sean2

Yet another reason I haven't seen listed in the dog pile of reasons on this comment: lo-jack stickers; I have one on every laptop I own and one I'm borrowing.

Yes it is; I think you're thinking about healthy, pet cats. I have a couple, I've also worked with the local cat population control group on the pro-cat side.

Too many cat's is a huge problem. They carry unique diseases, most notably those transmissible to your pet cats. Also, toxoplasmosis gandhi which will kill large mammals in an area, including whales. It also infects humans through under-cooked meat. Cat scratch fever. Cats can also transmit whatever local diseases and parasites other mammals carry, but effectively as they tend to live in large colonies close to humans.

Cats murder your local bird populations, which in my area, includes a number of endangered species. I'm sure in other areas, there might be other endangered creatures cats remove.

And finally, there's the typical nuisances of getting into food stores and trash, dying on motorways, feces accumulation (even before considering diseases), and noise complaints.

Further a large feral cat population creates rabid, cat-hating humans which IMHO is also an issue.

The wikipedia article calls out that the compounding sequence of issues started when autopilot was silently disabled, so the human system was in control when the pilots did not intend it to be.

I think the critical issue in both cases is that the wrong system was in control against the pilots wishes.

So, the pilots can pick my poison based on their training and best judgement (and maybe not put their children in control?).

That sounds very effective; I'm trying to think how you might be able to apply that technique to social media. I want to gag every time I spend too long on Facebook.

GP and GGP are not saying there is an overt conspiracy especially among interviewers; they are attempting to point out that the interview process itself is discriminating.

I'm sure the people that perform interviews are not discriminating and I'm certain a number of bright, older, time-squeezed people make it through. But maybe I would imply conspiracy since I'd imagine the people at the upper levels, that designed the process, have at least noticed that it's biased in favor of young, recent graduates able to give extra time to the company.

Well, yeah, communication is so far down on the priority of needs that my county's disaster preparedness pamphlets don't even mention it.

But after we got hit with a hurricane it was pretty nifty to have ham radio friends who were able to exchange messages with hams near families in unaffected areas. I don't remember seeing any pragmatic uses for ham radio in that particular disaster, but those lines of communication was great for morale.

Serious question: how could they already know about us?

Are you simply assuming they have advanced signal detection technologies that match their space fairing capability?

As far as practice interviews:

Companies always take the full time they scheduled for your interview no matter when they've decided you failed. Then a week later they may drop you an email informing you that they've chosen to pass on your candidacy. They then ignore or deny any request for feedback (something about liability).

So, interviewing with most companies may never inform you about why you're getting rejected. Last time I searched for a new position, I did about a dozen interviews, failed each one, still no idea why. That is why I'll consider a practice interview before my next job search.

My concern for thinking of lotteries as a societal benefit is that my (in no way perfect) observations is that the lowest in income, and education tend to <i>contribute</i> the most money towards the lottery which may have had a greater net benefit if each ticket buyer had spent their buy in price on themselves.

Also consider that poorer lottery winners are often ill equipped to deal with their winnings and frequently lose the entire sum of money within a few years; they may enjoy spending the money, but it doesn't lift a winners children and community out of a cycle of poverty as I would normally think of "social mobility".

Maybe we should randomly force people to get an MBAs instead.

I've always owned 10-20year old cars, and frequently replacement parts aren't available; I have to find them on ebay or craigslist and I've no way to know weather these were scavenged legally or stolen.

I've also used Craigslist because new parts can be 5 times more expensive than used parts. You may buy all your items new, but most of the working class people on my block, who are constantly upgrading their cars, probably can't afford it. So, I have no problem imagining a large black market.

It's possible Facebook uses location data for this, but I've got an alternate theories.

This happens to me often too, with much briefer encounters: mainly dates and meetups. Since I've shared similar amounts of time at the same restaurant with hundreds or thousands people with whom I had no interaction, many of who's arrival and departure times would happen by chance to line up with mine, they must be using something else. I also share a duplex-house and an office building with people who've never been inexplicably recommended on Facebook.

From these observations, I've come to think that location data has to play a very small role in Facebook's recommendation system.

