tha_nose

It most definitely is not illegal. Many colleges have race and gender based quota systems. Governments have race and gender quota systems. Many federal, state and local governments set aside X percentage of their contracts solely for minority or female owned businesses.

Whether this is right or wrong is another debate. But race, gender or "diversity" hiring or recruiting certainly isn't illegal. It happens all the time.

"Students attending schools located near and downwind from busy highways had lower rates of academic performance, higher absenteeism and higher rates of disciplinary problems than those attending less polluted schools."

Is it because of the pollution or because kids who live near highways come from poorer socio-economic environments? Kids who grow up in poor rural areas nowhere near cars also have performance and behavioral problems.

Also, some of the top schools in the NYC metro area are situated near highways or high traffic areas. Why aren't these kids affected as negatively? Could it be many of them come from higher socio-economic situations?

Finally, isn't it a bit disingenous to say poor kids pay for it when they don't pay taxes. Also, the article claims these kids receive free lunches, so most likely they parents don't make enough money to pay much in taxes. So the "wealthy" who pay taxes are already paying for the poor kids, their school and their air filtration system are already paying taxes to clean up the pollution. So they already paid, what more do they have to pay for?

Ideally, it would be great if every kid had a school in a middle of prisinte woods without any pollution, but then people would complain about the destruction of pristine nature.

Everyone here is celebrating "people leaving facebook" as if it is a victory. People are simply moving from facebook to instragram as instragram is viewed as more "hip" and "young".

The title could be "Instragram gaining millions of users in the US" but I guess that doesn't sell as well.

Also, facebook may be losing users in the US, but it's gaining users overseas. So overall, facebook's overall user count is going to continue to climb for a while.

The data clearly doesn't not say what you claim. As for trending? I wouldn't call anything going from 1.9% of deaths to 2% of deaths as trending. Focusing on the 2% rather than the 98% seems also doesn't seem to be sensible.

There isn't a "safe or bug free" codebase in any language for any complex software project. The only code that you could possibly verify as "safe" are simplest of programs.

There is always a trade-off between complexity, security and performance.

About 1.9 million deaths in the US. About 45K or 2% of those are suicides.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

And people here are saying that is the national emergency?

The US is nowhere near the top in terms of suicide rates in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...

If we really wanted to help people, we'd focus more on heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I guess we don't want to tackle the food industry, soda industry, process food industry, etc.

I don't who is behind all the "alcohol, drugs, suicide" scaremongering. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the "solution" will be pump people with more pharmaceuticals.

I'm not saying suicide is not a terrible thing, but it certainly isn't a "national emergency" compared to heart disease, strokes, cancer or diabetes.

Sometimes I wonder if all journalists do is browse reddit all day. Invariably, something I see on reddit gets a "news" article a few months later.

The last blockbuster apparently has an official beer too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/9tx0y3/t...

Who is denying that sleep has rejuvenative benefit? I'm not. I know that sleep has a rejuvenative benefit.

Please try reading my comment or following the thread. I'll paste it here : "I was specifically addressing his point about the drawbacks of sleep - "There are several survival drawbacks from sleep, as it leaves one vulnerable."."

In other words, sleep has rejuvenative benefits and it keeps us away from predators. Sleep can have many benefits. You can stay up all night, but you'd miss out on the rejuvenative benefits of sleep. Or you can safely tuck away and sleep and gain benefits of safety and rejuvenation.

Or it's just cnbc social media team spamming social media. Anything is possible in this brave new world.

The Central Bank isn't regulated, isn't transparent and certainly doesn't have any external auditors either. I don't think you understand how cryptocurrencies, central banks and regulations work. Also, regulations doesn't protect against hacks or theft or shady practices.

There is no denying that sleep is beneficial and I agree with that assertion. I was specifically addressing his point about the drawbacks of sleep - "There are several survival drawbacks from sleep, as it leaves one vulnerable.".

Sleep wasn't a liability to our survival, especially our ancestors. It actually aided in our survival. Human beings who were active at night would have been the vulnerable ones as they would attract predators and were more likely to perish as a result. Especially considering out vision would be limited in the dark.

In short, sleep kept us away from the dangers at night.

How is that any different than the new yorker or traditional media spreading lies and hate about jussie smollet, covington or any other incident and causing mentally unstable people to attack others?

