think there is a lot of value in a highly curated store that keeps more apps out than it lets in.
I think that there is a lot of cost in policing submissions and too many submissions to ever keep up with, but this stems from wanting to have the most apps. It used to be that the main metric that Apple and Google used in their dick waving contest to measure their stores was the number of apps. It was any easy number to throw out that the press would regurgitate and that the public would swallow.
There are more than enough apps now, so I think the focus should be quality. Just curate the best ten apps for any given purpose or category and only show me those. Such a model would also make it far easier to take a smaller cut, since there is no need to review thousands upon thousands of new apps.
What you're describing (losing interests you don't protect) only works with copyrights. Bethesda doesn't have any legal standing regarding what can be done with their products after they've been sold. If someone wants to sell them to someone else, that's none of Bethesda's business. If someone is misrepresenting products to consumers, the FTC would be the appropriate party to contact and handle the matter.
It's marketings job to make people want to buy products with the label. If they're doing their job, the label is big, flashy, and reads something like "Proudly GMO" and the package extolls the health benefits and reduced environmental impact. It's the same exact shit you commonly see with organic foods currently.
If you stop to look at your argument, what is marketing's excuse if there is no label and it does not sell as they wanted? The answer is that marketing didn't do their job of making people want to buy the product, and if you have a marketing department that can't sell health and environmentalism, the management deserves to be out on the streets.
Just slap some kind of a GMO label on it and move on. If idiots that believe it's evil or unhealthy want to use something else that's probably less healthy for them, that's on them. The idiocy and fear-mongering will be there regardless, and if companies don't want to put a label on the products, those same people are just likely to take it as proof of a conspiracy or cover-up. Instead, just own up to it being GMO and point out the health and environmental benefits of the product over alternatives. If those crops really are less resource intensive, then price differences will probably decide for most people more than anything else.
There is a difference between keeping something that is cool from getting hot and removing heat from something already hot in order to cool it. This would be like building a house out of materials that prevent heat from penetrating to begin with. If you do a good enough job of that, there is less of a need for AC, outside of removing waste heat generated inside of the home.
This is hardly unique to sports. Wikipedia (or other specialized wikis) exist for obscure anime, video games, and various other things that are kind of useless, but often have large fan bases without anything better to do.
People just are not as interested in obscure researchers who may not have done any ground-breaking work or have an extensive career behind them.
This just seems pointless and will probably end up with outdated information (since no one cares to make the page to start with) and will likely get vandalized by mischievous students. Then lazy journalists will print these as fact and then Wikipedia has a citation for the bogus fact.
What did you expect to happen when we run the printing presses as much as we do and the supply of money increases at a disproportionately higher rate?
Also, greater productivity makes it less expensive to live. Consider how few people work in agriculture compared to 100 years ago, or even further back. We made food so cheap and accessible that obesity is a bigger problem than malnutrition.
Setting the minimum wage higher will not help anyone. You cannot afford to employ a person for more than their labor can be sold for, so the end result is that people lose those jobs that cannot justify the increase. This tends to be the most low skill labor that will get picked up by illegal immigrants who will work under the table for below minimum wage.
I don't think you get how this works. You don't have to be in favor of someone to criticize them. In fact, the most critical people might be the ones who are...most critical.
You are completely missing what I am trying to say. Let us pretend we are attending a conference on qualfonic energy, which is completely made up. Let us suppose that someone has just given an address with a serious criticism of this form of energy. Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.
Hopefully you can also understand why people would not regard you as an unbiased or disinterested source concerning trump. If we had to rank order named commentators based on comments, you probably come at least three standard deviations away from the mean.
If this were not the case you would understand why a source pointing out all of the things that Trump has lied about or misrepresented is not sufficient proof of your claim. You need to compare it to other politicians and I am not convinced that Trump is significantly worse. He certainly is not a truthful politician, but few are and we tend to forget the myriad lies and cover-ups of controversies that surround past politicians. I suspect that if we were discussing some subject where you were not in agreement with the conclusion, you would be quick to employ the same arguments I have used here, but you dislike Trump so much that your emotions blind you to reason.
That is not to say you are a bad person, because everyone is that way about something that they take personally. My point is that in this particular area, you are not a good source absent significant and quality evidence.
