myNXTact

It is hands down the most influential Ted talk I've ever watched. It is very trivial, but I think it about it several times a day wherever I wash my hands in a public bathroom.

So what? This isn't a newspaper article, it is a nonfiction story. Bloomberg contains sections of their magazines written in your format; I always skip them. I prefer the long-form stories.

Oh I see his comments on each of the pages now. Thanks

Did anyone look at his webpage? Did he actually write anything or did he just reorder Shakespeare's works?

>The truth, however, is quite different. For example, Clemson’s engineering enrollment has reached almost 5,300 students – an 80 percent increase since 2008!

Enrollment numbers for engineering students are not really relevant. It is the graduation numbers. Engineering programs are notorious for "weeding out" large numbers of students. His salary statistics are scary though.

I appreciate your sentiment. I own an old Nikon film camera that I use every now and then and I'm always impressed with the photos it takes. There is something unique about them that isn't present in my digital camera. That being said, I think you are unfairly bashing journalistic photography. The purpose of his pictures isn't art, but capturing a moment for posterity. Your criticism is akin to complaining about a newspaper article because it lacks the plot and character development of your favorite novels.

How many pictures do you think the average newbie needs to take to become a "proficient" photographer? 10,000? How much would it have cost to develop all that film twenty years ago? A modern user doesn't just have a better camera than those twenty years ago, they also have a built in dark room with unlimited "prints" (digital viewing).

This is the exact opposite of the "rich getting richer!" Whenever we start discussing income and wealth trends in the United States we always neglect how we as a society have gotten richer through technological progress. Even the poorest houses in the USA have computers and tv's that would blow the minds of people from the 1990's and be incomprehensible to people from the 1950's.

Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

A while back I read a study that agreed with your assertion. It examined intersections that had traffic lights removed. They found that in the short term, accident rates went down but after some time passed the accident rates shot back up. The authors theorized that the temporary reduction was due to the novelty of the change.

Edit: typo

Oh come on! It is clear that English is not his first language. Give him a break.

It would be cool if a tech company sprouted up that was live games 24/7. When not showing nfl or mlb or college football, they were showing Italian soccer or Indian cricket, or other more obscure sports

It seems to me that the "death of ESPN" is more evidence of the death of the cable TV model than the death of sports.

My two cents is that once you start talking about "distributions" you add a layer of obfuscation that makes it a non-intuitive explanation.

Could someone grade the explanation I gave my non-technical boss last week?

In the context of a regression analysis, I said, "P-values indicate the chance that the apparent effect of the variable is from random fluctuations in the data instead of the variable itself."

What is there to insure?

Ha ha Tonka state park in southern Missouri is an example of rich man building his own castle.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha_Ha_Tonka_State_Park

Can someone give me an idea of how difficult it would be to change the default on the software from sharing location to not sharing location? Is it more complicated that simply changing a variable value somewhere in the code?

It's amusing that you went to a website on confirmation bias, did the puzzle incorrectly, presumably read the material on confirmation bias, but still suffer from the effects of confirmation bias.

That was my first thought. But on second thought, I wouldn't be surprised if big companies, like Netflix, don't have a problem with taxes. The billion dollar tech companies have the wherewithal to implement different tax regiments to each of their customers. It's the startups that this move will hurt and thus add entry barriers protecting the market share of the big boys.