parhurs

From the linked paper: Kahneman, D, and A Tversky. 1979. “Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures.” TIMS Studies in Management Science 12, 313–27.

To blindly assume patterns such as "80/20" hold everywhere would be foolish - rather, it is better to empirically verify them first in each case (as done by the article). Further, I wonder what makes you think the writer is surprised in the least...

This already been demonstrated on headphones[0].

[0] https://www.wired.com/2015/10/this-radio-trick-silently-hack...

Well, too little carbon dioxide in the bloodstream changes the blood's pH, which is a negative. Can't tell how ambient CO2 levels affect it though.

I read the GP as saying there'll be a unified UI to various local taxis ("interconnected ecosystem"). I could see this emerging from EU regulation, in a similar way they mandate banks to open up their APIs (which is much bigger than taxis).

I have to ask out of curiosity: with Google having over 50,000 employees, are you in a place to say 'anyone' (sure, we're talking about developers, but still)?

So you looked for evidence to support your a priori beliefs, didn't find it and still made insinuations. Good on you.

>I don't expect there to be genes that predict social class

Genes for skin pigment

>super interesting

If you've never heard of inequality before, I guess

You cannot rebuke that claim via an aerospace analogy because they are not equivalent fields. It remains to be seen whether lidar is better for cars than "vision".

There is the point that in the "real world", social norms haven't yet adapted to the requirements of privacy (although you could also view it as societal norms allowing too much tracking). For example, if I wanted to use a mask to conceal my face from trackers, I would be ostracized. There are analogues in the virtual world of course, but it's usually harder in the physical world.

Ars Technica reported last year that in 2015 over two thirds of patent lawsuits were filed by trolls and that of all patent lawsuits, 44% were filed in the Eastern District of Texas (where few others than trolls would be filing suits). The report says that although the numbers are up, the trolls' business might be down.

Ars: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/despite-law-chan...

Original statistic: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...

I find it hard to believe a single chicken, out of thousands, could receive individual attention at all (after they are sexed[0]). I could be wrong though.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_sexing

The link does have estimates for Tesla U.S. sales in December 2016. Tesla: 2400 (WSJ) to 5300 (hybridcars.com) compared to the "class leading" Mercedes-Benz S-Class: 1494. It does seem Tesla is dominating in this class (luxury cars). Figures for the whole year are 26,525 - 29,156 (Tesla) vs. 18,803 (Mercedes-Benz S-Class).

Reading these comments makes me think of a crazy conspiracy theory: Google killed Reader to promote search.

They do. The vast majority of refugees reside in third world countries. Edit: 86% actually [0]

[0]https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/10/global-refuge...

Ah, the infamous slippery slope.

On the other hand, the traditional role of the man as the provider for the family causes some men anxiety if they can't fulfill that role, leading to family trouble. Either way, reducing equality in the work force is not the solution, but a fairer economy.

I would say those are hard and seemingly-neglible-impact things, and that's why the general populace don't do those sorts of things. I see a parallel with being afraid of flying but not driving; people are not very rational or good at assessing impact. There's no reason not to change our habits, further, there's a positive feedback loop for vegetarianism: more consumer, more products, more consumers.

If you want to apply your skills come up with ways to help people change their habits. Better mass transit (ride-sharing etc.), new low-impact comsuption choices (e.g. digital goods/experiences), apps to help eat or live greener, better food production...

The relation might not be linear though.

If the evidence at that point was damning he wouldn't have been biased (don't know enough, but I suspect I very well could have been) rather than operating from the evidence.

Obviously the former. The home search is analoguous with handing the hard drive to the police (they're free to search it). Giving the key is analogous to voluntarily digging up a secret stash in your back yard. And I disagree with it not being black and white, if you didn't already notice that. Rights are rights.

I'm sure the data is inconclusive for now.

It is not "does" but "may" since, as gp wrote, it "does not" when certain conditions are not met.

Could you mention what this is based on, please?

>If it is built in the US, regulating the sale would be redundant Obvious, but the question was about things NOT built in the US and actually illegal to build in the US. Why are they not illegal to sell there?

I don't have anything to contradict it, since I'm not arguing either way. I just like pointing out communication issues in HN's discussions. What about the second point?

You make an intresting point about the stats. Can you expand on the backing off part, though?

And the question I would ask is, "what should have been done to prevent this spiraling into a life of crime, and why wasn't it?"

The question wasn't about other countries, it was about the US, specifically regulating the sale of products 'not buildable' in the US. Stated another way, if something is only built to be sold, why is only building it regulated; why not regulate selling it aswell?

It's not like there are no other paths, or that there even is one 'European path' for that matter. The Nordic countries took a very different path than UK did, for example.

You are not addressing gp's points - that Maoist and "Modern China" are directly related and that "Modern China" is not "Euro style".