sambe

I’d contest the airlines would not act as you suggest:

1) they’d believe they can get away with it.

2) it wouldn’t be the end of the airline. Large fine, negotiated down, cost of doing business.

Even if people died, would the fine be that huge? I can’t find numbers for past incidents, but somewhere in my memory I have $2m for wrongful death. 300/4 * 2m = 150m. Is that way off? BA just got fined 230m for a data breach...

Maybe iOS 13 should pay attention (single-track loops often stutter at the end).

I've lived in several places where this practice is common and none where it remotely works - it's totally ignored. Where are you based?

The license fee is not the BBC's only source of funding. Its worldwide operations are generally profitable.

I usually receive soft objections to this. They don't even seem to understand the problem most of the time. In fact, they speak rather like I would expect a scammer to: "but we just need to verify who you are, and you will still have to do this if you call the number on your card, so it's easier if I do it now".

Maybe it was a misunderstanding or review failure, not an evil conspiracy? You know, they are know to happen quite often...

I would argue it was always like that. Some of it seemed to be actively encouraged by Jeff Atwood/moderators/senior users. You forgot another common one: "not clear what you are asking". I normally have to reply to this with "the question is in the final paragraph". Which often results negative comments and perhaps the question being closed. Or trying to edit a bug out of an answer, being refused because you didn't change enough, tidying up some wording, and getting the edit rejected for supposedly changing what the person is saying.

I don't think any of it is specific to SO - online communities seem to attract people who like everything to be extremely specific and rule-based, regardless of whether that creates the best outcomes. I've seen mods destroy several forums.

SO gets a lot of other stuff right though. I don't think it will die anytime soon, nor does it need to in order to improve things.

I don't get the feeling ReviewMeta is very sophisticated. FakeSpot and ReviewMeta often contradict each other. I often spend time on both sites and then realise that either all the candidate products are not great, or I've wasted time gaining little confidence and should just pick one.

Not really. Helping nation state (any) actors gain access to user data would be contrary to their previous actions. Helping experts research vulnerabilities is a calculated risk that the good guys will reveal bugs at a similar rate or faster than the bad guys, whilst also disincentivising the hoarding.

It feels like there are more responsible ways to deal with this than showing up their support team on Twitter.

There's something deeply satisfying about the idea that the annoying tone and shoutiness (and volume increase) of most ads could be used against them for filtering.

Where does "users didn't say a thing" come from? The version that really makes the difference was only released a few days ago... and there has been lots of news/criticism in tech circles about it.

The overhead of repeatedly launching subshells/processes to do simple operations can add up quickly, especially if it is happening in loops or in parallel. Yes, you shouldn't be using bash for performance, we all know that. But scripts often grow over time and suddenly are found to be slow/resource hogs. I have seen people demand that proper logging be added to a bash program and it then get minutes behind because of the overhead of all the processes called to do the logging. I was able to make that 10000x faster using pure bash.

As to why people like it: it often feels more natural when you are automating what you would type interactively. Unix pipes/coreutils/etc. also feel like a better fit when that automation is mostly about connecting other programs (it's the auxiliary stuff that you'd maybe want in pure bash). Reading the subprocess Python documentation does not exactly fill me with joy. I've heard libraries like Plumbum make it a bit neater - but then you have to ask why learn a bunch of new libraries when I already know bash? In the end it's about the best tool for the job. The danger with bash is going too far, especially if you don't actually know it very well.

Yes; I find it strange they have gone down the thin bezels and non-curved edge route with iPad. It seems much less ergonomic, and a big reason for me to hold off upgrading.

I read into it that having some specs for announcements has become more important that the spec itself. I also note the increasing number of specs that are announced in these events which were already in the previous model(s).

The article uses the term "stacked". It refers to a complaint to the EU about the abuse of their position as owner of the App Store. It refers to a Supreme Court anti-trust case. It repeatedly frames the discussion in terms of what Apple gained vs competitors.

These sections seem to address the point to me:

* "The tail is not wagging the dog" - index funds are a relatively small percentage of total share ownership.

* "Benchmark huggers have always been around" - owning ~the index was not started with index funds.

* "Active funds literally own the market" - the sum of portfolios of non-index funds ends up having the same profile.

