robotcookies

We can always keep a few in labs around the world in the very small chance they do serve a useful purpose.

> I'd rather just work and spend my money and experience things during that time.

That makes sense if the things you enjoy cost a lot. But not everyone needs a lot of money to do things they enjoy. For those people, the real cost of having a day to day job is time. For example, I may really enjoy biking and that is a hobby which does not require much money - but it does need daylight and with a full time job you lose the majority of that.

That's the point of the investigation. Many things could have happened. Maybe the driver fell asleep, maybe he tried to move the wheel and it got stuck. Maybe the car slipped on a patch and had nothing to do with autopilot. We don't know yet. It takes time to review witnesses, multiple sources of information and that's the NTSB's job.

Tesla seems to think they know exactly what happened after only reviewing data collected from the car. They see what they want to see and have become blind to any other possibility. I think that's terrifying. I couldn't trust an automaker with that kind of arrogance.

Which is why they keep trying to push the app on you. I've gotten emails from Facebook saying a friend wants me to download messenger. Like, huh? Why would they care if I'm using an app or a browser?

The labels we assign start to have significance. 12 has significance as lunch time to most. 9 am may be when business starts.

When I say they are just re-labeling numbers, I mean that if someone now gets hungry at 1pm instead of 12, that individual will start to act accordingly. It's possible that people will start to eat at 1pm and the significance of those clock numbers starts to change accordingly.

Maybe that happens or maybe not. My point is they established their significance for a reason. But imagine if a group of people who got hungry at 11am all the time decided it was good to establish 11am as lunch time by calling it noon.

Let's say that society decides that 8 am is appropriate to start business. Most businesses open around that time. Let's say to provide a reference, that 8am is 1 hour after sunrise on June 10. By pushing the time forward, 8am is now when the sunrises on June 10. You have effectively made everyone start the day at sunrise instead of 1 hour after sunrise.

This is definitely a morning-person thing. People who are functional earlier benefit over those who aren't.

By 'earlier', I mean that in terms of our biological clocks. Some people are prone to sleeping later after the sun goes down and getting up later while others are the opposite.

This is really just re-labeling the numbers for time. So now, 9 am is called 10 am.

Alternatively, they are forcing people to wake up earlier but this effect may not last for long. By 'earlier' I mean it in the sense of our biological clocks.

There is something about people who push for permanent daylight savings. They are usually morning people who can't seem to (or want to) understand that what works for them is not necessarily what works for everyone. Many students especially are hurt by early schedules because that causes them to not get enough sleep.

Give students a choice. Let them do their own research and figure out what is best for them and offer more than one option for an intro to programming class.

Maybe a naive question, but couldn't they just stay in armored vehicles that are bullet proofed and agree not to fire until they are fired upon?

Dictionary makers used to do something similar. They would make up words to detect if a competitor was copying them. Map makers before the internet also did this- make up places to detect copying.

I don't know if they still do this. I haven't seen a physical dictionary in a while. Now with online maps and navigation I don't think map data providers can afford the risk of a navigation system misdirecting someone due to an imaginary place.

But it's possible some of these things took a life of their own. Say someone saw a made up word and started using it because they thought it was real. Or a made up park name for an open area led someone to start using it and others to start calling it that. I don't know if that actually happened but it's possible.

What password manager do you recommend?

Is Amazon forcing us to install their products even if we don't use it, and crippling our OS if we try to remove it? No. Is Amazon taking control of small companies for their IP and then using it to sue competitors with frivolous lawsuits? (a la sco). Are they suing customers for using competing products? No, I don't think Amazon is doing these things.

That link only really gets into the fact that they have a large market share. That alone does't make them a 90s era Microsoft.

Does this account for the size of the pieces? Every time they fragment, the pieces would get smaller making it less likely to hit another.

I think there is a difference here. With Tulips, all the buyers were people intending to sell at a higher price. Initially, yes people bought them for the product itself. But it came to point where all the buyers were just interested in reselling them. They were buying for price appreciation and not the product itself.

With sneakers it's different because the prices paid are by people interested in the product itself. In that sense this is more like comic books or baseball cards. And these things can keep their high prices indefinitely.

For at least 10 years it's been known that alzheimer's victims show deposits of aluminum in their brains. There was no conclusive cause-effect shown though. But I've been avoiding aluminum for ten years now - to be on the safe side. It's also easy enough to avoid aluminum.

You included an interesting link. I think the difference between someone who has not yet boarded and someone who has already boarded is significant in terms of the time, effort and expectations of the individual.

"The goal here is to use 1990 and 2000 Census data on home prices to predict home prices in 2010. If those models prove robust, we can use the model to forecast for 2020."