I have never seen Oracle complain when they were the single party awarded a contract, and there are plenty of times where this has happened. Perhaps the best that could be said of them is that they realize how many times they have screwed over the other side in such contracts and that this is a bad idea, but I suspect the real reason is that they are pissed that they do not get to be the ones to screw over the government this time. They just hate the player, not the game.
The third hypothesis should be easily testable as you can look at success rate across all surgeries based on sex of patient and doctor. It could well be that female surgeons have better success rates across all patients, though a weirder finding would be success rate correlated to similarly between sex of the patient and doctor.
The second seems more likely to me from my own perspective as I know that that symptoms of a heart attack present differently in males and females. But I expect medical professionals to know those differences and be well versed in spotting the signs, so I think that to be unlikely as well, at least without further reasons to suggest this cause. Maybe if the rate of female heart attacks was much lower, but it is a serious medical event and it does not seem to be the type of thing that men would get wrong unless there there are a lot of other conditions where the same happens.
The first seems unlikely for a variety of reasons. If it were the case, you would expect to see this across all kinds of different conditions. It makes no sense for male doctors to pay attention to female patients for all conditions other than heart attacks. Research has also shown that men will be more sympathetic towards women than other men, so it seems unlikely unless this is a strange case where male doctors are trying to be too reassuring, but if that were the case we should expect to see this in cases outside of heart attacks as well.
I think all of these are easily testable so check the statistics and figure out what it is. I will offer an alternative (and highly uniformed) hypothis though: Male doctors work more hours and have worse patient outcomes as a result. This could be verified by looking at outcomes between male doctors based on hours worked. I am not confident in this hypothesis, but not much less than those stated in the article.
Yes, but none of us have ever seen it used at anywhere near the scale we're seeing it now.
This I am not certain of either and it seems to be said about every new administration. There is likely a lot of recently bias influencing your (and really everyones) thought process, much like how people tend to say that music is crap now and used to be way better. This is not necessarily the case, it is just that people forget all of the terrible music from decades passed and we are unable to look twenty years into the future to see what music from today will have survived and be remembered. It was the same with Obama where he was called the worst president by his opponents just as Clinton was before him. The same for Bush who was derided, but has largely been forgotten about.
It is also quite clear from your post history that you really do not like Trump. Like you really, really do not like Trump. If you were less vehemently opposed to him, I might take what you say a lot more seriously. However it is just as likely for you to want to believe this irrespective of whether or not it is true, which makes it far more difficult for me (or anyone else) to put much value in your assessment. What you say may in fact be true, it is simple the case that you are a poor gauge to measure the veracity of the statement. However, if you do have some third party systematic analysis of this that you have used to form your own opinion, I would be more than happy to read it and change my mind.
There is nothing stopping you from trying to negotiate such a deal for yourself. I suspect you will be told to go pound sand since you likely have very little of value to offer in exchange. You also forget that most cities have already refused to give Amazon any special treatment, and that even among those cities being considered, few will give Amazon close to as much as they might like.
Further, what do you care how the citizens of cities in which you do not reside choose to conduct their business? If some city is willing to give up tax revenue in exchange for having a large number of high skill workers relocate there, it is no skin off my back. If it were my own town, I might care more and could participate in the political process, but I am not such a moral busy body as to think I need to stick my nose into some affair which does not concern me in a direct manner.
Every political group has this play in their playbook and it is hardly unique to this administration. If it seems that way it is because unlike other politicians who keep tight lipped about such things when possible, Trump likes to blurt out his opinion on Twitter ever chance he gets which draws more attention. Since everyone knows that Trump will throw them under the bus, they have no particular loyalty to remain silent themselves if blame can be deflected.
Voluntary exchanges and park muggings are totally the same. The people who made these trades were not coerced and if they value crypto currencies improperly that is their own fault. Would you feel any remorse for them over this or any other investment that turned out a loss through natural shifts in the market?
If people are buying into crypto currencies as a long term investment, this small dip should matter little in the long run. If these people were trying to make short term flips to make money, they are not so different from the people who scammed them. In your analogy they are just other muggers in the park who were themselves mugged.
I get that this guy has an interest in making his company look good, but the economy ultimately cares how people actually behave, not what they claim they want or what they will do. Just like when everyone claims they want high quality objective news. Yet almost no one is willing to pay what it costs for it or would much rather consume whatever best fits their own preconceived notions if given a choice. So we get polarizing clickbait.
