Radle

That's a surprise. I thought markets are to big for a single actor to make such moves.

Wherever I worked, getting a bigger server or sharding the users better was always the easiest solution.

Only if wrongly applied.

Do renewables need massive subsidies to sustain themselves or do politics offer massive subsidies because they want to have even more renewable energy?

I worked in the Utility Software area for a while. Everything related to energy in Germany looks like corruption if you look to closely.

Everyone is buddies with someone in politics, otherwise screw your career.

Laws are mainly pre written by the industry which is afraid of the risks associated with tackling the challenges involved in climate change. But also afraid of doing nothing, since this would make them clear targets for disruption through voters. So when they do change something it is always in extremely small steps, limited in scope, without changes to the wider system.

While politics give a clear sense of direction regarding renewable energy, the whole thing seems to be to complex for politicians to fully grasp.

I am repeating smart comments from other people but there are some reasons why such astounding results happen:

Let's look at the article >Like how much the difference between my income and yours, for example, is based on our relative IQs. ... >But Heckman's research reveals something else entirely. Innate intelligence plays, at best, a 1 to 2 percent role in a child's future success.

Intelligent people might have a different understanding of success than the author.

Further down in the article: >But what you can control is how conscientuous you are. How diligent you are. How persistent you are. > >How hard you work.

And there's one of our Elephants. For me it seems obvious that working hard can only make you happy if you love your work. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that smarter people tend to optimize for their own happiness, health, well being etc. Or of that of their family and friends instead of "working hard".

Or to put it like @CJefferson > Maybe highly intelligent people don't care about being rich?

Another Elephant was pointed out very well by @hyper_reality >but the article doesn't mention the huge role that being born to a rich family and having good opportunities plays

We live in a time of income inequality like no other generation ever before us. Having the right parents is responsible for most of your success.

Overall the article seems to have only one message. "Work harder or you don't deserve success."

That's terrible and terrifying because it implies that if you are not successful. Then it's your fault for not working hard enough.

At this point we should go back to the start. Smart people are more likely to understand how incredible rigged this whole thing is. So smart people avoid playing this rigged game. They don't compete with you over financial success, they are playing a different and more fulfilling game.

I don't know if you guys had this, but when i was in school there were always these stupid "games" in the break, where the bullies would call anyone who didn't participate as a looser in terms of the game. It never made any sense to go to other people do something and say "I got your", "You lost", when they didn't even play the game.

This didn't change when we grew up and it makes sense to handle authors of articles like this one like we did back in school. Ignore them, play our own games, don't invite them for it.

Definitely not managing.

"a (dynamic) hardcoded list" that's an oxymoron.

" I also argue that banks have much, much better security than anything most of us have ever touched, because they handle billions of dollars moving around routinely and manage not to lose it. Meanwhile, half of the internet can't manage not to lose the email addresses of everyone who signed up for their cat picture website. If they're trying that hard to steal something of little value like that, how hard to you think people are trying to steal the billions of dollars that banks handle?"

Exactly this is the reason why I don't think Troy is being gullible here.

Doesn't mean the psychologists are wrong.

But why? It's not California's fault that these guys got themselves bad legal counsel.

Exactly what we German did with the big automobile companies. It's incredible unhealthy. Once you start listening to their every whim, big corps start to rely on politics to solve their problems. Obviously it's then that they stop to perform, like a spoiled child.

"Notable Recent Attacks" from 2016, the site is dead and shows fancy graphic.

Is "thanks GDPR" the new "thanks Obama"? This spamming of anti GDPR related stuff, without any evidence support quotes or anything the like is absolute disastrous.

Yes it's possible that Spotifys decision was influenced by GDPR, it's also possible that the decision was only done because of it.

But since Spotify hasn't said so, blindly assuming that GDPR is at fault is incredible dishonest.

"The reason is it doesn't hinder savings and investments" -Said no low income earner ever.

Sales taxes are regressive taxes. It's stealing out of the pockets of people who are too poor to find time for politics or who are too uneducated to understand that they are being mugged.

If I was an economist with a college degree, I would also support sales tax.

These aren't all fines. Most of them are published by a select few individuals or newspapers with a clear focus of interest.

What you are seeing is french newspapers being especially interested in fines for big corporations, this is without a doubt a direct result of the current political situation in France.

There were multiple warnings and the guy was a repeated offender. He had already been fined earlier.

But why not optimize the TCP part of the kernel?

Because that story is bollocks I don't want to be unfriendly, but part of your comment is bollocks, too.

"the extent that Gmail is profiling you and surveilling your email" - A serious description of the fundamental technology that a spam filter uses.

The purchase history that google shows me clearly says that google is only showing this to me, this information will not be shared.

See screenshot from my account https://ibb.co/jhkCSjK

Well the truth is, most companies are a lot more hostile with your data than google. Privacy centric services are incredible dangerous. We have seen that VPNs always log your data. (And thereby are completely redundant) You remember lulzsec? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/lulzs...

Overall the purchases page is only there to give me a better overview over my data. And I am fine with google having my data. Most companies are less trustworthy than google. Splitting my data over dozens of other services is a guarantee that one of them will sell my data to the outside.

The price of using google is that google gets free data from you. The pro is that this data is top secure and only used to serve targeted ads and confirm to subpoenas.

Most companies are just going to sell your data to anyone willing to pay for it, including bounty killers. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/8/18174024/att-sprint-t-mobi...

So yes. Google isn't good, but I can clearly tell what they are doing and what they are not doing. I trust google not to sell my data because they can get more value out of my data using it themselves and I actually don't have a problem with (reasonable) targeted ads.

Personal data can be used to identify you. Email, Full Name, Address, Nationality, Spoken Languages etc.

Some of these are very direct like your name and address. But since other personal data can be combined to create an identifying fingerprint of you it may or may not be covered.

There's a gray area in between of course were you really need to check the legal situation, but public content on a public forum is definitely not covered.

"The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both." This in fact not what SCOTUS wrote, SCOTUS clearly said that Apple may be sued by developers and consumers alike, the mere fact that apple has a monopolistic (They hold all the consumer supply in this market) and a monopsonistic(They satisfy all the demand from app devs on this market) position does not mean that the damages injured to both parties are in fact the same damages.

Under current US law multiple parties may not sue for the same damage. But at this point of time it is not decided whether the damages sustained by consumers in this lawsuit would be the same damages that app developers could sue for. It is entirely possible that Apple has swindled BOTH.

So you want to copyright your laws, but the SCOTUS said "NO!"...

What you do is you pack your laws into something else for example a new fancy construct you have just build. Let's call that new construct "bubbles". So your law is now inside your bubbles and you put copyright on you bubbles... Until the SCOTUS says "NO!" again.

It's 3y/o playing government for their business friends.

I think it would be enough to ban Zuckerberg from running any public corp in his lifetime.

The Facebook problems are all Mark Zuckerberg problems, it starts with the people he pics for management the priority he sets for a business which provides an important part of american infrastructure.

Zuckerberg as CEO of Facebook is the same for the USA as putting a teenager in control of the United States Department of Energy.

Same here in Germany...

It's the argument that lead to the second amendment of the US constitution, this argument is obviously completely irrelevant in the 21-century. But facts have long gone from american politics.

It's quite obvious what happened there, but it's not necessary bad.

Most likely classical start up cashout.

Well if your company only has one product with all the secrets leaked on github, it matters whether the company was worth 10 Million or 6 Billion before bad things happen.

Even here in Germany where salary talks are serious taboos, the younger generation is definitely more open about it.

I had people repeatedly asking me for my salary after accepting a new job. I think things have seriously changed.

it landed in the sea.