orra

Plausible, but I would have thought if it's gradual, there would be a recovery.

But maybe Satoshi has substantial other Bitcoin, not associated with the pseudonym, so they don't want to take any chances?

The thing I don't understand: if Satoshi is still alive, surely they'd have spent some of that money. They're filthy rich, so why not enjoy it?

I get that you can't cash out 5% of any market in one go, without tanking prices. But you can do it gradually.

Here is an example test which checks specifically for virus induced antibodies: <https://monitormyhealth.org.uk/covid19-antibody-test/>. Non-profit Testing for All also used to sell similar tests, but they have stopped operating.

In contrast this test does not distinguish between virus and vaccine as the cause: <https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/coronavirus-antibody-test...>.

I don't have a better approach than checking the descriptions of individual antibody tests. But I know the distinction is real, because IIRC the ONS (statistics body) used tests which distinguished, when they ran their ongoing study.

Some blood antibody tests can distinguish between viral induced antibodies versus infection induced antibodies.

However, antibodies decrease with time. (We have memory T-cells etc for long term immunity). Whilst I am not an expert, I would be very surprised if virtual induced antibodies were still detectable.

What you describe: it is very possible you had COVID, but it is also very possible you had a bad flu. There are other viruses too, like RSV, which used to be rarely mentioned, but at times can be nasty.

You've been downvoted but you're right. Banning drugs doesn't stop consumption.

However, drugs bans can shift people from safer drugs to borderline-legal but unsafer drugs. It also prevents people getting purer drugs, leading to unsafe mixtures. And there is a chilling affect on safe consumption information, as well as accessing medical treatment.

> these people are spoiling it for the rest.

These people aren't spoiling it for the rest. The government was always going to ban it because:

(a) the government and the opposition always favour authoritarian drugs laws; and

(b) they are unpopular and (due to ideology) incapable of solving real problems, so they announce terrible policies instead.

Yes, coax (and DOCSIS) is far better than a telephone wire (and DSL).

True, this affected citizens abroad more than normally. But otherwise, I reject the notion that citizenship is more important than residency. If you want a say in the UK, live there.

The fact that countries (including the UK) disenfranchise non-citizen residents isn't ideal either.

I don't see why UK citizens abroad should get a vote; they should vote abroad.

You're right that 16 year olds deserve a vote. It's their future, and 16 year olds are smart and politically engaged.

Also there were huge other legitimacy issues, like dodgy donations. And data breaches and highly, highly targeted advertising, allowing Cambridge Analytics to buy a result.

That's on top of the leave prospectus (essentially, EFTA + EEA, before the vote) being reinterpreted as the hardest Brexit imaginable.

Unbridled nonsense.

From the FAQ:

> Why did it take you so long to negotiate?

> The conditions for associating the UK were not opportune, in view of the overall EU-UK relationship. The agreement on the Windsor Framework allowed association talks to resume. Therefore, it is now time to move forward with the final steps for associating the UK.

Yes, that's an EU source, but it's right. Before the Windsor Framework, the UK was routinely threatening to break the trade agreement it had only just ratified.

It's the Xlinks project.

This is where I got the 16bn figure: <https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/sectors/energy/uk-morocco-s...>. This source says £20 billion, but half is for the cable, and the other half the solar farm and other expenses: <https://sifted.eu/articles/xlinks-morocco-uk-electricity-cab...>.

Reporting is a bit inconsistent. My point is, transmitting electricity extremely long distances has its own downsides (construction costs & power losses), even if we assume Morocco gets a fair deal out of this.

And this project is "only" 7% of UK electricity supply. What of the rest? What of other countries? Saying "export" and "import" doesn't solve all the problems of intermittency (unfortunately).

Well, it will also cost an estimated £16 billion, to build two high capacity electricity transmission lines from Morocco to the UK. You can build a lot of capacity locally for that price.

More directly, property is a social construct. A useful one, yes, and one we consider a right. But that doesn't make tax unfair. Good luck enforcing your property rights without a society, and preferably without violence.

The real world tends not to be full of absolutes. It's unhelpfully reductive to go from "property is a right" to "taxation is theft".

Their "Magestic" app, which sounds like it provides key functionality, is closed source.

We were specifically talking about comp sci, not software engineering [sic]. Yes, software engineering is way less rigorous. It is hardly is maths—or comp sci for that matter.

No? Applied maths is maths, so applying maths does not stop maths from being maths.

Of course, computing is closer to pure math than applied maths. Computing is applied pure maths, perhaps.

Quite right. I remember Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science documenting a few examples. I hope these are the same examples raised in the letter, because otherwise a lot of miscarriage of justice has happened in the UK.

What I remember from the book is entirely innocent people jailed because the wrong statistical question was asked. IIRC along the lines of two deaths, and the question asked was what is the chance of this happening? As opposed to, assuming the first death, what is the chance of the second? As opposed to, assuming two deaths, what is the chance of bad luck versus malice.

(I am not commenting on the Letby case per se. AIUI there is an appeal pending and UK law can be rather strict. Simply, we should not respond to possible horrible events by convicting other people who are innocent of statistical flukes, or misrepresented statistics.)

Precisely 12 months later. Cutting it fine!

That sounds shockingly non-PCI compliant.

> Even standing in person at hotel the person at the desk cant even match the online price. Not empowered to.

True, but not uncommon! Captive market.

Despite labels $a$, $b$, $c$, I don't see how it's fully general. At best you could say it works for similar triangles, if you have that concept.

But I don't see how it proves anything if $a$ were say doubled, and $b$ kept the same.

> It becomes a theorem when you prove (i.e. explain why) this relationship always holds, based on more evident things. [...] whereas the Greeks definitely did (we don't know whether Pythagoras himself did it

Wait, really? I thought the proofs back then were geometric, so only proved specific instances. And so it wasn't until algebra, maybe trig, was discovered it was properly proven?

Why would you assume that? A, nobody wants to murder eight cats. B, it'd probably be illegal.

> The larynges were harvested from animals that had to be euthanised due to terminal disease unrelated to the respiratory tract in veterinary clinics in Vienna, Austria. The animals’ owners gave their explicit consent for the larynges to be investigated postmortem.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's just an excuse to fire people for not complying. Which then isn't baffling, just cynical and cruel.

You're completely underestimating the effort involved in maintaining a web browser. These forks are deliberately friendly.

... which are soft forks of which browser? Firefox.

100% this. Folks used to lament Firefox for being slow. And for me it would freeze for seconds sometimes, because of synchronous extensions APIs.

Removing XPCOM, switching to multiprocess, and switching to asynchronous Web Extensions was absolutely vital technologically. Perf is good now.

Yeah, the paraphrasing here is misleading.

Ironically the topic is intellectual honesty.

Making changes for the sake of it doesn't stop plagiarism being plagiarism. More charitably, “substantially different” is not a high enough bar when you literally just read the other author's patch.

Besides, even if your method is genuinely original, it's only fair to credit the work you're building on. If you're writing an academic paper and come up with a whole new mathematical approach algorithm, you still reference the previous best algorithm.

> It seems like they’re only interested in OSS when a) they get credit

That's incredibly reasonable. Not crediting them is plagiarism.

Moreover, even most permissive open source licenses require attribution.