leeleelee

Because then you're just applying a subjective set of rules and only protecting speech you agree with. The purpose of free speech is to ensure a world where no entity (such as the government) can dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable speech based on the sole views whatever party happens to be in control. I.e. do you want a trump administration to modify free speech to be "mostly free speech, except for extremists"? Do you think your view of extremists closely aligns with their view?

From his facebook post:

"If your executive team is mostly white guys I'm staying away too"

Um, what? Why does the race or ethnicity of the exec team have anything to do with anything? Insert any race into that sentence. Completely ridiculous. This guy is a nutball, and so is the company culture.

https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015527865493465...

This is 110% true: "Their way of doing things may get huge returns consistently...until it doesn't."

And most people will never fully understand that until it happens to them. Then you have this eye opening moment, and you understand.

This was my thought too. Poker is quite "solvable" meaning, whenever you're confronted with a decisions -- there is always a "correct" answer which does not have to depend on the other players' behavior or style. And you can find that answer by simulation, or game trees, and other methods.

It's also important to keep in mind that the best AI can still lose, and the worst AI can still win (and everything in between). Poker involves randomness, obviously whereas chess/go/etc does not.

Sorry, I did the porn redirect.

<img> onerror xss...

People don't want to leave their bubbles, for the fear of uncovering uncomfortable truths. For example, I have friends who flat out refused to read any of the WikiLeaks e-mails that could potentially reveal something bad about Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, or any entity on the left.

That's just how some (probably a lot of) people are. When some people encounter something that challenges your pre-existing beliefs, it's easier to just ignore it and stay in your bubble of comfort.

And that mindset, IMO, is not an easy thing to fix.

Can we just blanket every ISIS controlled region with some of this microwave energy and send their communications ability back to the stone age?

To play devil's advocate, we could use the same line of thinking to incriminate the Clinton's. In fact, a lot of people have done so. And they get labeled conspiracy theorists or idiots for not having "facts" to back up their claims.

I'm not bringing this point up to start a side tangent argument, but just pointing out that in this election cycle, a lot of people held pre-existing beliefs and would justify them in any way they could (i.e. cognitive dissonance).

You only know that in hindsight. The FBI didn't know if anything was there before they had a chance to investigate, and they also didn't know how soon the investigation could be completed. So, yes, they did risk a possible scenario of coverup accusations if they decided to not notify congress the moment they started investigating again.

I'm not asking only how Trump would benefit Russia, but what evidence exists to suggest that this entire ordeal was some elaborate scheme concocted by the Russian government?

EDIT: If this claim was such a stark truth, surely there must exist a smoking gun somewhere? So, where is the evidence?

What evidence exists to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt by Russia to influence the results of the US election in a way that would benefit them?

When I read this, I actually came away with the impression that he was able to accurately and eloquently express certain ideas/beliefs/concepts that I agree with and can grasp in my own mind, but I would be unable to express these same ideas coherently to another human being.

Another interesting thing about the war on drugs is that during prohibition, the constitution was amended for the government to legally be able stop the sale of alcohol. On the other hand, for other "hard" drugs, there is nothing in the constitution that supports the criminalization of drugs. Unless I am missing something.

Completely aside from that fact, I do agree that it should be treated as a public health issue. Not a criminal matter.

What you say is true. However, I think a lot of millenials draw incorrect conclusions like assuming this is "unfair!" Perhaps things are just back to normal now? Who's to say what college and housing should cost? Who's to say how much jobs should pay? I always preach about self empowerment. Too many millenials whine, cry, point their fingers, share memes on facebook, get angry, and blame the world around them for how "unfair" the times are. I'm within the millenial age bracket. But I focus on the things I can control, like how much I spend. How much I save. How hard I work. And never ever ever does it creep into my mind that things are unfair. I never blame the rest of the world for my own hardships. Keep focusing on what you need to do, meaning the things you can actually control in your life, and your standard of living will improve. Not over night. We still live in a great country where anybody, in any circumstances, can overcome any struggle at all with enough hard work and persistence. This is the message we should be sending to millenials, not victimizing them.

I want the raw data so I can study it for myself.

I am happy to be proven wrong if the data supports it. I am also not ashamed to make speculations which are backed by logic; which is what I have done. If I am wrong then so be it. But I don't think this supports the discrimination hypothesis. In fact I think you are the one with subconscious bias, and I'll explain why. What I essentially state was "hey I have a hunch that this is the way things are, but I am not certain." You, on the other hand, have jumped to a concrete conclusion based off of a single NY times article that happens to align with your preconceived notion. That is the kind of bias that results in discrimination today. You have jumped to a concrete conclusion based off one article. Re-read my post and see how I specifically use language like "probably" and "I'd bet." The difference is I form opinions and hypotheses, but do not jump to premature conclusions that I think are absolute certainties (unlike what you have done). I keep my mind open and moldable, never stating things with 100% certainty unless there is sufficient evidence. You confidently state "Nope. Male nurses still make more..." -- which in my opinion, is premature to conclude based on a single NY times article.

Nursing is a field dominated by women. And there are very large salary gaps between nurses with 0-10 years of experience and nurses with 10-20 years of experience. I'd also bet that there are much more women with 10-20 years of experience than men. So if you broke it down in the same way as the tech industry and did not control for job title or years of experience, you'd find a reverse gender gap in the same way you see in the tech industry. Controlled for job title and experience, you'd probably find it equal just like this study shows. I don't think there is any more discrimination in the tech industry when it comes to salaries than there is in nursing. I think both do not suffer from gender discrimination.

