halomru

>Something like a year where both parents are /required/ to be home taking care of the baby.

That solves the problem (?) that men spend less time with the newborn, but I have my doubts that it solves discrimination problems. Employers would just start hiring people who are less likely to have children (big data will make that even easier) and discourage their employees from getting families and thus children. Now the discrimination is just shifted around instead of removed, and on top of that it decreases the already low birth rate.

>There is no way you can spin the argument such that the company would always derive higher profits by taking the moral choice.

No, because it's nearly impossible to get even two people to always agree what the moral choice even is.

But your examples are fairly easy: all of them are clearly net negatives​ for society, and would only be profitable for companies if they don't pay the true costs of their behavior.

Child labour carries a huge opportunity cost for the child: it can't get proper education, potentially costing it millions in lifetime earnings. Given a lack of immediate financial pressure, the economically rational decision for a child would be to demand far higher pay than an equally skilled adult because the salary has to offset the labor cost.

Similar arguments can be made for working people to death and giving them no vacation, but the payment schemes become complicated. Luckily they are even easier to solve: if unemployment is an acceptable condition (little stigma, decent unemployment benefits, etc), then the pool of people willing to work such jobs vanishes.

Of course regulation also works. Sometimes​ it's the sensible option (much easier to outlaw child labour than to teach economics and long term thinking to small children). But it is always valuable to first check if we can fix the root causes of a complex problem before we start with medicating the symptoms.

>I suspect even in Europe companies don't tell applicants why they didn't hire them.

They usually don't. The same reasons apply. In Europe there's less fear about random lawsuits, but there are so many rules about hiring that it's just a minefield with lots of material for very legitimate lawsuits. You didn't get the impression that the applicant is a good culture fit? You better hope his name didn't sound Turkish, or that quickly sounds like unlawful discrimination.

Almost all online login systems offer password reset by email. The moment another human has free access to my emails he effectively owns nearly all my accounts.

The Bohr model at least has simplicity going for it, and it's close enough to explain most things that are relevant to chemistry.

For aircraft lift, "equal transit time" is not easier to understand than "an angled wing pushes air down, because of conservation of momentum that pushes the aircraft up".

No, because the idea of nations is a lot newer than that. Without nations no immigrants.

It's not about birthplace. People mostly don't care where the baby was born, they care how it was raised. It's really about culture. Birthplace, nationality and skin color just happen to be good indicators for culture.

>I suppose this also relies on national productivity being the product of, not the sum of individuals​ productivity.

By that logic you can easily argue it's imperative to weed out those with productivity close to 0 (and below 1).

Great people inspire greatness, awfully people can bring their whole environment down. That's why ghettos are such a bad idea.

From your arguments alone I wouldn't be able to tell which side you are arguing for.

I think it's more reasonable to call it a plateau than a ceiling. There's only so much energy the body can conserve in other activities.

If you do six hours of exercise burning 1000 calories per hour, it's physically impossible to compensate that away: in that day you burned at least 6000 calories, and more realistically upwards of 7000 (keeping your body alive for another 18 hours, building/repairing muscles, etc). I guess the article conveniently leaves that out because it's largely irrelevant: few people are able to invest that amount of time into their diet.

Not providing information to officials is one thing. Actively deceiving them with a map full of fake cars is a few steps further. I imagine quite a few countries' definitions of obstruction of justice could be met here

>We know the internet has a single point of failure.

It has? I have yet to see the day where I can neither reach my email provider nor Google nor Hackernews. My local provider might screw up occasionally, or some number of of websites go unreachable for whatever reason. But I fail to come up with anything short of cutting multiple see cables that causes more than 50% of servers to be unreachable to more than 50% of users.

That sounds much closer to the definition of management than to my job description.

People purposefully disallowing copy-paste isn't a problem with PDF: in other formats they would have embedded a picture, at least with PDF you get the other advantages of proper text: infinite zoom and great compression. Sadly there's also a lot of PDFs that are little more than a picture collection that looks like text, but that's hardly the file format's fault.

It really is a problem with PDF that it's too easy to get a file where copy and paste yields a different result than what's displayed. But this varies widely with the software used for creating the file (e.g. latex ligatures never work in copy-paste)

PDF is a perfectly fine and rich digital format. It also allows you to do proper copy and paste, which is much saner than anything paper offers.

