Optimizing runtime performance can be a little tricky and nonintuitive. Debugging can similarly be tricky-- inspecting internal return values is not super fun.
To say nothing of the many potential causes for potential cognitive decline in later life. I would expect the vast majority of cases of dementia in life to not include CTE.
Except for NFL players.
I'm honestly puzzled at the people coming out of the woodwork to troll this post. What is driving these people and their abandonment of reason?
110/111 testing positive for CTE is insanely high, even with selection bias. This is a big, big deal, and should be treated like a big, big deal. This is not hyperbolic in the slightest. If a chemical plant was suspected of causing cancer, and you got those test results, same experimental bias and all, it would be shut down instantly.
They didn't say that. Here's the quote I believe you skimmed and misinterpreted.
"About 1,300 former players have died since the B.U. group began examining brains. So even if every one of the other 1,200 players had tested negative — which even the heartiest skeptics would agree could not possibly be the case — the minimum C.T.E. prevalence would be close to 9 percent, vastly higher than in the general population."
They're being honest about the selection bias, but they're saying the absolute minimum threshold is 9%. That's high number one, and it's almost certainly much higher than nine percent because they only tested a few of the brains. 1300 is every former pro player that died. Not every one they tested.
I cofounded a small tech shop in flyover country. Mostly fitness and music stuff. Not hiring at the moment, but if you do native mobile, hit me up, we do a lot of stuff and it's only a matter of time before I need another native guy. We do remote-- you gotta be able to write an email.
I read and respectfully disagree-- this is college, not high school or trade school. You're not training for diesel engine repair here, you're training for white-collar jobs. Basic algebra is pretty uniformly necessary today, and it isn't becoming less so in the future.
If you're a STEM person on my team that cannot write in a coherent and precise fashion, I am going to find you and you had better pray you're worth retraining, because this is a non-negotiable part of any technical career you could hope to have.
If you want regular promotions, probably watch your spelling too.
Yeah man, the cure for declining American competitiveness is absolutely dumbing things down even further. The other countries need to respect our dum-dums!
It's either part of the entire round, or it's gonna go to a founder, one of whom is an engineer if it's a tech biz, and it'll feed them for 2-3 months while they get the prototype together.
This is probably not a facebook problem, as facebook serves you content based on.... god only knows what. But HN? Reddit? Tweeter? Rampant. Real bad for engagement, as anybody looking at a post with more than a few comments knows not to even bother. Gots to get that engagement, you know?
Unrelated but worse problem: top of feed livelock. If you're below the fold, cause, I dunno, you got shit to do, you are only going to get viewed by heavy scrollers, which overly favors (IMHO, as somebody with shit to do) folks who get on the thread first. Even a one-dimensional "rank by number of uplikes" filter still doesn't calculate your likes/views ratio, which is what you'd actually care about.
It's never going away, I don't think. Workers love getting extra money, and most food industry operations are barely staying alive as it is. I'm annoyed enough to whine, but I still tip.
The problem with tipping is that it's spreading, as wages aren't keeping up with cost of living, but employers won't hand out raises. Uber driver? Tip. Sandwich shop? Tip. Coffee shop? Tip. Pizza delivery? Delivery fee plus tip. Have I been in drive-throughs with a tip jar? You better believe I have.
It's not as if we don't have experimental data on both the ability to run a government that is more or less functional with a bunch of self-interested actors in general, or the relative merits of the free market vs socialized healthcare in specific. We ran the numbers. It isn't working. The arguments around doubling down on the free market I find intellectually spurious, and the most convenient explanation from my perspective is the fact that we are thus far wealthy and powerful enough to afford the application of a one-size-fits-all ideology to avoid the emotional strain of admitting we were wrong all these years.
Basically yeah. I bought a car last month and I paid an extra... twenty percent before I walked out the door. Drives me nuts. That and fucking tipping, man. Enough already. Just put the price on the menu- I'm good for it, I swear.
Oh yeah, I don't mean it'd work, I think healthcare neatly falls in the category of collective action problems that are poor fits for the capitalistic profit motive. A lot of people would suffer and die unnecessarily. And in a democracy, enough people would be incentivized to vote for exception after exception to destroy any semblance of market competition. Old people are very very good at two things: getting sick and voting. The pathological dysfunction of American healthcare is pretty much inevitable if you try to stuff for-profit healthcare into a democracy.
I'm really not a socialist, I promise. I just don't see how you'd do it any other better, and it's pretty clear to me that the results are definitively in for our free market experiment.
It's funny how we all pretty much agree the govt should be in charge of stuff like roads, schools, military, police, fire dept, courts, quite a long list of stuff, but adding anything to that is marketed as creeping socialism.
Lotta people talk about charity as a replacement for government services, but folks give around 3% of their income to charity (tax deductible) in the US. That ain't gonna get it done. Not even close.
