Sounds like the problem here is using the wrong tool for the job. Signatures are designed to prove who sent the message. If you want to hide who sent the message, you need something else. In your example, you would take an extra step of encrypting the message with your girlfriend’s public key so only she can decrypt it and then verify it came from you.
It also helps if a lot of the most successful people are young (eg sports and entertainment) It helps further the illusion that success is readily available.
I am not familiar with the academic publishing world but it seems this should be disruptable. Why isn't there some other outfit running a WordPress site taking submissions and publishing them on much less onerous terms?
I used to work as a field engineer on oilfields and rigs. We had panels of equipment, each with their own alarms and beeps. Once the rig manager (the client) remarked that we were ignoring the alarms, snidely insinuating that we should pay more attention given the possibility of things going wrong.
The reality was we knew what was going on just by listening to the alarms. I could predict which alarm was going to go off before it did and so I could safely (appear to) ignore them. I would only panic if an unexpected alarm went off (or happened in an unexpected sequence). It is possible the same situation was going on in the hospital.
If you are a fan of the business side of companies, I highly recommend The Acquired podcast. They go deep into the history of (mostly tech) companies and analyze the strategic choices made along the way. If for nothing else, the enthusiasm the hosts bring to the discussion is infectious.
While non-disclosure by doctors prescribing drugs they profit from is unethical, I would be interested to know if doctors change which drugs they prescribe if when paid by different pharma companies ie are doctors recommending the drugs because they are being paid or are they just being paid because they recommend the drugs.
If you had a button that would erase cars, airplanes or medical devices as they exist today, would you push it? I believe these inventions are very net positive for the world as they are right now.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the place of technology in the criminal justice system. There is nothing wrong with using technology to sift through a mass of data points to narrow down suspects or point the investigation in a particular direction. However, this does not obviate the need for investigation to actually verify that the initial identification is correct. There should never be a case where people are arrested or prosecuted solely on the word of a database query.
Top executive exit pay packages tend to be negotiated when they’re being hired not when they’re being fired. If you recognize this fact, the numbers make more sense. You’re more likely to promise someone a generous exit package when you think they’re going to save you rather than when it’s clear they’re screwing up.
People tend to have personality inertia. By that I mean that people do what they do regardless of their environment or circumstances. If you’re someone that’s driven to achieve wealth, status and power, the drive doesn’t suddenly disappear once you’ve achieved some level of it. If you’re someone who isn’t similarly driven, then you are unlikely to achieve any anyway so the question becomes moot.
The sphere does not need to be built or owned by a single entity. You too can own a single unit of the sphere for the low, low price of $2T. There can be different corporate entities owning different sections and monetizing it in all kinds of ways (e.g. the KY sector is ideal for powering asteroid mining in the Kuiper Belt)
"Sorry, there's no money" is not a complete statement. The more honest statement is "Sorry, there's no money for you".
Clearly, companies spend money on things (offices, factories, private jets, etc) other than salary increases all the time. The company has decided that its money is better spent on this thing rather than the other. Sure, workers might quibble about whether the money is better spent going to them but buybacks are not any different than any other thing the company is spending money on so it is not any more of a "fuck you" than other types of expenditure.
This is incorrect. If the company is public, there is no way to buy stock from a particular set of shareholders without impacting the price of the stock owned by other shareholders. If you own stock in a company that is looking to give money back to shareholders, you definitely want them to do it via buybacks (rather than dividends) for the tax benefit.
Stock buybacks and wage increases are not necessarily related issues. A stock buyback is just a way to return money to shareholders. A wage increase is about paying your workforce appropriately. The only connection between the two is that they both involve a transfer of value from the company to a group of stakeholders but it is not as if the choice is exclusive or correlated.
Companies generally pay their workers more only if they have to (tight labor market, threat of stoppages, etc). Companies generally do stock buybacks if that is the best use of the cash at hand (ie there are no better investment opportunities for the capital available). The considerations are completely different.
I have a Youtube ad-skip browser extension that fast forwards through ads. It is really good at this but the creator has recently started trying to inject extra functionality into the extension (some random AI stuff) that is turning me off. I would love to know if anyone has experience with a well-behaved extension for Youtube ad skipping.
I'm just thinking of taking up a martial art. I was considering BJJ. My main goal is to build strength, fitness and general physical discipline. Any thoughts on which martial art would be ideal, with minimal likelihood of injuries (if such a thing is possible).
I'm a bit skeptical that this article tells the complete story. Who is printing these counterfeits? What are their incentives? Why not just keep printing more and inflate the currency into oblivion?
Cisco was started by a husband/wife team who were the heads of IT for the Stanford Electrical Engineering School and Business School respectively. Anecdotally, they first developed the technology trying to connect the networks for both schools.
Legally, the statute of limitations addresses this very problem. You aren’t going to be dragged off to jail in your forties for some shoplifting you did in your twenties.
Socially, we probably should adopt something similar. Depending on the crime (non-violent, low cost to society, one time), we should all pretty much pretend it didn’t happen after about 5 - 10 years.
My first thought as well was there could be something emitting an intense signal in the vicinity that is interfering with the connection. However, there does not seem to be anything nearby (like I said, it is on a bridge going over a lake).
These are great stories but awful experiences to live through. I am currently going through one right now. My wireless CarPlay connection shuts off whenever I drive past a particular highway section. It never happens anywhere else but this one area. There is nothing of note happening there (it's on a bridge over a lake) but just like clockwork, my entertainment system shuts down and refuses to connect. I have tried everything (reboots, firmware updates, wired connections, etc) to no avail.
From the article, it seems like the distortions were introduced by policy makers. There was a tax benefit from building new homes in certain places. In those places, prices went down. However, the policy allowed the tax benefits to be claimed against any homes the developer built. This meant a developer could build in tax advantaged locations even though there was already over-supply there. This did not help locations where there were no such benefits so prices continued to rise there. This creates a situation where supply increases (in tax advantaged locations) and price increases (everywhere else). This is a policy failure not a market failure.
The US has a population of 300 million people. This works out to just $300 per person per quarter (or $1,200 annually). Given almost 20% of the population is over 65 (old people really put up the healthcare cost numbers) and the sophistication of our healthcare system (we have the tech to keep you alive or prolong your life despite pretty hairy stuff happening to you), it is not a very surprising number. The real question is how to afford it all.
> it’s highly ironic you picked Moneymaker as your example poker pro, since he’s famous in the poker world for being a very bad amateur player who got extremely lucky at the perfect time
You may be overly generous in your estimation of MY poker skills! However bad Chris is, I am sure I am not anywhere close.
My guess is that it is much easier to get rich from working at a tech company and rising through the ranks. Being a FANG middle manager for a couple of years and managing your money well should put you in a very comfortable position. However, if you want to be private island rich, you need to do your own startup.