Chardok

Its not hard to see why exactly Americans are dying younger. Hell, just look at the headline here.

When you have increased wealth concentration flowing upwards and more involvement of profit machines in people's lives (healthcare, correctional facilities, food, environment), people on average are working harder for less pay with increased cost of living. This means less recreational time to blow stress off, less time for doctor visits (not to mention the fun games our federal government is playing with healthcare), and less time/money/emphasis to treat yourself spiritually/psychologically. I am hardly surprised this equates to higher mortality rates.

America has a huge problem spending money on the betterment of its citizens, and it is starting to show.

Unfortunately it would need to be a hack that purposefully gets itself caught in order to drive any point home. I can imagine the risk vs reward on something like that would be very undesirable.

Regardless on your opinions of the memo, this article nails it right on the head; Gizmodo and other major news outlets handled this very irresponsibly, posting their version that had no citations, and leading the reader, even at the very beginning, into forming the opinion that this was simply a guy being "anti-diversity".

Whatever your thoughts on the subject are, it needs to be pointed out that this type of journalism is absolutely not neutral (even though they will swear up and down that they are) and should be, at the very least, condemned for doing so. This is and will be an increasingly difficult problem, especially when people just read a headline and a summary.

Unfortunately she is listed as a past owner.

He states it in the video: they are incredibly overwhelmed with data coming in and are just using "old search methods" such as word search that he deems ineffective.

My understanding is that this bulk data gathering is not as much as preventing attacks but further securing of power for the strange amalgamation that we would call the federal government.

While I would love this and ultimately believe it would be the best route for Reddit, there is just too much advertising potential for people to not want to throw money at it.

The "reddit hug of death" is a term that was coined because of how much traffic a front page hit could deliver - to the point where it crashed the server or over-exceeded bandwidth capacity for sites.

The issue is that I don't see a lot of potential where investing money into Reddit that helps the users, only the advertisers, which makes their announcements seem extremely patronizing as they try to convince Reddit users why it is better for them.

I am of the opinion that trying to turn a profit on something like Reddit is a catch 22.

The concept of Reddit, which is user generated content curated by users, doesn't have a lot of need for a middleman, more of just a few moderators and admins to keep everything running smoothly. The power of the website is solely in its users and their content generation.

Unfortunately these slow changes have been eroding what was Reddit's strengths of free speech and open dialogue by turning the site into "advertisement friendly". That means killing all subreddits that could sour potential buyers and altering vote-counts to favor specific messages.

Combine this with the fact that they are supplanting viral marketing disguised as user posts (One from today even! https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/6ql2tu/made_my_deli...), allowing blatant vote manipulations (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2016/12/14/how-we-b...) or allowing entire takeovers (/r/politics during election cycle - hello CTR!) and you have a bloated replica of something that used to be an amazing social powered website.

Just because you can't think of abuses to your couch-to-coffee table distance or your floor layout doesn't mean that they could potentially be privacy-invading, especially when they are fed into massive AI databases.

You could call me paranoid, but I prefer all data I generate in private to be limited to whom I want to share it with.

Shifting costs from the hospitals and insurance to the patients, plain and simple.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg for what for-profit healthcare is developing into. You cannot have sound medical decisions being made when money is so deeply intertwined in the process.

I can't think of a time where customer experience, user experience or overall quality of a company improves after a large merger like this. Less choices for the consumer typically translate to more power for the companies.

That was on my mind as well. The pessimist in me was concerned that this article will either get /r/opiates banned or will become a honeypot for law enforcement.

I honestly believe drug addiction is a symptom of a greater issue in someone's life. There is no person who wakes up and says "I think I'll get addicted to heroin today"; it becomes a means of escape and relief from something that gradually turns into its own monster and creates a terrible cycle of dependence.

By cutting out the time and money needed to "feed the beast" while providing professional help, they can break this cycle and move towards bettering themselves when they don't have the nagging of addiction voicing itself at every turn.

Of course its not simple and perhaps there will be people who refuse to better themselves. My biggest point is that it not only will save money from going underground, but allow potentially productive members of society to have a means to break the cycle.

Every time I bring this up people look at me like I am insane for suggesting such a thing.

What people don't think about is the extra societal costs associated with drug addition: thefts/violent crimes, prison costs, unproductive time from seeking the next high, etc. Cutting out the middleman would solve a great deal of these issues, and save the taxpayer money too.

It seems the moral issue of giving "free drugs" to addicts is just too much to bear, unfortunately.

The core of Reddit has become rotten not from the_donald; the site admins are 100% at fault. Trying to make their site 100% advertiser friendly has subsequently killed all transparency in what votes do, how subreddits are ranked, and killed a lot of discourse that was not corporate palatable.

I still enjoy the smaller subreddits. Unfortunately anything political becomes brigaded, but things like /r/gamingsuggestions and local city subreddits still make the site worthwhile to me.

Your reasoning seems to ignore the evidence in this article; there does seem to be a business model of fraud and, even if he did lack a fundamental understanding of the stock market, I would hope we could all agree that action needs to be taken to regulate and restrict these illegal practices. Perhaps it would not be the specific terms Sanders was describing, but unfortunately he was the only viable candidate that ostensibly wanted to do so.

In order for proteins to be produced, there is usually a very specific start/stop sequence that has to be present in order for the mechanism to take action.

