rudolf0

Even if one is somehow able to justify the Daraprim price hike, he's been responsible for a lot of unethical behavior over the years.

Just because he's pointing out a flawed system doesn't mean he isn't exploiting it and personally profiting off of it as well.

Not saying amphetamine is necessary the best solution, but ADHD is a real and debilitating condition for a lot of people across all ages.

It's not just "being bored"; it creates serious difficulty in day-to-day and long-term functioning.

>In pitch black darkness, I'm out like a light and have the deepest sleep imaginable. (It's so effective that I have to set an alarm to wake myself up, otherwise I'll stay asleep for 10-12 hours)

This could be a sign you're not getting much restful sleep and that you may need those 10 - 12 hours to pay back sleep debt.

Note that this risk is likely considerably smaller for nicotine gum and patch users [1], though:

>Indeed, although ST studies indicate that ST increases the risk of oral cavity and pancreatic cancer, at least for some forms of ST (9–11), both are substantially less than the risk of these cancers from smoking (11, 12). The former risk seems to be a consequence of exposure to tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) because in Sweden, where ST products are produced in a way to substantially reduce TSNAs, the risk of oral cavity cancer does not seem to be increased (11).

>Still, it should be noted that the risk of pancreatic cancer from low-TSNA tobacco is substantially lower than from smoking, and so this comparison adds reassurance for the long-term safety of NRT.

>A smoking cessation study by Stepanov and colleagues, however, showed that NNK metabolites were not detectable in persons using NRT (34, 35). However, they did find intermittently high levels of NNN similar to baseline smoking levels among some oral NRT users and in 1 of 9 persons using the NRT patch (36). Although these data indicate a potential cancer risk to NRT users, especially oral users, it is important to realize that NNN is only one of the TSNAs in cigarette smoke, let alone of the many other tobacco smoke carcinogens, and so in this context the risk, if any, seems small compared with continued smoking.

[1] http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/1...

But whether someone is a native speaker is a trait that someone can legally and rightfully discriminate over. It's perfectly reasonable to reject someone if you think their English skills aren't sufficiently good. It's not reasonable or legal to reject them just because they were born in a different country.

"Greenwashing" is one common example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

It can also apply to anything that a culture considers virtuous or trendy, though.

Well, for one, you can hide contact info from a resume (which is still stored in a system somewhere, with a unique ID).

And you can also make the early stages of your interview email or text-chat based (or just a Google Doc, like some companies do), to eliminate any potential bias in things that can be inferred from voice like accent, region, and gender.

Obviously once they're on-site for an interview, you can't anonymize much anymore, but anonymizing every stage before that seems like a win-win to me (excluding potential costs of implementing the system).

I winced.

Russia was one of his last choices as a refuge; they were just one of the only countries to accept him.

I doubt he's fond of Russia, either, and he's made some passive-aggressive jabs at them on his Twitter.

That said, it can't be ruled out that he divulged even more secret information to Russia's intelligence services as a condition for asylum, but I don't think there's any evidence it was one of his motives when leaking.

Little unethical behavior was actually leaked, though. The killing of the Reuters journalists probably should've been leaked since there was a sort of cover-up (government refused to give Reuters the video or concrete details), so I'll give her that.

But the rest was basically just normal communications.

I think she's served more than enough jail time, but this didn't really seem like a conscience-driven whistleblowing to me.

Snowden, on the other hand, leaked some seriously shady and unconstitutional activity (along with other things that IMO did not need to be released publicly). That very much did seem like he leaked it due to his conscience.

Well, if the people who stick around are constantly clashing with the political appointments, things might get even more hostile.

"First, they infected the mice with a virus that made their amygdala sensitive to augmented optic nerve activity in response to specific pixel patterns."

I could see that happening, but I feel like slip-ups or crossovers ("oh shit, I meant to think that, not think and transmit it") could still happen sometimes. Also, I wonder what it'd be like for someone with a psychotic mental disorder...

But yeah, who knows, maybe the two processes will be so distinct that it's not an issue.

>“One day, I believe we’ll be able to send full rich thoughts to each other directly using technology," Zuckerberg said during a June 2015 Q&A. "You’ll just be able to think of something and your friends will immediately be able to experience it too if you’d like."

This sounds like a real possible future, but how could this be implemented so you only transmit the thoughts you want transmitted? Some sort of internal dialogue with an implant like "OK Facebook", "OK John, please end your thought by imagining a pound sign"?

That is an interesting thought.