Selectively picking factors that worked in the past to predict what will happen in the future is like picking stocks based on what worked in the past- "Gee, oil and energy companies skyrocketed from 1990 to 2000, so oil and energy companies will rock from 2010 to 2020!!"

It's not the only factor, but it's often mentioned as an important one.

If he's hearing it from politicians/public officials then he should name who made such comments. Since it's the base of his argument that Uber is killing transit, it's important to cite where he heard it.

Writer claims "I am constantly told that Uber will make transit obsolete."

Who exactly are the people telling this writer that Uber will make transit obsolete? I live in a city where public transportation is very popular and have not once, ever heard this.

The reality is public transit use is surging in popularity. Public ridership is up 39% since 1995 (you know, when most people did not have internet or smartphones). Young people flock to cities with good public transit. And while I've never once heard someone say "Uber will make public transit obsolete", I have heard many people say they chose a city because it had good public transit.

"but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction"

Two ant colonies A and B. Sugar is abundant in the area and all ants in colony B prefer sugar. 95% of the ants in colony A prefer sugar while 5% prefer peanut butter. The ants that like peanut butter have a higher risk of getting killed because peanut butter is scarce and they must travel further. They also use more energy in getting food. One day a truck drops sugar near the colonies that is poisoned. Colony B is wiped out. Colony A survives on because of the 5% of ants that prefer peanut butter. The queen may die but the surviving ants reproduce.

We all know someone who hates a particular food that most people love. We all know someone who loves a food we think is disgusting. Why don't we all like the same healthiest foods?

I'm not an expert on genes but it's possible that in one species, taste or some other variable is determined by 1 or 2 genes. In another species it may be determined by 8 or 9 genes. This complexity in taste determination may cause more variation in how it manifests. Maybe that complexity causes odd variations to occur over generations. Even as other factors select for sugar in one species, individuals keep popping up that like peanut butter.

I don't think humans evolve to be inaccurate - I think a better description is that they evolve to not all be the same. If you look at two species, the one that is very uniform is more likely to die out over the long term than the one that has more variation. That variation can be physical, or in the mind and how it makes choices. But this variation makes the species more adaptable when conditions change drastically.

If you look at the long term, in the world that the article describes (slow, gradual with rare cataclysmic changes), most wrong decision makers will still die at a higher chance than correct decision makers. It's just in those rare situations that they survive.

Personally, I think the best way to learn to code for someone who has talent for it is project Euler (projecteuler.net). No dependencies, no IDEs, no graphics and no gimmicks. Very short, clear, discrete problems that can be solved using any language.

If you really need shooting, explosions and fancy graphics to keep you motivated then I don't think programming as a career is for you. Most programming jobs aren't going to give you much of that. And frankly, I think all the wizz-bang graphics just interferes with your learning and getting good at visualizing in your own head what the code is doing.

Boy, If I were a high paid executive deliberately cheating on diesel emissions tests, the first thing I'd do is open a position called "leader of diesel competence" to take the heat should I get caught. What a ridiculous title and obviously shows the malicious intent of VWs management.

Yes, the engineer deserves to go to prison because he pulled the trigger. But his boss deserves just as much if not more prison time.

I believe that all schools should have partial liability for the defaults of their students. You make a good point that this heavy-handed regulation of schools by shutting them down can hurt a few people who may benefit from alternative schools.

If all schools were partially liable for loan defaults (say 50%), they would pay far more attention into creating programs that have good job prospects and less on programs that just sound good. They'd also have an incentive to charge a reasonable tuition instead of maximizing the cost based on what can be borrowed. And they would spend a great deal more effort on job placement after graduation. The government would not have to pick and choose what schools to close down.

Doesn't work because it was left to the telecoms to enforce and they lose money by enforcing it.

Doesn't this just shift who gets your information from the credit card company to the company running this?

If it's only intended to prevent identity fraud or data theft, then it's really 'security' more than 'privacy'.

> Moore's law, the principle that has powered the information-technology revolution since the 1960s, is nearing its end.

I don't understand why people keep saying Moore's law will end soon... as if it's a forecast. I just checked an online site for cpus and the fastest one available was at 3.7 GHZ. It was maybe 3.2 GHZ two years ago. In 2001, I bought a computer that ran at 1 GHZ. That's 15 years ago! Moore's law is usually defined as doubling every 18 months. Even if we stretched it to every 24 months, we should be at well over 100 GHZ. Even if we account for the 4 cores, it's still not happening.

What am I missing here? It seems like Moore's law has been dead for years. Please don't tell me about experimental cpus that are faster or theoretical processors. Moore's law is defined as speed increases while the price stays the same. What matters is what cpus are available to consumers.

I realize that it was discussed in the piece and never claimed it wasn't. My claim is only that the argument is more likely than the other arguments (with supporting bits about teeth added in).