* "Price discovery is a cop-out" - relatively small part of the trading volume.

* "Liquidity is not a huge problem for index funds" -no market impact to sell (v dubious if you ask me), unlevered.

* "Humans matter more than fund structures" - the absence of index funds did not prevent bubbles/crashes.

You can disagree with those points (I do with some of them) but that's a large part of the article.

How would they access location data unless authorised by the user?

("absurd" is a strange word to use; it might be nicer to educate without condescension).

I'm struggling to see how the backporters thought this was an acceptable transformation. I don't know any of this code, and even the warning seems a little opaque to me initially. But it seems very obvious that you can't just reorder the lines.

I see it like this: yes, it's a poor website which comes down to semi-legitimised spam.

However, recruiters already were semi-legitimised spam, and they like LinkedIn because it's easier/more signal vs noise for them. Employees like it enough not to quit if there's a potential new job. Signal vs noise is not much different from dealing with job hunting/recruiters outside of LinkedIn. Network effects take care of the rest.

Three main misinterpretations:

1) Getting bigger over time.

2) Safe outside the cone.

3) Further from centre implies less preparation required.

1) Is maybe true anyway? I have no idea. Is it an important error?

2) Is more of a problem with the chart than the people. There's a hard border. It implies 95/99.7% confidence instead of 68%. Were the graph more intuitively designed, the interpretation would not be wrong, really, insofar as one maps probability to a binary choice.

3) Seems completely logical - the expected threat is lower further from the centre. People are still underestimating the risk, but for the same reason as 2).

Am I blind? I can’t see a certificate mentioned in the link or the parent’s NEWS link...

Which change fixes that?

I use the page-break-lines package to show these a bit more nicely (IMO).

Internet Explorer bugs could not be triggered remotely?

It remains marginally higher competition than the unit folding, which seems to have been the alternative. At least one party has an alternative. And unlikely as it may seem, that party may yet choose to sell to others, which is also better than zero.

The conventional wisdom: fat in the blood is the main thing to worry about (along with genetics) and that lifestyle factors have a big influence on that. So both, really.

Which part of that paper disputes the importance of fat?

Everything I've ever read says fatty deposits. The NHS website calls fatty deposits "atheroma". You can find multiple definitions of atherosclerosis/atheroma in other places describing them the same way. Wikipedia says:

"While the early stages, based on gross appearance, have traditionally been termed fatty streaks by pathologists, they are not composed of fat cells but of accumulations of white blood cells, especially macrophages, that have taken up oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL)."

So whilst it may be more accurate to say they are white blood cells that fed on LDL (and presumably contain fatty substances as a result) there is a long tradition of calling them fatty substances, and there is at minimum a connection to fat.

It seems misleading to try to discount the role of the fat to me. They don't sound like they are just normal white blood cells. Is there any doubt that the fat plays a causative role? I know a couple of cardiologists who say it is clear. Do you have some references for the idea that fat is not relevant?

I can't find an original source for that. Maybe he said it, maybe there have been several misquotes. More anecdotally, we all know how much people like to mock Chinese manufacturing as purely copy-cat and low quality. You can almost see the glee dripping off the articles about the ballpoint. I'm pretty sure you can imagine someone with a failed ball-point saying "probably made in China". This doesn't mean it's untrue, but it does mean there's likely a bias.

It's not entirely unbelievable that they couldn't do this to a sufficient standard at all. I'm just saying it's more believable that they could, but couldn't do it to an excellent standard.

Without knowing what those protections are, we haven't learned much from either the story or the response.

The gist of the story wasn't just that a lot was shared; it was that it was shared nefariously, borderline illegally, and it was all AMD's fault and intention. It essentially painted them as mercenary traitors.

I admit, the original story does sound bad. But I'm also aware of how easy it is to paint such a picture, ando find it hard to believe the US Government couldn't have shut this down if it really wanted to.

The article seems to confirm that the issue is not, in fact, an inability to produce a ballpoint pen (tip). Rather, they could not produce a competitive high-end one:

"A year ago Premier Li Keqiang went on national television and bemoaned the failure of his country to produce a good quality version of this seemingly-simple implement.

Locally-made versions felt "rough" compared to those from Germany, Switzerland and Japan, Mr Li complained."