We do know Obama (like most presidents) is pretty cozy with the Intelligence Community. We know Trump isn't. I think a coup d'etat or shadow government is too much of a stretch, but this may at least let them work around Trump to an extent.

Also, we're living in interesting times where thoughts like "the intelligence agencies are covertly trying to work around the President!" are actually considered a neutral or good thing by many.

I personally trust Google with my DNS queries a bit more than some guy on HN.

Why are you using ℅ ("care of") instead of % ("percent")?

>edit: also, when I press the back button from this page: http://ipinfo.io/AS6830 all I get is a json

Funny you mention that, because I've had the same issue with regular IPs. I use ipinfo.io a lot for my job and have noticed this intermittently.

(This was a reply to a now-deleted comment.)

>Is there actually a widespread "life and death" issues here? There have some very publicized cases, but I have yet to see any data that there this is a significant problem beyond having the police called to your house or getting bunch of pizzas delivered that you didn't order. That said, there are definitely dangers with governments who deny basic human rights.

>The bank account issue is really more just about normal identity theft and isn't really part of the topic either.

>I should add that things like "harassment" do not qualify here as those are normal parts of everyday life anyway regardless if your personal information gets revealed online.

>Are we sure we're not just participating in the typical online habit of blowing regular issues into 10 alarm fires?

>beyond having the police called to your house

That's understating the danger of the situation due to the militarization of US police (and also their duty to respond to what they think is a real threat).

These "SWATing" attempts usually go like this:

"Help, someone's being held hostage at [X] address, they have rifles"

SWAT team arrives and kicks in the door, guns blazing, kills all your pets [1], and might shoot you too [2]. So far there hasn't been a human death from SWAT hoaxes, just animals and injuries, but it'll probably happen at some point.

Is this a "widespread" problem? I don't know. In the communities I've been in, it is, though it probably isn't for the Internet at large.

Even ignoring the risks of SWATing, though, there are so many people out there who will try to find your personal information and make your life a living hell on a daily basis due to online disagreements. I deal with such people on a daily basis. Anonymity is absolutely critical and me to others who might cross paths with sociopaths and "e-road rage" types.

[1] https://archive.is/nu4Lv

[2] http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/16/swatting-prank-ends-...

I think that is an important piece. That does make it feel more artistic and polished for sure.

Dumb question, but what is it about Instagram that made it so huge?

Snapchat I actually get, since it's presenting a new kind of communication model. Facebook I get. But Instagram is just like any old image gallery, with a very rudimentary comment system and almost no features unrelated to image uploading.

Well, for one, Breitbart is partisan/ideological news, not fake news. You could ask the same question of left-leaning sources (NYT, WaPo, Huffington, many more) that support Democratic candidates before an election.

Obviously most news outlets will try to influence elections in some way, if they have an editorial stance. And sure, sometimes they may have enough influence to actually shift an election. But "fake news" like "FBI agent murdered by Hillary" or Pizzagate nonsense is a blip on the radar compared to all of the other news sources out there. Those hoax stories probably did not tip the US election at all.

>Facebooks problem is that it does editorialize -- communication and interactions from within a culture, outside of that culture.

How does this apply to Facebook posts made by regular users? It's one thing if Facebook's own news feed is peddling fake news, but if regular people choose to post an article on their wall, why is it Facebook's or the government's job to assess the veracity of the article and take it down?

HN isn't nearly as partisan or as politically homogeneous as you think (though definitely more of the latter than the former). Every comment in this thread so far is negative.

This would set a very frightening precedent. Will they also fine reddit every time a misleading story is submitted to a subreddit?

Most of the fake news articles made during the election were poorly written hoaxes with the goal of collecting ad revenue. Without any of them, Trump still would've won. But even if a foreign nation is spreading propaganda through news articles, unless it calls for violence or other crimes, I don't see why Facebook has an obligation to remove them.

Even if they're purely structural, how does that make them non-rhythmic or non-melodic?

That seems very wrong just on the face of it. Stockhausen has written numerous papers about his theories of rhythm. And if you listen to his music there is undoubtedly a sense of rhythm, just not any conventional ones. There are also definitely melodies.

Serialism does not mean non-melodic. Procedural creation of music does not mean the melodies and rhythms "don't exist". If anything, they're more there than they are in traditional music.

I'm not sure exactly what theories they're referring to here, but if you listen to an avant-garde musician like Stockhausen, you can still hear incredibly beautiful melodies and progressions and rhythms. They're just very different from the norm.

Just a good artist with a pencil, maybe?

You can see more of her work at http://www.rebeccakonte.com.