I find it strange how new yorker feels they should be allowed to be toxic but everyone else isn't. It's strange how they feel they aren't responsible for the mentally unstable they accidentally influence but everyone else is responsible.

Using that logic, every movie director, author, journalist, musician, etc would be liable for the actions of the mentally unstable. That would be the end of all media, including the new yorker.

Is that why reddit is so popular? It was "toxic" and yet it grew and normal people used it in droves. Your argument contradicts itself. Most people don't mind reddit or usenet or the "toxicity". It's a handful of busybodies with power trying justify censorship. No different than the church ladies whining about "toxic" rap or "toxic" tv or "toxic" whatever when they themselves are toxic too.

And who defines normal? The saudis? The chinese? The catholic church? The US government? The media? Or do you get to decide?

If you find it unpleasant, then don't use it. If you don't like baseball, then don't watch it. Go watch something else. Everytime we as a society get beyond the puritanical blasphemy craze, it rears its ugly head again.

What about it? What you find "toxic", others might not find "toxic". That's my point. And if there is "toxicity" in usenet, don't use it. Or use the newsgroups that you find less "toxic".

But you are missing my point. My point isn't about "toxicity", it's about censorship. "Toxicity" is just an excuse to censor and control.

Usenet had been around for decades and has always been "toxic". So what? Did the world end?

Actually, sleep would have been evolutionarily beneficial to us since we can't see well at night and it would keep us out of way of predators at night. Sleep wouldn't be a drawback, it would be a benefit to our survival.

It's why hamsters are nocturnal. Their predators hunt during the day, so they sleep during the day and play at night.

Evolutionary theory would say the hamsters that like to play during the day got eaten so that only those who slept during the day got to mate and pass on their genes, etc.

If you think sleep is a drawback for humans, trying visiting a forest at night without a flashlight.

"Detoxify"? Reddit and the internet was fine until the establishment decided to take control of it and censor it. If people didn't like reddit's or the internet's "toxicity", they wouldn't use it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use reddit. If the puritans at the new yorker or the rest of the media don't like reddit, they simply don't have to use it. It would be like me complaining about the toxicity of the new yorker and demanding the new yorker be "detoxified". Or, I could simply not consume the new yorker's content.

The new yorker along with the rest of the media uses the same excuse that china, russia and others use to censor. I guess "detoxify" sounds better than "clean up".

https://news.sky.com/story/china-cracks-down-in-clean-up-of-...

All this "detoxify" or "clean up" internet nonsense is just cover to censor and control the masses.

The problem is that "civilization" and "china" are hard to define.

What we can say is that chinese civilization came into existence a long time ago. Then a serious of dynasty ( some not even "chinese" ) like the mongols or the manchus adopted aspects of chinese civilation.

"China" itself didn't survive for thousands of years. The dynasties rose and collapsed. Conquered and got conquered.

And "china", for much of its history, didn't even speak the same language. They used the chinese writing system ( which also evolved through time ), but does a writing system entail "part of civilization". Koreans and Japanese used chinese writing system, does it mean they are part of the chinese civilization? Of course not. Much of africa uses latin alphabet, does that mean africa is part of "greco-roman" civilization? Of course not.

The chinese capital changed multiple times. There have been periods where "china" had multiple competing capitals.

But then you could argue that chinese civilization didn't die out or get supplanted like the egyptian, mayan, mesopatamian, etc civizations.

The more you think about it and the closer you look, the more blurry the situation becomes. But like most things history, I guess the best answer is "it's complicated".

There really isn't a "western civilization". It's a fairly recent geopolitical term made for political purposes.

There is greco or more expansively greco-roman civilization that we adopted, but that doesn't make us part of the greco-roman civilization or a "western civilization". No more than japan adopting bits of chinese civilization makes japan "chinese civilization".

If you think western civilization exists, then there must be an eastern civilization? There is no such thing, other than for convenient geopolitical purposes. There is the chinese civilization, the indian civilization, the myriad of middle eastern, northern african civilizations, etc. But no such thing as an eastern civilation.

Were the chinese, persian, mongol, ottoman, etc empires part of an "eastern civilization"? Of course not.