People would have you believe they would give more if they didn't pay as much in taxes, but there is not one shred of evidence that is the case based on variations in local tax rates. And that's a hell of a gap to bridge based on a such a dubious promise.
Occam's razor, and the available evidence, suggests that people would just pocket the difference and the poor can go to hell. They're happy to argue the point until they're blue in the face, but if the past year has taught us nothing at all, it's that people are more than capable of crafting any number of passionate arguments around their self-interest, truth be damned.
It's still absurd to me that we make the false differentiation between taxes and insurance premiums. If you've got a family, neither is negotiable. If you have a job that pays, I promise you it affects your check in nearly identically the same way as payroll taxes do. There's a tradition in America where the price isn't actually the real price, we artificially advertise fake prices to get you in the door and stuff a bunch of surcharges on the back end. I wish we'd cut it out-- our taxes aren't crazy, but the way they're presented make people flip their shit.
Point two would be a hell of an incentive to get insurance, by the by. Beats the hell out of some candy-ass tax penalty. "Young invincible bet wrong, got caught in some freak skateboarding accident? Sucks to be you. You an organ donor by any chance?"
It's a fun thought experiment, but we'd never do it.
A free market would look something like this:
1) everybody buys their own insurance in a genuinely free marketplace (this is ENTIRELY not the case now and would probably require significant gov intervention to defeat cartel-seeking behavior from insurance co's. There are good reasons insurance is so highly regulated, only the first of which is that insurance companies are highly incentivized to not pay out since they already have your money, and you can't go elsewhere with your claim.)
It's a lot to do with the culture of entrepreneurship-- to do this stuff well requires taking a lot of risks without a lot of oversight. You can become fantastically successful doing it too, which comes with a whole host of other psychological dangers. And there is an obvious power imbalance at play. AND most critically, it's a culture that is very relationship based, where you don't want to burn bridges. It's not at all clear that the women that came forward, even now, are going to come out of it unscathed. Nobody's gonna come out against them now, but if they want to raise another round next year, who's gonna pick up the phone? I hope it isn't an issue, but if it were, there's no telling why your round didn't clear.
I dunno, generally the best argument for democracy is when things come out of balance, there is a mechanism to adjust how things work without violent revolution (which generally necessitates a greater level of destruction than is advisable). Since the general impression of Hong Kong democracy is "yeah, we'll let you vote, but the party is going to have the last word" it's hard to imagine a scenario whereby the status quo (i.e. current elites) will ever be allowed to be threatened.
Well, until it's too late, and the torches and pitchforks come out.
Would you agree that the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions in society to redress these imbalances, or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.)
If the sea change we observe as a result of these allegations is VC's and tech executives being scrupulously professional in their interactions with female founders and employees, to prevent even a whiff of impropriety, I think we'd all be better off.
If this guy could say "I was never even alone in the same conference room with any of these women, let alone at a bar where any impropriety is a matter of their word against mine" I think this story wouldn't have run.
Seriously guys, when you're at work, just fucking work and all this bullshit magically goes away. No dating, no uncomfortable discussions of race or politics or sex, just do your job and go home. Talk about tabs versus spaces if you need to spice up a Friday afternoon lull.
What would somebody from NBC be looking to get out of Snapchat? I admit fully that I'm too old for Snapchat-- I don't want my stuff to disappear, I don't do anything embarrassing and I forget enough crap already. Is it just eyeballs? Why does Snapchat want to host a TV show? Is it going to disappear? I grew up with the whole "must see TV" thing, where if you weren't in front of the TV when Seinfeld came on, then you weren't gonna see it. It fucking sucked, to be blunt. Who would want to go back to that? And if Snapchat is just putting tv shows into the app because disappearing snap whatevers aren't enough to drive whatever number they need to drive, what competitive advantage are they going to use to go after the many, many, many content players already in the mix?
The whole thing just leaves me scratching my head.
Feels like a whole lot of companies are jumping on the Netflix bandwagon with original content.
And here's the thing that concerns me: Netflix, on a tech level, is pretty much a solved problem. There's stuff left to be done for sure, rust never sleeps, but they're pretty much good to go tech-wise. The content side of their business is an existential struggle, and getting original content right is IMHO a do-or-die proposition for them. They did a pretty damned good job because they have to.
All these other guys, they see Netflix doing a really good job on original content, and they want to duplicate the success. Which is understandable, but can they devote the focus at the top level that is necessary to do the job? Or are they going to half-ass it with the expectation that running a content studio is something any idiot liberal arts major can do?
Snapchat, for me, isn't in the TV game and shouldn't be. Nor Apple. And the results of their experiments are about what I'd expect out of a couple of big companies messing around with original content.
The issue with cutting a deal with Japan, as I see it at least, is that there are all these other countries where you now have to answer the question "Well, if you were willing to deal with _____, why not me?" As it appears that Japan has a deal that Canada, or America for that matter, can't get, now Airbnb is going to have to explain why, beyond being (so far) successful in playing different sides against each other.