solinent

I don't know if it's just a bribe either--who knows what they did to those iPads, I'm sure information from the police could be used for political gain.

I'd be interested in seeing how the funds were actually allocated, if the leaks actually leaked out of Facebook or if they managed to contain the leak.

The only products I use from Google originated somewhere else except Search and Gmail. Now I don't use Search or Gmail, either, Search started just giving me products to buy around the time they changed the algorithm, and I have lost trust in Gmail.

Whoever owns the server can serve you whatever content the want. They can change it even, depending on the user.

I honestly see a successful AMP as the end of the web as we know it--there's no way for us to know if the content isn't censored by Google. I'm certain their plan is to sell their hosting service and show providers that they could use Google services. What's the logical next step?

The RCMP is a complete joke.

I wasn't using Google for anything significant so it was pretty easy to delete it. If I care about a picture I'll print it and keep it in a book, I would never trust a corp that's only been in the data business for 10-15 years, especially one known for stealing your information for advertiser's gain.

Python 2 was pretty tasteful, simple, usable, the exception that proved the rule. I think Python has evolved since.

They actually don't know where I am, I don't always bring a GPS tracker with me or keep it on me at all times like most. I also don't use Google services other than YouTube, so that helps as well.

I just deleted it all, it was easier, now I just keep it all on my machine. No more takeout--home cooked meals. I can see why it doesn't appeal to all though.

Oh, and also even though we don't know why you're ill we also know for certain you'll also never get better, so here's some chemo drugs to take for the rest of your life.

Well, I don't assume malice, I can stay in a superposition. It could be malice, it could be incompetence, and it's important to be able to discern between the two, and that's purely contextual.

> it's obvious that this is a bug

If someone were to prevent screenshots intentionally, and I had mal intent, I would make my best effort to make it seem unintentional.

I'm sure given enough selection pressure virus's will find another vector of transmission, I don't think this will do anything except harm the ecosystem as a whole.

Luckily I'm in Montreal now: I've given up on Toronto, it's too transparent.

I think if you just decriminalize it instead of completely legalizing it then usually what happens is people will successfully hide it so they don't give away their dealer, and the cops get to go after a potential larger offender as well instead of having to convince the locals the small time users aren't criminals. Based on my experience in Canada. Of course, then the dealer will try to upsell their users to harder drugs so there's trade-offs there.

Ultimately it's the same as drinking though, just be considerate and hide it from the kids!

We have one aesthetically pleasing brutalist building in Toronto, and it's Robarts. It's shaped like a peacock!

So I actually had a basic algebra system before they taught it to me, for what it's worth, probably something I figured out from the structure of the language my parents were using (both accountants). I'm a pretty rare individual, I've never had to work at math.

I took a long time to learn how to learn from example, it used to be impossible but now it's almost just as natural.

In my experience teaching my friends and colleagues there are two ends of the learning spectrum--you can learn by example first or by theory first, or both, but the former is by far the lion's share of the population.

I've taught people where there's absolutely no way I can teach them a generalization unless it's rote--however they can get domain-specific knowledge and beat me over the head in their domain and teach me something about my generalization as well that I might have been missing.

The best way for me to teach calculus to most people is to walk around a room explaining concepts like velocity, speed, acceleration, and position. However, I personally would never learn it this way--I prefer Spivak, during my read through I learned more than I could ever learn in a class.

It's also my belief that most people aren't like me in the sense that they learn from example first. However, most people I know are like me so it's hard to realize how needed a textbook like this is and how huge it could be for the regular person to learn something like this.

Source? I've heard the opposite, I'm not an expert but I do believe fusion is pretty imminent. Maybe not at MIT.

We can achieve fusion already, so presumably we already have control of it? Check out lppfusion. https://lppfusion.com/technology/focus-fusion/

I think if we discarded the failed attempts we could consolidate something here.

Seems to be happening https://lppfusion.com/international-focus-fusion-research/

Yes, and we don't even need to use uranium, and it doesn't need to be as dangerous. Fusion is mainly a problem of scaling the system up now I believe, there are a few possible fuels depending on the method if I recall correctly.

I've never encountered an issue, with Privacy Badger and uBlock.

Right, fair enough. I think having as many as possible makes sense and they're worth the loss of convenience.

Why not both Privacy Badger and uBlock origin?

They may not be mutually exclusive. It's hard to press the off switch when you're strapped in and you're rapidly accelerating.

When they control your every move through an invasion of privacy how can they stop burning the oil that fuels you lest they lose their position of power?

I think the author misses a big point, and takes a lot of words to miss it.

A book exists as a subset of a language--it itself can be considered a language itself--the way the words interact and how they relate is more important than any particular within. Taking something out of a book doesn't meaning learning some particular order of symbols contained within--it's about learning the language and how all the symbols relate. You could even extend that to identifying that language in the future and generating it themselves as well.

So you get content where the information density is very low, which happen to be some books. I hate to compare this article to, but essentially it's identified the idea of information entropy and still misses the fact that knowledge and understanding are not a bucket of facts but rather a model. The author spits this out verbatim but it's obvious given the language the author is using his understanding of this topic is very low. The author seems to be quantifying knowledge, but really it's quite hard to quantify knowledge in and of itself but rather it's important to judge knowledge in relation to other knowledge--hence information density. I think a lot of people simply read a book for the journey and not to take something out--and just because there's no conscious summary in their head doesn't mean they've not learned or that it's not changed their entire lives, in fact, since understanding by definition is an unconscious process.

If learning well is simply absorbing knowledge quickly and retaining it then count me out--I don't want to absorb random facts and symbols which have no practical use in relation to the objects and symbols and things I use in this world.

So the author misses the point of learning, and constructs a giant strawman (using a long-form argument, strangely) about how books don't "work" in the sense that they don't necessarily give you any knowledge at all! I agree, but I'll definitely still be reading them.

I've actually stopped using google's spam filter and starting looking into the spam occasionally.

With no data, if one slips through it shouldn't be up to the spam filter if I can be scammed!

edit: that was a particularly bad typo to make. I mean scammed, not spammed :)

Design your software for your users. They might be lazy. They might be eager. They might be both.

Certainly, an app for those struggling with depression should be structured differently than one for those struggling to beat their weightlifting personal record.

They eat all the nutrients in meat, just in pill form. It's not very convincing. Also they have tons of problems with insulin resistance and supplements have tons of flaws. Most of these athletes are spending much more and destroying the environment much more than the equivalent amount of meat or eggs would do.

I don't think we're going to move away from an ecological collapse unless we stop using pesticides.

Most vegan athletes don't last too long. I'm of Indian heritage, so I'm well aware of vegetarianism.

I should also mention that there are many, many ways to do a vegan diet wrong. The studies probably don't include too many sources of sugar, which is probably the bane of a vegan's existence since they're constantly looking for blood glucose in order to do things as their body can't use gluconeogenesis as there is less protein (and therefore more cortisol!).

At Waterloo in Canada we're taught in our computer security class that paper can be more secure than a computer, especially in a voting system, and in fact that's the reason we don't switch like our southern neighbours. I'd say that every medium we use throughout time typically can never be replaced. We'll keep paper forever--just use it only when it benefits us over computers.