graedus

Another good example might be a politician arguing for a particular trade deal by saying it will be "good for America" or in the "national interest". This intentionally glosses over important details, if in fact it will be good for some corporations headquartered in the US - and the senior executives thereof - while being bad for many more workers in the US.

It's a good question, and the answer appears to be yes. Here's some discussion about the topic from about a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13347592

A 100-pack of organic white tea is $7.99 at my local whole foods, and a bit cheaper online - looks like ~$6.50 on amazon. (Green tea is about the same price).

  ~$0.065 per teabag
  1 cup is a serving (1 teabag)
  16 cups in a gallon
  ~$1.04/day, ~$31.20/month

Edit: misplaced decimal

You mean if you earn a lot but then make the decision to spend a lot, there's not much money left over, making you middle class?

You seem to treat it as a given that if your income is high, you necessarily ratchet up your lifestyle expenses to a point where there's "not that much" left over.

What if your income is $4 million per year? After all the 'added expenses' of an upper-class lifestyle, you're certainly left back in the... middle class...?

Isn't the standard in the US that one must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", which seems like a higher standard than "more likely than not"?

This is popular in Buenos Aires as well.

(For those who dislike clicking through 10 pages, or want to save to pocket or similar)

Don't you think this vastly overestimates the technical competence and infosec understanding/awareness of the organization in question? It seems obvious that they presumed that their unencrypted emails were not going to become public information.

Edit: Ah, I see it now in the instructional video. My browser's video controls were obscuring it. You click and drag the compass in the bottom left.

One: of course the potential loss from a divorce is often not equal for both partners, meaning on some level they may - to your own point - be unequally incentivized to prevent a break-up.

Two: In some unfortunate situations it may not matter if you try even harder to prevent a break-up if your partner has made up their mind. Or, if you stand to lose more, concessions can be squeezed out of you in an unfair way. Obviously you do your best to avoid a partner that would do anything like this, but in the end you can't be sure for a variety of reasons.

This is interesting. Does wearing a seat belt in a car equipped with airbags make you drive more recklessly? Does wearing a helmet make you bike more recklessly? This may be true for some people but not for me. None of those countermeasures claims to guarantee you'll walk away without a scratch if the worst happens - they are designed to mitigate damage.

I'm sure it's not a perfect analogy - none are - but what do you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_(coin)

"Even after the coin ceased to circulate, the name guinea was long used to indicate the amount of 21 shillings (£1.05 in decimalised currency). The guinea had an aristocratic overtone; professional fees and payment for land, horses, art, bespoke tailoring, furniture and other luxury items were often quoted in guineas until a couple of years after decimalisation in 1971.[9]"

I think optimuspaul is referring to Magic the startup. It's a virtual assistant that you text to perform various tasks for you (shopping, booking flights, etc).

https://twitter.com/lemonodor/status/605825895295651840

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-i-tracked-fbi...

Correction: The FBI plane is not the primary focus of this article, but it is mentioned:

"Occasionally, [Persistent Surveillance's] Cessna has had to share airspace with an FBI airplane. Last year, two days after the Freddie Gray riots began, the FBI flew over Baltimore for five days—actions that were discovered when local aviation enthusiasts noticed a plane’s strange flight orbits on a public website that tracks radar data. According to information and footage released this summer by the FBI, its plane wasn’t doing the sort of wide-area motion imaging that Persistent Surveillance does but instead was zooming in on specific targets. McNutt says the FBI doesn’t coordinate its flights with him, and he doesn’t know what the agency is investigating; however, when his plane is in the air at the same time as the FBI’s, air traffic controllers insist that McNutt’s plane remain at a lower altitude than the federal craft."

What? I think I know where you're coming from, but surely you realize there are many relationships where this is not the case, so it's strange to state it so absolutely.

I'd love to see this unpacked though - why do you think women hold nearly all the power in heterosexual relationships?

This is my favorite detail - very subtle and authentic looking. I was hoping someone could explain it, thanks for the pointer.

I think it will be helpful here to specify what type of people you're talking about in the second sentence, otherwise you're implicitly excluding black people from the general term "people". I don't believe this was intentional, it just reads weird.

This regularly happens to people who sit near me and use bluetooth headphones. It is pretty awkward when they are listening to pick-up artist tutorials on Youtube.