adewinter

I think you're saying adults do not use profanity, but that doesn't really make sense.

> It conflates "deaths caused by pandemic" with "deaths caused by reactions to pandemic" with "deaths caused by random things that accidentally happened during the pandemic".

It is not "conflating". That's the actual point of the exercise here. It's asking, how would things have been had there not been a pandemic? How much impact did the pandemic have on the society, in TOTAL, OVERALL.

Right. So what's the point of having @deprecated tags and a deprecated fail mode if you can't ever use it?

At this point if you/your company is still using Flash I find it hard to sympathize with you. How did the company come to the conclusion that using Flash was a good business decision? It's been largely unsupported/disabled in mainstream browsers for _years_ now. They also knew for 3 years it was officially going to be deprecated in 2021. Sounds like despite that they continued to develop on the technology anyway?

If you do the above, your prod servers will always run in "deprecated allow" mode because developers continue to use (and add new) deprecated functionality. That's what the article is attempting to tackle.

Why not use profanity in code? We're all adults.

Excess Mortality is a tool used to attribute deaths to _the pandemic_. It is helpful for answering questions like "How well is <country> handling the Pandemic?" and for comparing performance between countries and comparisons over time.

The world may want to switch to ARM but right now there aren't really any options to switch _to_ right? Beyond Apple I can't think of any chip manufacturers offering desktop ARM cpus...

Interested to know what the alternative might be and why it would mean better uptime

1) why are you defending Facebook?

2) Facebook demands and aggressively enforces that your profile represents you and has your real name and other credentials associated with your identity. If your pseudonym gets reported it will definitely get banned.

3)

> With requiring payment comes the ability to trace where the money came from.

Yes that's true for literally every transaction on the internet when done with a credit card. Not sure why that's a problem.

> And that should be the right of everyone.

Facebook is a company selling a product. You do not and definitely should not have any "rights" on their private platform. Just like you do not and should not have the right to force a local business to trade with you if they do not want to.

So that's Blizzard. ACTIVISION on the other hand? (the other half of the same parent company): straight up killing it.

In fairness, the only real moneymakers from that list are Overwatch and Hearthstone. We could maybe add WoW to that list due to the die hard players still paying a subscription (if that's still a thing?) but Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft and basically hibernating IPs at this point. None of those hibernating IPs have seen any major movement or releases in _many_ years. Starcraft is still viable as it's considered to be a mainstay of completive RTS (and therefore great for branding of Blizzard in general) but I don't think it's earning them buckets of money.

So we're down to 2 properties making the majority of earnings, both on Free to Play but not Pay to Win models. That model has a very distinct shelf life of, I'd say, 5 years before you need to either release a sequel or change it up with a new IP.

If you think a startup can "screw" a VC/investor when it's selling for only a 2.6x multiple... You are incorrect.

I'll bite: the energy density of sunlight on average is something like 1.4 kW/m^2

If you put down a square meter of solar panel, weigh it and run it for an hour to get an equivalent wh/kg and compare to almost any other energy source (except maybe wind?) you will find it to be complete garbage.

The only thing solar has going for it is it's free, basically no waste products and you can find it literally anywhere on the surface of the earth.

Netherlands and Belgium do it too.

They rate USA 75% for corruption, and the (ex) British colonies as 100% for corruption. What does that mean? Is literally every single transaction in those places corrupt? "Out of 4" seems like a very poor way of doing this kind or rating.

Exactly, that's the other main thrust of my argument too.

So in the past some people took solutions to this problem to the extreme because they'd decided a certain set were "surplus to requirements". Obviously you're not advocating for that. Given that we are historically piss poor at correctly deciding who "is not contributing" and, actually, the "ship" still appears to be running (and if it isn't I strongly doubt it's because of the vagrancy of a few) is it really an issue whether a few don't actually do work/contribute?

I feel sad that so many posters here (and people I know in real life) seem to have such a myopic obsession with the idea that (homeless) people might use literally _any_ amount of money on Alcohol or other substances.

