coffeevradar

It reduces use, but the people stubbornly still using tobacco are likelier to be poorer. No peer-reviewed studies are required to demonstrate that it's a regressive tax, any amount of "Think of the children!" posturing notwithstanding.

This article is quite touching, but so much of it is about one girl processing her grief for her mother. I was left wondering what sorts of things she would have used to occupy her time if she had been born in a different era and experienced the same loss.

I wonder how many others feel so uncomfortable visiting Gawker that they'll debate whether to click this link.

I did click it, and read the letter in its entirety. I found it utterly unconvincing: a last-ditch moral appeal from someone with absolutely no moral credibility.

It's like my nosy neighbor who only just started watching me when we made eye contact.

Because computers will somehow be more noble than human beings.

Wait, that doesn't make sense.

I have less faith in public radio because my local station is always playing Lumosity adverts. I'm old enough to remember when the whole "sponsored by" thing being extended to full ads was a controversial development on US public radio. Now they're shilling outright scams and doing so with specific promises that are completely specious.

I don't think "invective" means what you think it means.

Here's an English translation:

http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-with...

Here's Le Monde's English translation:

http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2015/11/24/clamping-down-with...

I don't care very much what contrarian things a freelance tech writer has to say about someone who has actually accomplished something. This seems like a brazen effort to attract outraged clicks.

And citing a satirical article, even if he's since corrected it, is a sign of very poor journalistic standards. Anybody worth their salt would know to be skeptical of a claim that Wozniak has a fragrance line and a hamburger chain.

> retains hair loss

I don't think I understand.

He comes off as so full of himself when he claims that the original programmers didn't know about the different ghosts' "personalities" (algorithms).

He's referring to this: http://home.comcast.net/~jpittman2/pacman/pacmandossier.html...

And there's just no way that the game's creators didn't know how they programmed the behavior of the ghosts. More likely they were humoring him and he took it as him "knowing more about the game than its creators" or whatever the quote was.

Plus, I would never claim to be able to execute a perfect score (or even a very impressive one) but I can definitely put Pac-man into a blind spot. His claim that "you couldn't do it even if I told you how" comes off as pretty egotistical.

Not sure I agree. My automotive paymasters have given me my biggest paycheck...well...ever.