Slashdot Mirror
Balancing a budget would be the first step toward paying off their debts. You can't get out of debt if you don't quit running at a deficit first.
It probably is, or at least a sizable portion of it is. There's some temperature difference that will result in the death of 50% of all coral, just like there's a dosage for any substance that will be lethal for 50% of people. It might not be two degrees, but it's some amount.
That really isn't the point though, as once you've killed off that bottom 50%, the surviving population that will pass on its genes are the 50% that are more tolerant of heat. Assuming the change doesn't happen to rapidly as to cause an extinction, the parts of the population with the genes most fit for the new environment will be more reproductively successful and you eventually end up with a population that is more suited to its environment.
Life as a whole is pretty damned resilient. After Chernobyl, there were some people who thought it would be a lifeless radioactive hellscape for some time, but it didn't take long for some plants to develop a tolerance for the radiation and thrive in an area that would be deadly for everything else that didn't adapt to it. I don't think we should use this is an excuse to allow ourselves to damage the environment, but rather that we should reject arguments calling for radical action because otherwise life will perish.
The cards themselves aren't that much different or better. Typically, they have more memory (possibly ECC as well) than your run of the mill gaming card and NVidia might include tensor cores or other specialized hardware in some of these high-end lines, but otherwise it's the same design as their consumer cards. What you're really paying for is the professional drivers. Basically you pay extra to get a lot of optimizations for your CAD program as well as certification that it will produce reliable results in those applications.
Maybe they were using common core maths.
If you were talking about compensating those who suffered the original injustice, you might have a better argument. However, keeping a broken system in place that continues to churn out people that are going to continue the cycle of suffering is horrible. The people who are sitting there now are a younger generation, who have suffered only the injustice of being kept in a terrible system perpetuated by the guilt of everyone who insists that they fucking deserve it without realizing the kind of hell we've trapped these people in.
Maybe there are a lot of proposals (e.g. forced integration into larger society) that are awful for other reasons, but you can't look at the reservation systems and the Native American population and think that it's something that should continue on as it is. Look at the statistics for these communities. It's as bad as inner city ghettos or rustbelt towns that lost the factory and gained an opioid epidemic. At least nobody is cheerleading for those because we all recognize they're tragically broken.
Why? Do they owe Epic something? Is Epic paying them for the link? No, on both counts. Epic made their choice to cut Google out, Google doesn't have to do a damn thing that helps them.
I never said they did and if they were to do something like this, other developers would jump ship from Google's store as well. Why pay 30% when you don't need to because Google will just direct traffic your way (just as they would with web search) for free?
The point I was making was in the context of the post I replied to which stated that Google had no warnings or special response to this until it became a bigger story precisely because as I pointed out, the algorithms handling things don't notice these things.
Someone will always disagree no matter how objective your evaluation criteria might be, but when the platform allows for multiple stores, it hardly matters if one of them doesn't have an app. You can always go to another store (or download it directly from the author if they publish it online) if you really want it.
The point really isn't that I get the 10 undisputed best of N choices for any given category, but that I don't get the N - 10 worst choices along with them. There are probably some categories where there are fewer than 10 good choices, so realistically the store shouldn't give me more than 3 if everything else is a serious step down in quality.
I can see why they would never in a million years do such a thing, but they could just provide a link to The site where Epic has put the installer.
The real answer is that a lot of what goes on at Google is done by algorithms that are uncaring about things such as this. Eventually enough of a stink is made or someone higher up sees the bad press and human intervention is made. Ask anyone who has ever had to deal without Google support and they will tell you that this kind of thing is par for the course and has been for years. The human intervention always comes off as hamfisted because the person making the decision has little idea of what is actually going on and no one can really fill them in since an algorithm has been steering the ship up to this point. Maybe the algorithm gets tweaked a little bit in response, but probably not.
Android does allow for other sites to exist. You could always find a different one. Personally, I think there is a lot of value in a highly curated store that keeps more apps out than it lets in.
I think that there is a lot of cost in policing submissions and too many submissions to ever keep up with, but this stems from wanting to have the most apps. It used to be that the main metric that Apple and Google used in their dick waving contest to measure their stores was the number of apps. It was any easy number to throw out that the press would regurgitate and that the public would swallow.