Here's my best (but untested) theory to explain this: Your house-mate searched for you on Facebook, which triggered Facebook to think you might be friends.

I'm not the author of GP, but I'm really feeling his vibe.

> You don't have an inalienable right to watch movies

If you include news and documentaries, I kinda do. Though not quite as righteous, I get a little indignant that some company gets to dictate how much I'll have to pay to remain informed of our shared (though purely-entertainment) culture.

> universal judge of movie quality

The word "objectively" here is used like "literally", a in a meaningless sentence enhancer.

> you aren't entitled to dictate how you want the business of media to operate

I think I should be, it's my money I'm giving them after all, I'd like to have a vote in the content, how I access it, and even how much it's worth.

>(i.e. you get to pick how much or how little you pay)

Demand and supply: if you want to charge more than I want to see your service I guess I can unsubscribe; I wish we could barter about it. However, if I have to pay $39.99/month for who knows how long to watch one documentary, which I know was dirt cheap to make, I'm going to feel so morally justified while I pirate it that I will indeed think I'm the 'good guy'.

Wait, what's wrong with iceberg lettuce? Seriously, as an American that eats like 1/2 head per day, am I rotting my teeth out? Am I headed for diabetes? You've got me scared.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the world was recently offered "Free Basics by Facebook" and had to decide between no internet vs practically Facebook only which I think the GP is alluding to.

So, it's not an invented hypothetical.

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

To be pedantic, it was Lavrentiy Beria[1] who is credited with that statement[2]; So it was a WW2 Russian Sentiment. Though Stalin-ism is also an example of a surveillance state government that was known for being unpleasant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria [2] http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1137804

This was a particularly interesting bit though and I was hoping some people might explain/comment more about it.

It seems that getting your crypto-currency hacked gives publicity and boosts value! See also: the Experian hack.

Firstly, why would you give an alert if everyone is going to die and there's nothing anyone can do? The reason for the alert is that most people (~98%) will be outside the fatal blast of a N. Korean Nuke assuming that it even hits it's target, which I'm not sure the likelihood of anyway. You need the all clear for the surviving 98% (or 100% of people on a miss or false alarm) who will be continuing to get things together after the attack.

If the US is going to exchange nukes with China or Russia, they could decide to wipe out Hawai'i. But N. Korea has like, what 5-6 nukes? They're not known to be accurate either.

Except for Honolulu Hawai'i is mostly composed of small population centers separated by miles of ocean or valley walls. If N. Korea decided that Hawai'i really had to go, I'd guess they could use their arsenal to kill/injure max: 6 missiles * 20k casualties = 100k casualties total, which would still leave 1.1million people to hear an all clear.

Counterpoint: here in Hawaii, my friends and coworkers who surf are some of the most frequently bacteria infested people: frequent nose and ear infections, plus occasional staff infections.

These infections are usually confirmed by doctors for the people in their 50s or older, but us younger people are frequently under the weather from what I might now guess is bacterial infections.

It's easy to see in retrospect that the beginning of bitcoin would've been a good place to throw in some meaningless quantities of cash, but I think once you divide by the number of small, potential investments you could make that wouldn't have made you money, and subtract the amount of time commitment to keep track of those investments, the outcome is less appealing.

(Obviously, some people knew it was about explode, but I'm looking at everything you hear your kid, or a co-worker giving you hot tips about, which was the boat I was in and it sounds like this kid's dad was in).

This is great advice and appears to be a good thing to do, but I just feel weird giving equifax money to protect me from fallout of their data breach. It feels like I'm rewarding them for losing my data.

I bet millions of Americans, who are suddenly aware of their vulnerability to credit fraud and learning about these options, are paying for requests and freezes.

No, we are arguing opinions here. FPH was not conducting double blind scientific studies on the efficacy of shaming as a weight loss intervention for the obese (AFAIK). And, in fact, if that study does show promising results, I may admit they are right and help them in their noble effort to solve the obesity crisis.

