bartart

Since China essentially steals intellectual property from companies of every country, Trump should really focus on building a coalition of concerned countries rather than going off alone.

Facebook should really try offering a subscription that matches their revenue per user in that country. In the US it would be under $2 per month. Maybe no one will sign up but they have no excuse for not trying. This is such an obvious solution to privacy concerns that they'll probably be forced to do it in Europe with onerous new rules in a few years if they do nothing.

People at Berkeley view this class as kind of a joke. The average grade is insanely high and the topics are covered in much less depth than just the normal intro cs or stats classes.

https://www.berkeleytime.com/grades/?course1=7765-all-all

The constitutional powers of the Supreme Court are widely known to be somewhat limited. Congress can and has repeatedly limited the supreme court's and lower courts' ability to review laws. Under the US constitution, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction" and "In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

It is generally accepted that Congress could theoretically prevent the Supreme Court from hearing all other cases, so long as a different court could hear the case so that there is judicial review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

It is also a bit of a strange comparison since the weapons produced today are hundreds of times more powerful than the ones produced sixty years ago. It seems like the US or Russia will prominently decommission old bombs and people will hail the lower number of nuclear weapons but in reality the total amount of destructive force in the nuclear arsenal long term is the same or greater.

Hardware in general seems to become more commoditized. In China Apple has lost market share to local firms that produce cheap phones with good specs. And most people there spends a lot their time in WeChat anyway so the phone's OS isn't as important.

As this commoditization happens over time, hardware also seems to reach a point of just being good enough. You can see this today with people deciding that their iPhone 6 is good enough and they don't need an iPhone X.

Apple obviously realizes this and is trying to diversify its revenue with increased growth in its services area, but a lot of those services are directly tied to its iPhone. If people buy fewer new iPhones that is bad for Apple, and if people buy a cheaper competitors' phone that is doubly bad for Apple because it doesn't get services revenue from that person either.

It seems like it would be best for the foundation to sell Newman's and use the proceeds to create an endowment. They could use investment gains from the endowment over time to find their charitable mission, and it would also be good because their assets wouldn't be so concentrated in the food business, which is hyper competitive and pretty low margin.

Does this mean that many CVSs will become magnets for sick people as CVS tries to integrate more basic health services into its stores?

I realize that most people going to an expanded minute clinic aren't going to be some sort of walking dead, but it seems that if CVS tries to make its stores too much like primary care with ill people going to get prescriptions from a doctor, then people will avoid buying things at its stores to avoid getting sick.

It just seems like the US court decided that the Australian court had no jurisdiction over the EFF. But does the Australian court agree with the US court's ruling? It may or it may not. Evidently the Australian court at one point believed it had jurisdiction because it took up the case in the first place and issued a ruling. To me just as an observer it seems that the Australian court gets to decide what is under its jurisdiction.

This is good for the EFF in the short term, but what if the Australian court finds that the EFF is ignoring its order and so must pay fines?

Perhaps in response to US court saying "the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF", the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia. The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia. Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries.

This sort of problem could become more common, such as the case that Google lost where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove results in violation of Canadian law from all Google results worldwide.

The job was important for this woman who needed to pay for her daughter's college and granddaughter's disease. Now the job goes to someone in Mexico who might also need it to pay for their daughter's college or granddaughter's rare disease. Is there a plan to help these Americans? People like Trump or Sanders seem to want some sort of forced reshoring, which is essentially taking the job away from the Mexican worker to give it back to the American one. But how is that fair?

I am in college right now, and after one year I and a friend got summer internships. I made $43 per hour and my friend got just under $8000 per month plus heath insurance, which was nice because she is on Medicaid. I was surprised I got an internship because my grades aren't the best, but I did apply to a lot of places. This was after freshman year of college, so neither of us had taken more than five CS classes, in total, in our whole lives. Neither of us had any programming experience before coming to college.

Over that summer we were both able to pay off our first years worth of student loans for the tuition that finaid didn't cover. A different friend of mine took last semester off to work at Apple, and got free housing right by the new spaceship campus thing.

There are a ton of recruiting events on campus, and the place I worked over that summer offered to hire me part time over the year. Obviously life isn't all about internships, but being able to pay tuition and send money home is a giant plus. People say college is lame, but I think if you can get in somewhere decent or even not that great it would be a good choice. I also know a ton of transfer students from community college who are in their mid to late twenties and less commonly in their thirties. You could always just apply to some places and see how that goes before making a final decision.

One other thing is that I am taking a lot more math than I thought I would have to when I came in as a freshman, so just make sure you like math.

Is it not a problem that Singapore is right on the ocean? Does anyone know if there risk of flooding or anything?

It appears that when local cities have control over housing, they make decisions that are good for them, but bad for the state that needs higher paying jobs that generate tax revenue. Plus low density housing is bad for the environment when compared to high density: http://news.colgate.edu/scene/2014/11/urban-legends.html

Other places would move heaven and earth to have a place like Silicon Valley and it seems like California is shooting itself in the foot with this self inflicted housing shortage.