averagewall

Sure, that kind of stereotyping by parents teaching their children to be bigots is probably harmful overall! Harmful neighbor country rivalries last centuries, probably because of just this kind of reinforcement. Then every now and then you get a Kosovo or a holocaust.

Nevermind fellow citizens. The NSA openly spies on other countries people and certainly doesn't do it with their interests at heart. Americans hypocritically don't like being spied on but they're more than happy to do it to everyone else.

You wouldn't need nuclear. It could surface for solar/wave generation as needed. That wouldn't necessarily slow it down because the reduced cost would allow you to have more of them operating simultaneously.

Native used to mean machine code for the hardware but there's so little of that nowadays that I think people often use it to mean anything that's more tied to one platform than a web app so it's a bit ambiguous.

Most people shot in the US are already involved in a problem beforehand. You're not at much risk as a stranger. Death by driving or overeating are more realistic risks in the US. It's like worrying about terrorism. It really does only happen to other people.

That happened in New Zealand a few years ago. The police missed their target (an actual active shooter running on foot) and instead killed the driver of a nearby van. I don't know how you can be trained to use a gun and not learn about looking at what you're shooting it at.

Would anyone else honestly blame tech companies for generating the costs of deradicalizing UK people? Doesn't the blame lie more on the people themselves or the ones radicalizing them? The UK is free to block access to parts of the internet if it thinks is people aren't fit to safely access it.

Stop radicalization by limiting free speech and spying on everyone's communications? That's similar to what America did with McCarthyism. Communism is arguably more deadly and harmful than Islamic extremism but we accept it as a tolerable non-thought-crime today. Why can't people accept Islamic extremism in the same way? What happened to the idea of freedom of political thought?

It's terrible that you can buy expensive security camera systems that still store the data locally so thieves can steal the evidence too. Even an old cellphone with motion detection and a cloud uploading app might have helped identify the people.

In CAD, it's called parametric modeling, at least the part about being able to regenerate from the start. "feature-based" seems to be the aspect of having features attached to other features in a tree structure rather than a linear sequence of operations.

Huh? We stopped using lead in petrol about 40 years ago. You do have to make a tradeoff between keeping the economy going and unknown risks. We continued to use concrete despite early fears about the danger of cement dust. We still use social media despite fears about psychological problems. We still drive cars despite the high danger of death. Nothing's perfectly safe. We even still have babies knowing that all of them will die, and worse males will probably die sooner than females. Abort male foetuses for their own safety? You have to draw a line somewhere.

It may be an overall improvement in efficiency, but it's not going to help patients long term. Whoever pays for the ambulances is going to eventually reduce their funding because they're being under used and revert them to the same state they were in before. If that wasn't the case, then they would have already been paying for more ambulances before Uber came along.

A bit off the topic but I always wondered why social scientists need funding or even a university for their experiments. I mean the kind where they put 20 people in a room and show them some pictures and ask them some questions. What resources do you need?:

Time - do it as a hobby so it's limited to people who are passionate about discovering something, not just trying to rack up points.

Access to human subjects - get people off the street. Universities can make access to student subjects easier but they're not representative of the world's people anyway so it's not that valuable.

Money to pay the human subjects - save up? People who're passionate about cars, for example, somehow find the money to build modified cars and don't need funding.

Ability - With the oversupply of researchers, maybe just leave it to those who can do it under their own steam? Hopefully undergrad degrees taught them enough to get started. This article says that university researchers aren't doing it with skill anyway but with luck or cheating.

Motivation - if nobody can be bothered investigating some effect, then maybe it's not really that interesting anyway and there's not much value in studying it?

What am I missing?

I find that when you're talking about technical things on the internet, it's best to assume the other person knows common knowledge and only doesn't know the idea you're trying to express. It's almost impossible that the GP didn't know V=A*h so pointing it out is more of an insult than anything useful.