But what I hear them saying is, "Hey it's cool to hate and harass half of the US population based on appearance!" I am one of the people you reference who thinks that that "cannot be corrected," but that's because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis! Neither is it "the truth," it's just their opinion. And it is something that I think bored, mostly teenage, people may buy into due to "digital peer pressure," which is admittedly a somewhat hair brained new concept, but based on real effects.

Hmmm, maybe he analyzed the game theory:

If he publishes without consulting peers:

  If his proof is correct, he gets unending fame, millions in prize money.

  If his proof is laughably flawed, he'll promptly be forgotten as one of the 100s who have been wrong before him.

If he consults his peers:

  If his proof is correct, he may end up sharing credit, maybe they'll even publish his work quietly under their own name while he's still waiting for feedback. Maybe that is what we are reading now.

  If his proof is laughably flawed, then they'll give him his feedback and only his peers, instead of the whole internet will laugh at him for a day, before it's all forgotten.

Seems like with any tiny chance of a correct proof, the dominant strategy is, by far, to publish without consulting your peers.

I'm in my early 30s, so frequently called an older programmer and I've heard a lot of, "we don't have time".

What I've been waking up to is that projects that estimate realistic budgets and time scales don't get funded. Everyone underbids knowing that the company/customer will continue to fund and extend deadlines for project after sinking so much effort into a buggy prototype, until the realistic estimate is reached and the product actually reflects all the "hidden"/"discovered" requirements (i.e. foreseen but not in the bid) including security, integration and test efforts.

What's weird is that everyone, customers included, seems to be in on this.

Does this little update to the bookmarklet solve the issue? I'm not a webdev, feel free to fix it.

(function () { var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');

  for (i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) {
    if (getComputedStyle(elements[i]).position === 'fixed') {
      elements[i].parentNode.removeChild(elements[i]);
    }
    // 2017 update:
    if (getComputedStyle(elements[i]).position === 'sticky') {
      elements[i].parentNode.removeChild(elements[i]);
    }
  }

})();

Here's why I prefer irrelevant ads:

1. Targeted ads catch my attention better. Frequently I don't even notice or remember irrelevant adds.

2. Targeted ads are almost always, SEOed (if you will) to me; that is, they seem relevant, they offer the solution needed to fix the precise problem I'm discussing in the email chain, I click, I read, I would buy, but I realize that the product offered is nothing like what I've been reading about on the landing page.

3. Targeted adds are much more effective at convincing me to spend money on stuff or services that I could have lived without.

Sure, I should toughen up mentally against ads, but until I do, I protect myself from ads that will manipulate me and one way to do that is to prefer irrelevant ads when I need to see them.

Well, everyone is welcome to their own opinion.

The only reason I don't eat it as an adult is that I'm not sure it's good for me.

Counter position is hard to define in a large market, so take a market with two stocks A and B. You buy shares of A from counter-position-inc who moves that money into B (possibly buying the shares you just dumped).

Over a time period A goes up 5% B goes up 10%. You sell your shares in A (profitably) but under performed the average market returns by 2.5%. counter-position-inc sells its shares in B, over performing the market average by 2.5%.

I think location is very important with these sorts of profiles. I'm on linked-in, Indeed and career builder.

I normally get nearly zero recruiter emails, but late last year I changed my location preferences on Indeed and/or Career builder (I don't remember) from my hometown to Washington DC and suddenly I was deluged with the 20+ recruiter emails per month; more right after I update something on my profile.

Strangely, 1/2 of the emails are for locations far away from DC. I might try changing my preferences to San Jose and see how many more I get.

My "profile" is pretty much just my resume. Experience seems to be another important factor.

No, plenty of other stuff is illegal; just off the top of my head: Possession of copy-righted material Possession of hacking tools Evidence of hacking Data from corporate espionage Accounting fraud Fraud (e.g. fake credit info) Evidence of other crimes (e.g. account books of drug deals) Plans to commit other crimes

The list goes on. It just so happens the FBI is obsessed with CP, but if you decriminalize that, we'll have the same problems with other crimes.

You're combination is protected under the fifth, but you can be compelled to unlock your computer using that combination, which is exactly what the judge is ordering in this particular case.

And don't complain too me that it's essentially the same thing; this is the judge's reasoning, not mine.