_justinfunk

Or "water discovered on Mars"

Honest question, help me understand where this argument is wrong:

if those with natural antibodies are encouraged to get a vaccination in order to gain "additional protection"...

those with a vaccination be encouraged to expose themselves to covid-19 in hope to get a breakthrough infection to generate natural antibodies for "additional protection"?

Maybe he has a point to make. But he doesn't make it very well in this opinion piece.

I am currently traveling through the south-western, and mountain-west states. (Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc).

Vacant land is not a myth.

My initial response was that Disney should have won this. It seems to me that Disney gets to control the distribution of it's copyrighted materials. They bundle a physical and digital version of the movie. So, 1 purchase = 1 "household" can watch the media privately.

What Redbox is doing is constituting 1 purchase = 2 households can watch the media privately (the renter of the DVD and the purchaser of the code).

I'm not an expert on the First Sale Doctrine, but it seems like the end result is that Disney would sell fewer copies of it's content (i.e. damages) in respect to RedBox's actions.

(not a lawyer)

This is my hangup with it. The libertarian dreams of a decentralized currency can never happen if people expect their money to rapidly increase in value.

Why would I buy a pizza today, or a house, or an island, with BTC if in 6 months, that same BTC would be worth 10x.

So... what did the fake comments say? I'm suspicious that in his open letter he never addresses the content of the fake comments.

While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that your use of the internet is just as vulnerable to the net-neutrality doomsday scenario as everyone else's.

Your basic internet is only $50/mo, but you'll need to purchase the "hacker" package for an additional $25/mo to get access to the Ultrix forums.

If a majority of customers wouldn't even care if this happened, then why is it the internet doomsday? Seems like you can't have both sides of the argument. Unless I'm missing your point.

Why did you type this?

For what sort of applications is it super over-priced? I'm using the realtime database to build out an app, and if I start scaling my current (beta) usage by 1000x, I'm still only getting monthly bills of $100 or so.

Fear based question: are there applications (hopefully mine) that would scale in an economic way? And there are other use-cases that wouldn't scale?

Title should probably be changed to have a lowercase "approved". It's a little misleading as-is.

Also, Netflix blocks "proxies" which generally include VPNs.

I think we are circling the drain of the right approach to this problem.

If Google's pool of qualified candidates were a "proper" mix of diversity, then I don't think they would need to have the practices outlined in the manifesto.

So encouraging women to get into STEM and to facilitate pulling talent from around the globe to get them into the pool of candidates is 100% the right move to address the diversity issue.

BUT, if women don't come in the numbers you need them to and your international outreach yields mostly asians... what do you do?

A hiring process is by nature a discriminatory event. Right?

You have a pile of resumes and you discriminate between the candidates during the selection process. This happens on a number of different criteria.

The criteria that we should not discriminate on are sex and race.

Anyone that doesn't agree with this is out of the mainstream.

The issue is that if you cannot discriminate on sex and race, and 90% (made up number) of your qualified candidates are men that are asian or white, then 90% of your workforce will be men that are asian or white.

So, then you have to make hard choices, guided by the current laws, and a desire to create a corporate culture.

If more than 50% of your users are women but only 10% (again, made up number) of your employees are women. AND you can legally choose a qualified woman over a qualified man. Then you have a good reason to hire the qualified woman over the qualified man.

TLDR; discrimination is part-and-parcel of the hiring process. discrimination on the basis of sex or race could be a legal and accepted thing for a company to do. discriminating on the basis of sex or race for bad reasons is bad.

This idea definently shapes the way I think of modern energy technology.

One of the best ways for long-term energy storage is to take something (like water) and move it to a higher spot.

We can take advantage of the decay of an atom to generate electricity, but if we want to use that energy later, we push water up a hill.

I guess I'm not thinking of it as a product to monetize but a data problem to solve.

I choose my weather services based on presentation, because they all basically rely on the forecasting from NOAA [in the states, at least and from what I can tell].

In my imagination of Google, they could slurp up all the public weather data and make it better and more relevant and more present than other websites.

But the incentives are probably not there and my imagination is probably out of touch with the difficulty of chaotic systems.