halpert

But only old people are using Facebook. While engagement around conflict works for all ages, each age group has a different set of conflicts they will engage with, so the content found on Facebook is specifically the stuff that makes old people fight with each other.

That sounds reasonable to me.

The article is really sparse on what information was missing. Neither the NRC or Oklo specified what else is needed. It’s probably wise to give both sides the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask someone to come on the show if they feel misinformation is being spread. A simple list of inaccuracies should suffice.

So the gas stove wasn’t causing elevated NO2 levels, but rather the furnace was? I’m confused as to what the conclusion is. Gas stoves ok, but furnaces not?

You can’t fathom it? On what basis?

Is there really a marginal cost to holding more money? Presumably they can buy treasury bonds and earn some interest off the holdings. In terms of data storage, is it really more expensive to store a positive number vs. zero?

I believe when awarding construction contracts, some of the deciders look at past projects, which could discount underbidding. Often, other engineers are deciding on the contracts, so they also have a general idea of how much it should cost.

But a corporation is a legal construct, and ownership of one isn’t anymore a right than having a drivers license. I believe it’s totally within the governments rights to regulate them differently than the individual citizens comprising the corporation.

I’ve lived in Germany for a number of years. My taxes were around 42% if I recall correctly. Plus 400 euros a month for health insurance. Oh, and don’t forget 25% of capital gains.

I do agree with you though: you get your money’s worth in Europe.

But your taxes are also much higher. You would pay more than 30K over 18 years most likely.

I think 30K is quite a reasonable cost. Parents have almost two decades to save the money, plus they can do so with a 529 plan and avoid capital gains taxes. Even saving $100 dollars a month invested in the market will net 42,000 after 18 years (assuming 7% return).

You just keep saying “you have property rights”, but aren’t saying where that right is written down in the law. It’s a pretty simple question with a definitive answer. I’m just pointing out that you believe something to be true without any basis. It’s dangerous.

But again, what property is being taken? Unless you consider “the right to buy stocks” as property itself, which seems tenuous. You basically could apply that to any such item: “the right to buy drugs”, “the right to buy nuclear weapons”, etc. This isn’t a value judgement on whether or not one should be able to buy prohibited items. Rather, it’s an observation that clearly the legal system does not interpret “the right to buy” as property covered by the constitution.

By the way, society does generally let you buy whatever you want. It’s only when your ownership of an item infringes the rights of others are you generally barred from owning something. E.g. you’re not allowed to buy nuclear weapons because they pose a danger to those around you. Allowing policy makers and their families to trade stocks also poses a danger that insider knowledge will be used for personal gain in the market. This is a form of theft against the market and public at large. What about the rights of everyone else?

So you can buy anything? Where is that right enshrined in the constitution?

My point is that you don’t own a stock until you buy it. So you can restrict the ability to buy a stock without impacting the someone’s ownership rights.

But buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it), so your property rights aren’t being violated.

But what about the profit that has already been made? Apple is taking 30% after all.

What part of the constitution protects the right to trade stocks?

Who are you referring to with won and lost?

If they were targeting Amazon, you would probably say "Targeting Amazon and not Google or Facebook for tech monopoly is not a good luck." You need to start somewhere. If you have a specific reason why Facebook is not a monopoly worthy of breaking up, then let's hear it. Some vague theory about not donating money doesn't cut it.

Galileo Galilei?

Hot air should have higher pressure, so theoretically you could get more displacement. But your pumps also have to work harder to create a pressure differential. Hard to say which effect would be bigger.

I used LinkedIn to get a job. There was a company I wanted to work for. I reached out to a recruiter at the company on LinkedIn via DM. He set up some time to talk that day, and a formal interview happened a week later. Couldn't have been easier.

The claims almost all say "via the user interface." (Not a user interface btw) The figures also contain detailed descriptions of the user interface. I know it's a trope that software patents are bad, but a generally broad patent of "controller for controlling" could have been challenged. The user interface was the main issue with this.

Wow that’s a crazy statistic. Do you have a source?

There were a number of patents in question. I'm specifically referring to this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en

Here is the abstract, you can see that it clearly is about the interface of creating and controlling the play group:

> A multimedia controller including a processor, the controller configured to: provide a user interface for a player group, wherein the player group includes a plurality of players in a local area network, and wherein each player is configured to playback a multimedia output from a multimedia source; accept an input to facilitate formation of the player group, indicating that at least two of the players in the local area network are to be included in the player group; for each of the plurality of players within the player group, accept an input to adjust a volume associated with the player, that causes the player to adjust its volume; and accept an input to adjust a volume associated with the player group, wherein the input to adjust the volume associated with the group causes the players in the player group to adjust their volumes.

> This application is a Continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 12/035,112, entitled “User Interfaces For Controlling And Manipulating Groupings In A Multi-Zone Media System”

Again, it’s not the controlling of the speakers that was patented, it was the UI for grouping them and controlling them. Bluetooth headphones generally have the same controls as normal headphones, so they wouldn’t apply to this patent.

I don’t really consider using the services of a public company with thousands of different investors the same thing as directly purchasing the fruits of slave labor. If Uber drivers were slaves themselves, then that would be more comparable to me.

From my reading of the patent, it's not that the concept of speaker groupings was patented. Rather, a specific UI for showing and modifying the groupings and adjusting the volume. Unfortunately, there aren't many different ways to represent groupings in a UI.