Most likely this is just "junk" DNA that has no physical manifestation.

As for reading the picture, it is only seen when they extract the DNA and use methods of sequencing to produce the image, meaning it will only show the little gif when analyzed the way it was designed for.

While I enjoyed the article, something about labeling a group of people by their gender and race really irks me (White men, with a capital W).

I can't help but feel it betrays the original message, which is a small proportion of super wealthy are getting even wealthier at the expense of everyone else, but why feel the need to bring race and gender to it? It almost begs people to spring into action against "White men", which can be disparaging for those white men who are not on the wealthy side of the spectrum.

I honestly wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that it is associated with Facebook.

Purely anecdotal, but in my gamer circles, seeing Facebook mentioned anywhere near video games is met with repulsion. Blizzard's choice to have Facebook-only live streaming means we would never use it (Yes Mom, I didn't call you back because, as you can see, I played Overwatch for 8 hours). As soon as we saw the announcement for Facebook taking over Oculus, we knew we weren't going to purchase it solely for keeping Zuckerberg out of our video games.

Too right; it may help being able to just provide the answers, but homework made up a small percentage compared to the actual exams, which of course were done without any notes and were simple enough not to need a calculator.

It may be difficult trying to teach these kids how to perform the math itself when they can show the homework, but ultimately they are failing themselves when it comes down to needing a fundamental understanding on the process itself.

This reminds me more of teachers scoffing at calculators being a crutch. It comes down to the students' willingness to learn, not how to thwart cheating on homework.

"The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny."

From the article even documentaries aren't safe. Also from the article, they have censored any reference to military suicides, which is certainly very real and quantifiable.

In my opinion, though, public relations should not be something the military should be actively engaging in. They are not a private entity nor a corporation, so why treat them as such?

Since its entertainment, I can hardly think that "scared" would be an appropriate reaction to take anyways.

Some good things to take from this article though: 1. The integrity of writing and original scripts are being altered to fit a specific message.

2. Propaganda is being inserted into our media with no disclaimer or way to discern it.

3. These institutions are essentially subsidizing film budgets, which seems like an inappropriate use of funds (in my opinion of course)

Of course it isn't anything to be worried about, but it does bring into light how these 3 letter agencies are very aware of their not-so-patriotic actions, and are taking measures to try to erase or distract people.

Looking at the broader scope of things, it seems to be that the idea of Americans filling low paying jobs directly competes with the relatively small pay these foreign workers are getting.

The question is, are these businesses being artificially propped up by foreign low paid workers, or is it a symptom of jobs paying too low for any American to actual work?

Feel like I am very far from the target audience of this article, especially as they start the article with "$2400" being somewhat reasonable for a dog.

Sad to see all of these animals rotting in shelters while people spend that kind of money, to the point where leasing becomes a viable option.

He addresses this as that AI would be a poor hunter-gatherer, but is actually quite good already at specialized low thought jobs, and there are enough of those out there to cause some economic instability.

Furthermore, AI doesn't have to be 100% error free and spectacularly outperform every human, it just has to be cheaper and as-good or better than the average worker. I can think of a good number of coworkers in past jobs that are ripe for automating away - its just a matter of time when it becomes cheap enough to implement. These jobs are not high thought jobs but the ones where the rules are already set and they just follow them.

Bingo. Just follow the money and see who profits from cannabis being illegal.

1. Can't put a patent on it and can literally grow it in your backyard - pharmaceutical industry is going to lose a large chunk of cash inflow from anti-nausea and opioids. Not to mention the fact a large portion of opioid/herion addicts started out on prescription medicine, which leads into my other points.

2. The entire law enforcement procedures will have to rethink the status quo. Smelling cannabis was a great way to have "reasonable suspicion" for violating privacy, and going after cannabis dealers were incredibly easy targets to bust. Don't forget RICO that gives LE a nice cash bonus from drug dealer assets.

3. Prison industry will have a hard time filling in the since a large majority of the prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. Perhaps with less opioid addicts that sought cannabis instead would cause some extra vacancy as well.

4. The Cartel and several other underground organizations that I have a hard time believing would not have ties to politicians and decision makers on the subject.

I agree with your points and wanted to add some more as to why I am wary in looking in a new Nintendo console.

1. Wii and the Wii U especially never truly lived up to their potentials. They release small minigames (Nintendo Wolrd is a good example) that were amazingly fun and utilized the dual screens, but then developers almost completely forgot about what differentiated the consoles and it became merely inconvenient to have motion controls or the dual screens.

2. They absolutely do not listen to their fans, at least Americans. I can't tell you how badly a lot of people wanted a true console Animal Crossing, and they throw a shitty board game at us. Mario Party 10 could have easily been an amazing multiplayer game with dual screens and motion controls but they watered it down to a very mediocre experience. Pokemon 3d? Heres a tekken style game. Hell, the Wii U is finally getting a Zelda game.. at the release of their new console.

3. Amiibos. Sorry I don't want DLC in the form of hard to obtain collectibles.

Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite games were brought to me by Nintendo but it is hard clutching on to these memories when they are just pumping out years worth of "almost there" titles and experiences. I would love to be proved wrong but Nintendo is certainly more focused on bottom line profits than providing a fun gaming experience.