Sure, PDF is a light on context clues for automation and is targeted purely at humans. But formats targeted at both computers and humans consistently fail (XML with accompanying XSLT comes to mind), and/or only have terrible tools for creating files (easily parsable, pretty HTML).

Either there is very little real demand or we consistently fail at making alternatives viable.

It's very unclear how it works around the world in different legal systems. In comparison the CC0 spends a lot of words to work with all the jurisdictions where you can't legally give up all rights over a work.

If you are operating internationally (like nearly the entire tech industry), complying in as many jurisdictions as possible is very valuable

>As the article indicates, the new convention would parallel the protection of civilians in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 by protecting civilians from being targets of nation-state cyberattacks, not prohibiting cyberattacks generally.

Out of their six points four simply make cyber attacks harder or nearly impossible, one exempts civilian targets from attacks, and one guarantees government help in defense and cleanup.

I struggle to see much more here than an attempt from tech companies to prevent cyber war, and have them as untargatable combatants if cyber war st still occurs.

And bridges and ports are among the priority targets for traditional air attacks to hamper enemy troop movements, supply lines and production capacity. I see no reason to prevent cyber attacks against them.

All that sounds like differences in the intr internal model. From everything I have understood it wor would be possible to reimplement git to store only patches, their position in the commit tree and the commit hash, and have it behave exactly like the git reference implementation.

Is the difference between patches and git commits in a DAG really only a difference in internal representations or is there a user-facing difference?

I assume this slipped through because the required certifications don't include rigorous requirements for electromagnetic interference on unlicensed bands? Or was this supposed to be caught in required testing?

Or pretend to have lost their passport and get a new passport without stamp. Or get a secondary passport that's made available by most governments because of issues like this one.

But you are right in principle. Letting people through because they look important is a big security hole.

I don't think such a system would be notably better than standard mashine learning. Reliable image categorisation means you often have to take a second look and interpret context. The internet is filled with images that Intentionally lead to a wrong first impression and can only be recognized when consciously looking at them

This would effectively make child pornography "normal" (at least as normal as other extreme fetishes). Many people fear that that would lead to more pedophiles acting on their urges. Then again some think that readily available child porn could reduce cravings and reduce child molestation. I'm not sure if any actual studies exist that shed some light on that problem

In Germany a completely black traffic light has no meaning, rules are as if it wasn't there. Most traffic lights have the usual signs for priority roads for this situation.

But a broken traffic light is a situation that is unfamiliar to drivers, and at peak hours the crossing is guaranteed to be either difficult to navigate or to have suboptimal traffic patterns (otherwise there would be no traffic light in the first place). And of course pedestrians have to improvise (and Germany has a lot of pedestrians compared to the US)

This example, and most simulations, seem to use an algorithm which is very close to "if there is space for me to drive, drive".

In the medium term, I expect self driving cars will instead start to communicate with each other to find a better approximation of optional traffic flow (by finding the solution that is best for the negotiating vehicles). This has several competitive advantages over the simple algorithm: it enhances safety for participating vehicles by removing prediction errors, and if you can negotiate with the other car instead of guessing what it will do you can do much tighter manoeuvers with smaller seaters margins. And of course better traffic flow makes driving more pleasant, which is good for car sales. Given all those market forces I think it's very likely to happen.

If there's 10000 times less competition in investigative journalism than in clickbaiting those numbers add up to being profitable

>your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup.

If I move close enough to your face that it fills my entire vision I can see it in glorious 16k, skin pores and all. It's the extreme close up that's unnatural, not the fact that you can see details in extreme close ups.

As with 3d, most directors are lagging behind in adapting their style to changes in the medium. Some things that were developed for low-fidelity grainy film don't work in 8k. Some fight scenes that look good at 24hz look garbage at 60hz. But on the other hand 60hz and 8k allow for speed and details that just produce blurs on old 24hz mediums.

Without special APIs to request it, this would be as ubiquitous as cookie warnings, making it highly annoying (and thus a bad business decision for chrome). And at least for the case presented in the article proper APIs without this throttling already exist.

They throttle timer activation frequency if you use too much CPU time (with the goal of throttling CPU usage). How is the title not accurate?

"collapse of government" doesn't have to mean total collapse of infrastructure. Providing infrastructure is harder without government, but if you charge for the infrastructure anyway, you can just increase prices.

It's of course a problem for low income workers, but here we are talking about the super rich.

Bitcoin behaves rather badly under global scale network partitions, or if your global network has a latency of over an hour. But on the other hand it is completely immune to collapse of governments