dpatru

> Aren't the levels of Uber that allow a Prius to be used much, much cheaper than a black cab? If you want a larger car, you can get it. You'll just pay a bit more.

> On paper, sure. In practice, I find that Uber is nearly constantly in surge pricing in London. I've had it several times now where I Was riding in a group, same start point same destination - some people in ubers, some in black cabs. Again, with normal pricing Uber should be cheaper, but since it's very often at 1.5x-2x multiplier, it works out the same or actually more expensive than a black cab. And sure, there is the higher tier of ubers too, but it's usually showing me 20-30 minute wait for a cab for a nicer car.

Seems like the fact that there is constantly surge pricing and long waiting time means that there are too few Uber drivers, even in "low quality" cars, to meet demand. Your complaints sound like the old joke about prison food: it tastes terrible and the portions are too small.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the American government contains the same kind of people that are in governments the world over and throughout history. And governments have always attempted to suppress speech: that's why the First Amendment was written.

Given Snowden's revelations, can you be sure that Youtube's censoring is simply a business decision by executives and not a result of government influence? How would things be different if the government were pressuring the big platforms to squelch speech?

Newspapers, TV programs, and radio programs are publishers. In contrast, Youtube, Facebook, and other services like them are platforms. They are more like the theater building, the radio/TV station, or a telephone company. This gives them some legal protection against being held responsible for the conduct of their users. See [1]. Without this distinction, these services could not have taken off, because Youtube and Facebook would have had to sign off on each user's post.

But advancing technology is making it possible to police speech automatically. So the distinction between the publisher and platform is fading. Because platforms can regulate their users' speech now in almost real time, very cheaply, they are kind of forced to do it. Some speech is very hard to defend. The best, and easiest argument for allowing offensive speech on these platforms has been that the offensive speech could not be technically prevented without squelching a lot of acceptable speech. But now that argument is going away.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+publisher+or+platfor...

There is no need for the government, the organization that fixes the roads, provides the police, administers a court system, etc, to also be in charge of traffic management. It can be handled through the market.

Functional code tends to be shorter than procedural code. This allows you to think in bigger steps. For example, to read whitespace-separated numbers from stdin and print out their sum, in haskell you could write:

    main = interact $ show . sum . map read . words

It seems to me that the equivalent procedural code would be much longer.

Haskell's type system keeps track of what's going on and alerts you when you try to do something that doesn't make sense. For example, if you leave out the "read" function above, you would be trying to sum strings instead of numbers. Haskell's type checker would complain at compile time. This enables you to program at a high level without having to debug run-time errors because of type mistakes.

Here are my kids making vegan mac and cheese.

"Given my personal lack of interest in the Epstein case, then or now, perhaps a few of these details may be garbled, but it seems undeniable that he was exactly the sort of remarkable renegade often faced by Agent 007 in the movies, and the true facts will presumably come out at his trial. Or perhaps not. Whether he lives to see trial is not entirely clear given the considerable number of powerful individuals who might prefer that hidden facts remain hidden, and the Friday newspapers reported that Epstein had been found injured and unconscious in his prison cell."

[1] https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphyclimate.... [2] Nigel Lawson, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming (New York: Duckworth Overlook, 2008), p. 36.

You're implying that there is something shameful with providing a market for connectivity which allows for people who can't afford to work for free to participate. What is shameful about this?

Why create more laws and complexity? Why not simply repeal the laws that prohibit importation of drugs and possibly also refuse to enforce private contracts prohibiting reimportation? The reason drugs are cheaper in Canada and Europe than in America is because of American laws that prevent importation.

Books are also permanent storage, often stored centrally in public libraries. Does an individual have the right to have information about him removed from books in libraries? Wouldn't that be a kind of censorship? The only difference is that so called "right to be forgotten" applies to Google's electronic storage rather than your local library's books. Just like you don't have a right to remove pages about you from your local public library's copy of your high school yearbook, so you shouldn't have the right to remove information about yourself from Google's indexes. Both are censorship.

The French government is taxing businesses not because this is somehow morally right or efficient, but because it is easier than convincing its subjects/citizens that government services merit higher personal taxes.

His diet is cheap and accessible. You can follow his diet by eating locally produced wheat, potatoes, oats, rice, corn, millet, beans, etc, in all parts of the world that have an agriculture season. A feature of his diet is that starchy foods store well. Indeed, he says that the reason humans became so successful is because they were able to have a food supply that was high in energy and could be stored.

McDougall does not sell pills or supplements. He specifically counsels against them, saying that they are unnecessary with a good diet and potentially harmful.

In addition to a lot of free educational content, his website (drmcdougall.com) features different programs, including a 10 day live-in program which includes medical care plus meals and education for $6,060 for a single, full participant. You can also buy books, podcasts, and apparel. I didn't see any prepackaged food on the site.

I've considered him a source of high-quality, unbiased advice for several years. His presentations are clear and logical. He's not trying to sell me something. He is conservative in the sense that he prefers cheap, simple solutions before expensive, complex ones. For example, he would recommend that before you try medication and surgery, you should first try to change your diet. If you're not feeling well, make sure you're eating eating a low-fat, whole food, starch-based diet before trying to find a missing miracle vitamin or supplement.

I don't know, but here is my guess:

At the beginning of the lecture McDougall talks about there being three kinds of diabetes: type 1 (pancreas produces no insulin), type 2 (pancreas produces enough insulin, but it doesn't work because of insulin resistance), type 1.5 (not enough insulin is being produced to cover the body's needs). Significant weight loss seems to fit in the type 1 and type 1.5. McDougall will prescribe insulin if a person is in danger of losing too much weight.

McDougall has lots of other interesting insights in the lecture and discusses how he treats diabetics. He goes into some detail about how he decides how to adjust medications and why he recommends his diet.

I'm posting this here because it may be of use to people who may not have heard this information from their own doctors.

The lecture is found here: https://youtu.be/UgE2IdL6tMw?t=1103

The link starts the video at the point where McDougall starts discussing type 2 diabetes specifically. Before this he talks about insulin and type 1 diabetes.

> What's the utility of "EKG" [sic] …

What’s the Difference Between ECG and EKG?

The fact of the matter is that an ECG and an EKG are the exact same thing. That’s right, the most surprising difference between an ECG and an EKG is that there is no difference at all. Both ECG and EKG stand for electrocardiogram.

So, if an ECG is the same thing as an EKG, then why are there two different abbreviations? It’s actually quite simple—when the word electrocardiogram is translated into the German language, it is spelled Elektro-kardiographie. EKG is just the way some people choose to say ECG based on this translation.

From http://neurosky.com/2015/05/ecg-vs-ekg-whats-the-difference/

"The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously."[1]

[1]: http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/