What is the deal with this? Do you judge your peers for using any of their money on alcohol/drugs? Why do you think that you are fit to judge how someone living a terribly hard life should spend their money on relief? Why does it matter? If I'm homeless and struggling and you give me $500, and I use $12 for a six pack of beer to celebrate... am I bad person suddenly? And where's the line? Two six packs? What about if I buy something else frivolous say a t-shirt for $30 when I could have gotten it at Target for $15, would you like to be the moral police on that purchase as well?

I would be very interested in seeing some sources about "at scale" UBI corresponding to a drop in GDP. My impression is that no countries have come anywhere close to having a UBI program that could be considered "at scale", so how did they evaluate a corresponding drop in GDP was because of a UBI program?

I don't think we have the right to decide who is a "chronic bad decision maker" and who is not. Does it matter? What exactly qualifies as "waste"? Do you have the right to decide what's wasteful and what's not? Ultimately that's what got us here in the first place: a welfare system that's woefully inefficient (because there's so much bureaucracy and red tape associated with using the money on the "right" things). Maybe we should just allocate a fixed national budget for social welfare, and distribute it equally to all takers. If you want to blow your $500 a month on booze.. why not? It's still good for the economy, and who knows, maybe you'll end up not blowing the money after a few months of agonizing hangover.

I'm curious about what you mean by "crying about all the luxuries we can't afford anymore". Who is doing that (crying)? What exactly are they saying? Is this just some sentiment that you picked up on social media or is there substantial evidence?

There's a fairly substantial body of research that shows that substance abuse is reduced when individuals are given the opportunity to do things that they find interesting and stimulating.

Maybe your grandpa was depressed and was self medicating? One anecdote doesn't really prove that full blown many year research studies are wrong.

> I'm not so sure that giving folks a small welfare check and putting them in highly subsidized public housing projects is the best solution.

The best solution to what problem, exactly? All of them?

> I'm sure it does reduce poverty and homelessness with some, but does it also increase unemployment and alcoholism?

It feels like you're shifting the goalposts here. Are you trying to find some kind of silver bullet where one "solution" solves all of these problems at the same time? Each of those "bromides" offers actual good solutions to each of those individual problems.

Notable also is that the OP did not call it "welfare" checks or "highly subsidized public" housing. Those extra qualifiers make it quite clear what your agenda/already made opinion is, even when you're attempting to hide it in conciliatory/placating language.

>> Less than 3% of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months

> That seems astonishingly low [...]

That depends. I would not be surprised if there were an order of magnitude more "developers with apps on the Play Store" than on the iOS store, simply because of the lower barrier to entry ($$ and lock in patterns pushed by Apple makes it harder to get started on iOS). So would that mean 3% is actually astonishingly high?

That's a fair point: if study subjects can't/won't adhere to the protocol why would we expect real world participants to do so? Either the study subjects adhered to the program and the results showed (little to) no improvement OR real people won't adhere to the program anyway and results will show (little to) no improvement.

There doesn't seem to be any information regarding adherence to the protocol. Did the participants manage to keep to either strictly Intermittent Fasting or a stern 3-meals-per-day-and-nothing-else program? Considering that the participants were all "Overweight" or "Obese", implying that the participants have historical issues with portion/calorie-intake control, that seems like a pretty important point to ignore.

Cool, I have absolutely no way of telling what this is or what it does without downloading it first?

Just because Ohanian asked doesn't mean they had to do it. One can therefore conclude that they still chose a suitable candidate and would have chosen a differently colored candidate could they not find a suitable black candidate.

Let a Level 1 job consist of doing tasks "foo", "bar" and "bash" on a daily basis.

Let Level 2 tasks consist of doing "aleph", "zeta" but also sometimes a little "foo".

Some L1 employee killing it in terms of time-taken-to-complete bars and bashes, as well as being solid at foo...

Is not the same as

Some L1 employee is [okay to above average] at their regular job responsibilities (foo, bar and bash) and every now and then handles aleph and zeta without trouble (and sometimes excels at it).

> After the fork, eth.getTransactionReceipt(…) will return a status field. The status field has a value of 0 when a transaction has failed and 1 when the transaction has succeeded.

I wonder why they chose to do it the wrong way around...