There are more than enough apps now, so I think the focus should be quality. Just curate the best ten apps for any given purpose or category and only show me those. Such a model would also make it far easier to take a smaller cut, since there is no need to review thousands upon thousands of new apps.
What you're describing (losing interests you don't protect) only works with copyrights. Bethesda doesn't have any legal standing regarding what can be done with their products after they've been sold. If someone wants to sell them to someone else, that's none of Bethesda's business. If someone is misrepresenting products to consumers, the FTC would be the appropriate party to contact and handle the matter.
It's marketings job to make people want to buy products with the label. If they're doing their job, the label is big, flashy, and reads something like "Proudly GMO" and the package extolls the health benefits and reduced environmental impact. It's the same exact shit you commonly see with organic foods currently.
If you stop to look at your argument, what is marketing's excuse if there is no label and it does not sell as they wanted? The answer is that marketing didn't do their job of making people want to buy the product, and if you have a marketing department that can't sell health and environmentalism, the management deserves to be out on the streets.
Just slap some kind of a GMO label on it and move on. If idiots that believe it's evil or unhealthy want to use something else that's probably less healthy for them, that's on them. The idiocy and fear-mongering will be there regardless, and if companies don't want to put a label on the products, those same people are just likely to take it as proof of a conspiracy or cover-up. Instead, just own up to it being GMO and point out the health and environmental benefits of the product over alternatives. If those crops really are less resource intensive, then price differences will probably decide for most people more than anything else.
There is a difference between keeping something that is cool from getting hot and removing heat from something already hot in order to cool it. This would be like building a house out of materials that prevent heat from penetrating to begin with. If you do a good enough job of that, there is less of a need for AC, outside of removing waste heat generated inside of the home.
This is hardly unique to sports. Wikipedia (or other specialized wikis) exist for obscure anime, video games, and various other things that are kind of useless, but often have large fan bases without anything better to do.
People just are not as interested in obscure researchers who may not have done any ground-breaking work or have an extensive career behind them.
This just seems pointless and will probably end up with outdated information (since no one cares to make the page to start with) and will likely get vandalized by mischievous students. Then lazy journalists will print these as fact and then Wikipedia has a citation for the bogus fact.
Assuming you get to keep the paper, it makes it possible to audit the results to a much higher degree of certainty.
What did you expect to happen when we run the printing presses as much as we do and the supply of money increases at a disproportionately higher rate?
Also, greater productivity makes it less expensive to live. Consider how few people work in agriculture compared to 100 years ago, or even further back. We made food so cheap and accessible that obesity is a bigger problem than malnutrition.
Setting the minimum wage higher will not help anyone. You cannot afford to employ a person for more than their labor can be sold for, so the end result is that people lose those jobs that cannot justify the increase. This tends to be the most low skill labor that will get picked up by illegal immigrants who will work under the table for below minimum wage.
I don't think you get how this works. You don't have to be in favor of someone to criticize them. In fact, the most critical people might be the ones who are...most critical.
You are completely missing what I am trying to say. Let us pretend we are attending a conference on qualfonic energy, which is completely made up. Let us suppose that someone has just given an address with a serious criticism of this form of energy. Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.
Hopefully you can also understand why people would not regard you as an unbiased or disinterested source concerning trump. If we had to rank order named commentators based on comments, you probably come at least three standard deviations away from the mean.
If this were not the case you would understand why a source pointing out all of the things that Trump has lied about or misrepresented is not sufficient proof of your claim. You need to compare it to other politicians and I am not convinced that Trump is significantly worse. He certainly is not a truthful politician, but few are and we tend to forget the myriad lies and cover-ups of controversies that surround past politicians. I suspect that if we were discussing some subject where you were not in agreement with the conclusion, you would be quick to employ the same arguments I have used here, but you dislike Trump so much that your emotions blind you to reason.
That is not to say you are a bad person, because everyone is that way about something that they take personally. My point is that in this particular area, you are not a good source absent significant and quality evidence.
This is it right here. Full stop.
I have never seen Oracle complain when they were the single party awarded a contract, and there are plenty of times where this has happened. Perhaps the best that could be said of them is that they realize how many times they have screwed over the other side in such contracts and that this is a bad idea, but I suspect the real reason is that they are pissed that they do not get to be the ones to screw over the government this time. They just hate the player, not the game.