FYI, he meant if there were 1M people in a random geographic area with a dam that was going to collapse, would all of those 1M people be Obama supporters? The answer is no, there would be a mix.

How exactly that works is beyond my knowledge, can anyone here confirm it's as easy as he says?

I seem to remember some recent articles about MSFT which detailed how they had really turned things around. They've been missing the boat for years, and finally got their act together. They had a really aggressive goal for getting windows 10 on XYZ millions of devices by June or July this year. And now....this?! This does not fit Satya Nadella's recent narrative. Why would MSFT do this?

I have the S3 and I can't wait to upgrade. It is SLOW (noticeable lag). Plus, not sure what causes this (hardware or software) -- but the GPS navigation is terrible. I'm stuck on Android 4.4.2. Takes forever to lock in on my location, loses signal randomly, and sometimes in the middle of navigation it stop updating where I am on the visual display. The camera is horrendous. So, speak for yourself. Phones have come a long way since the S3.

I'm curious, does anyone consider subverting a paywall (even if it's as simple as googling the article title in incognito mode) as being akin to media pirating? At least on an ethical level.

So you are biologically a male, you identify as a female, and you wanted to use the female bathroom?

I think that if, as a society, we decide that gender access to restrooms is not based on physical gender but instead based on how you self-identify -- then as society we should completely eliminate the separation of bathrooms for males and females.

Agree or disagree?

I am slightly confused -- who's landlord was illegally discriminating against you? The landlord for the office your company rented? How were they singling you out and discriminating against you?

It's pretty common. Now that you know what it means, you'll grow to like it.

FYI I believe they meant emergencies as in, any kind of medical service or procedure that your life may depend on. Which does not automatically mean the "emergency room." I.e. a much-needed surgery, drug, testing, etc.

This happens all of the time, people cannot go see a doctor or receive a medication because of an insurance goof up. And then they have to wait. And wait. And legal remedies are not guaranteed to solve the problem, and such remedies should not be relied upon as a fallback for untrained insurance salespeople.

What exactly are you trying to convince us of? That insurance sales should be have no licensing requirements? And you're hinging your argument on the fact that it is "financial" and not "health" related (which like I said above is not true). In that case are you also in support of getting rid of licensing and other regulations in the banking and finance industry?

I think the best solution, for now, is to just regularly check your full credit report for anything you don't recognize and watch your credit card, debit card statements for any purchases you don't recognize.

I've had credit cards get compromised in the past, and it was actually quite painless to have my bank (Chase) shut the card down and issue a new one.

Your information can be stolen from SO MANY sources and not just Amazon customer service. It's impossible to guarantee who sees any of your personal information once you share it with ANYONE on the internet (Amazon, Google, some random retailer, domain registrar, etc.).

The server at your local Applebees could steal your CC info.

Be sensible with where you share personal information, but don't be unreasonable. It's safe to use Amazon.

Just watch your credit report (regardless of whether you feel you're at high risk) and bank statements.

If/when a problem arises, then deal with it.

There's a saying something along the lines of:

"if somebody owes you a million dollars, they've got a problem. if somebody owes you a billion dollars, then you've got a problem."

I could be totally wrong, I'm not an economist -- but I think you encounter problems when you want to earn, let's say, 10% on $80 billion. To give an extreme example:

If you give me $1 and want a 100% return on your money, then hell yes I can double your money in a day and give you back $2. If you give me $1 million then I'm going to have trouble earning you much more than whatever a savings account offers, like 2%, because I don't have a way to put that much money to work.

Money doesn't magically grow, you give capital to somebody who's going to do something with it like pay some workers to produce a widget and sell them, making more money than they spent building widgets. When retail investors put money in a bank or in the stock market and it grows, it seems like it's just an automatic outcome. But somebody on the other end, after the money changes hands hundreds of thousands of times, has to be able to put that money to work.

Where are corporations collectively just going to dump trillions of dollars and expect it to magically grow?

I'm inclined to think that very, very few people (including myself) really know:

(a) What exactly is income inequality? Can you define it with some type of formula or methodology? Are we using the gini coefficient, atkinson index, decile ratios, etc? Article authors mostly use vague references to "income inequality" and "the top 1%" and "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer" etc without really knowing what they are talking about.

(b) Once we've defined what exactly we're talking about, now let's talk about it's effects...positive or negative. Is this bad because money is pooled up and not being spent on consumer goods? Is it bad just because people think it's unfair? How is all of this extra income at "the top" being used? Invested into stock markets, into private startups, sitting in a bank account, buying yachts, etc? Where is all this extra income flowing to?

(c) Next, how do we measure the effect of inequality (b)?

(d) If we fix inequality, does it automatically fix the negative effects from (b) above? Or is it possible that inequality is only correlated with the supposed effects from (b) and there does not exist a causal relationship like we thought?

I am continually frustrated when I see articles getting passed around social media and getting in the heads of "regular people" when the article author doesn't really know what they're talking about, the person reading the article doesn't understand what they're reading, and the end result is emotionally charged people angry at the world for some [maybe real or maybe not] reason that they probably can't even articulate.

n=2 in your analysis...don't be fooled by randomness