ImSkeptical

I wonder how much of this is kids not realizing they can skip videos. I'd like to do an experiment to see how quickly kids change the video for different categories of videos. Maybe they just like videos, and clicking randomly on child's links at the end of videos will eventually drop you into this maze.

Why not suspend reported images for review. If the review indicates the reporter is abusing the system, blacklist the reporter from the automatic function. Also block new and recent accounts, and stop automatic blocking for images on frequently targeted accounts and major accounts (e.g. If someone is reporting Donald Trump, manually check, don't automatically remove).

Given that this was done poorly by the standards of the day, can you point to a superior contemporaneous text on the same subject of superior quality?

Do you comment on all topics you aren't interested in? Were you under the impression I was waiting to see if you were interested?

Your comments in this thread are unnecessary and inappropriate.

Do you think men should be forced to take time off for paternity leave?

Your comment seems unfairly antagonistic. I'm talking about a well documented phenomenon. Men typically work more hours than women. One of the reasons is pregnancy and maternity leave.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/mobile/time-spent-working-...

If men work more hours, shouldn't you expect ranking systems to consistently favor men? You can try to pretend like this observation is sexist, but you're just refusing to answer the argument by doing so. Please, explain why I'm wrong and I'll happily change my mind.

I don't think women are inferior. I think they work less, because that's what I've read. One reason they work less is because of pregnancy and maternity leave. Even when equal leave is offered to men, women tend to take more of it, which makes sense as women are the ones who are actually pregnant. So, given the equality of men and women, and that men tend to work more hours, ranking systems that measure by output should be expected to put men ahead of women on average.

Of course, but unless you think women are innately superior, wouldn't they be at a disadvantage because they work fewer hours? In other words, if your system is based on output, and men and women are equal, men should be expected to perform better because they work more hours.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/mobile/time-spent-working-...

Of course if a woman produces more output or is better, she should be paid more. My point is about how you should expect the average result to be in men's favor though, unless you think women are innately superior. If you work 8 hours a day and I work 9, I'll probably be ahead of you at the end of the year, unless you're a lot better.

He makes a lot of mistakes that are just inexcusable though. For example, just when fights through the painful start, he shuts the restaurant down to give everyone a week off. A week! I've never run a restaurant, but my guess is that it's difficult to make money while being closed.

He doesn't do simple math to figure out how much money he'll need, what runway he has, or what he should be charging for his food. He pays three grand to incorporate a business, when a Google search tells him it could be done for far less. When he gets the opportunity to work for a few months in a restaurant, he squanders it.

Sure, hindsight is twenty twenty, but a lot of these obstacles aren't hard to see coming. If you're going to gamble with your life savings, your friend's money, and your family's financial future, you should do the research and put the thought in to make sure you aren't throwing it all away.

I feel like this story really highlighted all the guy's flaws, and hopefully exaggerated them. As you say, he must've been doing something right.

The story seems like he took a terrible risk he couldn't afford, he didn't prepare or research things well, and his endeavor failed largely due to his own shortcomings. Sure, he learned something and has a story. He also borrowed and lost thousands of dollars from his friends, and severely set back his family - possibly for life. Given that he's unlikely to be a restauranteur again, his lesson doesn't seem that valuable either.

We should just keep pursuing the tax loopholes as they are discovered, they should be closed. I also think we should be lowering tax rates in conjunction with this as our tax code becomes more effective.

You might change the location of locations.text or store the locations in a database, or on the cloud, etc. You shouldn't change the commitment your service has to vend data about locations etc. You make a contract saying you will do X when given Y but you don't commit to anything about how you will do it, and that can change as necessary.

I think people have always understood the difference between maximising probability of victory versus score. Even in amateur games you'll get the feeling "I could fight here, and it would be complicated, but I might get a huge advantage, or I could just play safe and keep my advantage."

Because James Comey asserted that she didn't intend to break the law by committing those crimes.

I don't really think you're disagreeing. If Twitter wants to promote free expression, which I would think of as supporting the ideal of free speech, then they shouldn't ban Trump. If Twitter wants to ban Trump then they are in conflict with the ideal of free speech, or in your terms they aren't promoting freedom of expression by banning Trump.