The third hypothesis should be easily testable as you can look at success rate across all surgeries based on sex of patient and doctor. It could well be that female surgeons have better success rates across all patients, though a weirder finding would be success rate correlated to similarly between sex of the patient and doctor.
The second seems more likely to me from my own perspective as I know that that symptoms of a heart attack present differently in males and females. But I expect medical professionals to know those differences and be well versed in spotting the signs, so I think that to be unlikely as well, at least without further reasons to suggest this cause. Maybe if the rate of female heart attacks was much lower, but it is a serious medical event and it does not seem to be the type of thing that men would get wrong unless there there are a lot of other conditions where the same happens.
The first seems unlikely for a variety of reasons. If it were the case, you would expect to see this across all kinds of different conditions. It makes no sense for male doctors to pay attention to female patients for all conditions other than heart attacks. Research has also shown that men will be more sympathetic towards women than other men, so it seems unlikely unless this is a strange case where male doctors are trying to be too reassuring, but if that were the case we should expect to see this in cases outside of heart attacks as well.
I think all of these are easily testable so check the statistics and figure out what it is. I will offer an alternative (and highly uniformed) hypothis though: Male doctors work more hours and have worse patient outcomes as a result. This could be verified by looking at outcomes between male doctors based on hours worked. I am not confident in this hypothesis, but not much less than those stated in the article.
Yes, but none of us have ever seen it used at anywhere near the scale we're seeing it now.
This I am not certain of either and it seems to be said about every new administration. There is likely a lot of recently bias influencing your (and really everyones) thought process, much like how people tend to say that music is crap now and used to be way better. This is not necessarily the case, it is just that people forget all of the terrible music from decades passed and we are unable to look twenty years into the future to see what music from today will have survived and be remembered. It was the same with Obama where he was called the worst president by his opponents just as Clinton was before him. The same for Bush who was derided, but has largely been forgotten about.
It is also quite clear from your post history that you really do not like Trump. Like you really, really do not like Trump. If you were less vehemently opposed to him, I might take what you say a lot more seriously. However it is just as likely for you to want to believe this irrespective of whether or not it is true, which makes it far more difficult for me (or anyone else) to put much value in your assessment. What you say may in fact be true, it is simple the case that you are a poor gauge to measure the veracity of the statement. However, if you do have some third party systematic analysis of this that you have used to form your own opinion, I would be more than happy to read it and change my mind.
There is nothing stopping you from trying to negotiate such a deal for yourself. I suspect you will be told to go pound sand since you likely have very little of value to offer in exchange. You also forget that most cities have already refused to give Amazon any special treatment, and that even among those cities being considered, few will give Amazon close to as much as they might like.
Further, what do you care how the citizens of cities in which you do not reside choose to conduct their business? If some city is willing to give up tax revenue in exchange for having a large number of high skill workers relocate there, it is no skin off my back. If it were my own town, I might care more and could participate in the political process, but I am not such a moral busy body as to think I need to stick my nose into some affair which does not concern me in a direct manner.
As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Every political group has this play in their playbook and it is hardly unique to this administration. If it seems that way it is because unlike other politicians who keep tight lipped about such things when possible, Trump likes to blurt out his opinion on Twitter ever chance he gets which draws more attention. Since everyone knows that Trump will throw them under the bus, they have no particular loyalty to remain silent themselves if blame can be deflected.
Voluntary exchanges and park muggings are totally the same. The people who made these trades were not coerced and if they value crypto currencies improperly that is their own fault. Would you feel any remorse for them over this or any other investment that turned out a loss through natural shifts in the market?
If people are buying into crypto currencies as a long term investment, this small dip should matter little in the long run. If these people were trying to make short term flips to make money, they are not so different from the people who scammed them. In your analogy they are just other muggers in the park who were themselves mugged.
I get that this guy has an interest in making his company look good, but the economy ultimately cares how people actually behave, not what they claim they want or what they will do. Just like when everyone claims they want high quality objective news. Yet almost no one is willing to pay what it costs for it or would much rather consume whatever best fits their own preconceived notions if given a choice. So we get polarizing clickbait.