Actually the lower bound for sea level rise by 2100 predicted by IPCC (0.2 m) is about the same as the natural rate of rise that's been happening since the ice age. So, no, we're not sure climate change will cause significant sea level rise in the near future, although we are pretty sure it'll rise.

People often say that about climate change but isn't it fairly general and obvious that widespread problems hurt poor people the most? In a food shortage, the people who can't afford for food starve first. In developed coastal land shortage, the people who can't afford mitigations have their lives disrupted the most. When a war happens, the people who can't afford to flee get caught up in it. People who can't afford to move out of a high crime neighborhood are more often victims of crime. Disease causes more harm to people who can't afford medicine.

Is being poor really more desirable for anything? Perhaps instead of worrying about global warming, we should solve poverty, then they won't be affected so badly.

This is a bit of a nitpick but saying a country has nice people bothers me. It sounds like an empty platitude when they don't have much else to be proud of. Do you really mean Indonesians are nicer than people from somewhere else? What countries don't have nice people?

It did stop the TPP trade agreement which would have extended copyright terms in other countries.

That's not as important as the fact that it spies on foreigners and hacks their computers. Americans somehow decided spying and hacking is OK as long as it's being done to others, not themselves. They shouldn't be surprised that other countries hold the reciprocal views.

It's still politicians that pass laws. Politicians are voted for by American people. Those people just can't help themselves voting for the most well funded candidates. They're blind to the fact that their so called free will choice is determined by lobbyist's payments and refuse to vote for underfunded candidates.

Whenever someone says they're sure of a crash, I assume their true feeling is isn't confidence of a crash but frustration at having missed out. Have you shorted Bitcoin? That would help you to profit from your belief.

Instead of demanding net neutrality, why don't Americans want rule changes that would enable competition among ISPs? Wouldn't that solve many more problems - like low speeds and high prices as well?

> it would be ~90% of your after tax take home pay. Why? Because you'll pay.

What's to stop a competitor offering it for 89%? And so on until the market finds its fair price.

IQ strongly predicts academic success. Whatever other forms of intelligence it might be missing, are either unknown or don't correlate with academic success so strongly. Google is concerned with academic success and so IQ is also bound to be a strong predictor of hireability by Google. Maybe Kenyans are better at running but so what?

Are you saying that it's right to stifle ideas because they're difficult or or people will be abused for sharing them? That's enforcing your culture on people. Why not let arguments stand or fall on their own without the need to attack the people making them?

Culture is often promoted as the explanation precisely because it's easy. That doesn't make it right.

Only if you learnt about the topic from popular politically correct culture. The relationship between race and IQ has been well established in psychology for almost as long as IQ has existed. They can't seem to stop testing it again and again. There have been studies controlling for culture, income, country's level of development, all sorts. But race still remains significant. Some of those other factors are too, since average African IQ is lower than African American.

Strangely, hiring your friends is seen as corruption when it's for the government, but it's somehow the proper way to do things for the private sector. If companies really do exist to serve potential employees, then we should require them to do that fairly. However, if they're there to provide value for their customers, then maybe it doesn't matter who's friends they hire or what race they or how the discriminate. Nobody has a right to work at Google.

It's present behaviour is no better, and that's something you, if you're an American, can actually influence.

In this case, it turns out the relocation did cause problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Atol...

This "finger wagging" is chronic in any article related to some kind of environmental change made by people. There's really no disaster here. Far more nuclear bombs were exploded in California. Far more rocks and soil were disturbed for construction, land reclamation, mining, canal digging, farming, etc. all over the world. There's nothing sacred about the ground which says we should feel sad or shameful about modifying it. I would say blowing up some islands just to see what would happen is fantastic for both fun and science.

People displaced? Being displaced isn't, on its own, a tragedy. I'm sure those islanders didn't become some stateless, homeless street urchins. They probably did just fine in their new home. I will probably never be able to live in my childhood neighborhood because I've been priced out of the property market. That's a common story, but so what? I have no complaints at all about it and wouldn't want to suppress other people's economic activity just so I can feel familiar about my surroundings.