Twitter has claimed in their own promotional material to support free expression, so it may be a bit disingenuous for you to suggest they may not want to promote free expression.

No, the ideal of free speech is that you should get to express yourself, and I should get to express myself. Through discussion we may gain common understanding and benefit. We can discover unfamiliar perspectives, debate ideas, and figure out meaningful truths. We both will also appreciate the opportunity to have our thoughts heard - whatever they may be.

Stopping speech because you dislike the speaker, or disagree with what's being said is the antithesis of this ideal.

Again, of course Twitter legally could ban Trump. Doing so would not be in keeping with the ideal of free speech.

And yet, free speech is still important even to those who don't have such protections codified into law.

Sure. If they don't care about free speech, that's their prerogative. I'm saying you can be critical of Twitter on that basis, and it would be no defense against criticism to observe that they aren't legally required to care about free speech.

What is Trump's abusive Twitter behavior?

I see arguments like this from time to time about free speech, and it always strikes me as missing the point or being myopic.

Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech.

Just put enough satellites so it's statically very likely that one will land on land. (Although I don't see the point of this project)

But those instructions actually involve the assembly of an AI which develops nano technology, disassembles our world and solar system in order to build and dispatch pyramid assembling drones throughout the galaxy.

The irony here is that this also characterizes the OP. They have a team and finding, but need a task. My own thought would be "get a job" but it seems unhelpful.

Making a choice to protect people trying new treatments keeps those people safer but the trade-off is that you develop new treatments slower, which means more people suffer and die waiting for treatments.

Developing quickly versus safely are different decisions, but I don't think one is purely stronger or weaker than the other.

I'll take immortality and term limits, please.

I'd say we should encourage this, but just make sure our intellectual property agreements are strong enough so that both parties benefit from their contribution.

In my view, we need to be moving much faster on developing technologies, drugs, and therapies. If some societies are able to help out, we should be grateful and welcome that - so long as the subjects all consent.

Testing before release is too late. They need to create a dummy mock-up and try it out while they are still brainstorming. If they did that, and were thinking clearly, I expect they would be able to think of a lot of the problems in this thread.

I'm not confused on this point. The people of North Korea have devastatingly unfortunate circumstances, and the thought that, in addition to living such grim lives, they may have to die to ensure our safety - it's unfair beyond the power of words to describe.

And yet, if I had to choose between a million North Koreans, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, and tens of thousands of American soldiers, dying in a pre-emptive war - versus all that plus a few million more Americans and North Koreans dying in a nuclear exchange... Well, it's an obvious choice.

North Korea is approaching the point of being able to achieve mutually assured destruction. They could build a cobalt bomb, or spend a decade building ICBMS, but relatively soon the problem will be intractable and we will play nuclear chicken with an unstable murderous dictatorial regime.

Threatening a country that is threatening us isn't exactly genocidal. Killing families of terrorists is deeply immoral and murderous - but it's also in keeping with current U.S. policy (see Anwar al-Awlaki - both Trump and Obama administrations have killed Awlaki's children). Terrorists aren't a race though, so wanting to kill them and their families isn't genocide.

I don't mean to denigrate the wonderful contribution that the teacher in question made, as it's truly a selfless commitment with life changing impact. However -

One distinction may be that the star teacher scales better. What if there were two students with this problem? Should the teacher stay late? Should teachers not take lunch? What if someone needs help in math, etc.

A star teacher may be able to reproduce this effect for a large number of students. Perhaps using technology, recorded lectures, practice apps, etc. Perhaps organizing study groups for kids to teach and learn from each other.

A caring teacher may sacrifice her lunch. A star teacher may not need to.

My own opinion has shifted along with the availability of my Bluetooth headphones. Before I owned Bluetooth headphones I thought getting rid of the headphone jack was a bad idea. After I bought a nice pair that does noise canceling as well, I became a Bluetooth headphone evangelist. After my girlfriend discovered how nice my (or as she calls them "the") Bluetooth headphones are, I find I'm dreading having to pay another 300-400 dollars for another pair of headphones now that my pixel is arriving in a few days.