The idea of a western civilization is a geopolitical concept we invented for political purposes and of course to claim "civilization" for ourselves. To claim we are a part of the greco-roman civilization when we are not part of it. We are adoptees of it. "Western civilization" is ultimately a sneaky way of claiming civilization status for ourselves.

Having said that, I may be a bit biased, but given the cultural, societal, global, linguistic, financial, systematic, military, etc impact we've had, I think the US has moved from an empire to an actual civilization. But ultimately, history confers the status of civilization, not the living. So maybe in a few hundred years, historians will say the US is an actual civilization. But for certain, 500 years, nobody is going to talk of anything called a "western civilization". It simply doesn't exist just like an "eastern civilization doesn't exist.

Interesting point. But I wonder, why not expand the oscars by including all movies regardless of platform? Make the oscars, a movie awards and advertisement show and the emmy's a tv series awards and advertisement shows.

If VR takes off in 20 years and people watch movies in VR rather than in theaters, how will the oscars distinguish "theater movies" vs "other movies"? If theaters disappear in the manner of phone booths ( a distinct possibility ), will the oscars simply shut down? I doubt that.

Both sides have interesting points and I certainly don't the answers. Maybe the answer is streaming services like netflix, youtube, etc create their own awards advertisement show?

It seems limiting to confine awards to platforms rather than the art genre. It would be like there being a music award dedicated solely for each platform - cassettes, CDs, Vinyl, Radio, Streaming, etc.

You put a lot of trust in multinational corporations. Given the history of price fixing, cutting corners, etc to make an extra buck, I'm not sure I'd be so trusting.

If your assertions are correct, then competition is unnecessary since costco or any company would have the appropriate price/quality ratios. So we should only have 1 monopoly in every industry.

What's the point of having other large warehouse retailers when Cost is going to have the right price/quality? It's just redundant and wasteful.

You bring up an interesting point.

What makes a movie a movie? Does it matter where a movie is watched? Most movies are watched on monitors/tv. If I watch Infinity War on netflix, is it not a movie? If my local theater runs a weeklong viewing of Seinfeld or Friends, does it make Seinfeld or Friends a movie?

To me it is clear that Roma, Annihilation, Birdbox, etc are movies whether they run in the theaters or not.

This seems like Spielberg is using his influence to help the old hollywood studio system maintain it's monopoly on movies and especially the major advertising day known as the Oscars.

That's because all of those countries adopted US economic model of development ( aka protectionism ). We used protectionism to protect our industries and helped them grow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...

That's true. However, if we look at one's peak, your 25 yr old self had a higher peak than your 35 yr self. If you had exercised as a 25 yr old self and reached your potential, you would be physically better than your 35 yr old self.

It's like driving 25 mph in a porsche vs 50 mph in a SUV. In this instance, the SUV is faster because you chose to go 25 mph in a porsche. You didn't fully explore the full potential of the porsch.

Your physical peak could be at 25, but you also could choose not to exploit it fully.

From a narrow physical aspect, pretty much everyone peaks sometime in their 20s. Your brain is a physical organ and it declines along with the rest of your body. Like your eyesight, endurance, strength, etc. It's the inevitable biological aspect of aging.

But from a holistic wider view, you don't necessarily peak in your 20s as your gains in knowledge, experience and wisdom compensates for the decline in pure physical performance.

Research has shown that anti-bullying efforts may lead to more bullying. Similar to how the anti-drug (DARE) program may have to led to more drug use. The counterinuitive unintended consequences.

https://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2013/09/jeong-bullying.php

Also, just because kids seem nicer and more together doesn't mean that they don't bully. Appearances can be deceiving. Though there are merits to confiscating phones from kids, we mustn't forget it also has drawbacks. Kids can't document bullying. Just because the phone is gone doesn't mean the bullying ends. It just means that the bullying can happen in secret and silence. We shouldn't forget that many child molestation by teachers and bullying by kids were brought to light because of smartphones. Smartphones are a tool. It can be both bad and good.

I think it was Michael Jordan who said he was at his physical best at 25 but 35 was when he was playing his best basketball. Though he declined physically, he made up for it with his knowledge of the game and experience.

Though at 55, you are not at your intellectual peak of the your 20s, you have gained knowledge and experience that can more than compensate for loss of brain power.

I like to think of it in terms of hardware and software. While the hardware may stagnate and decline, you can always update the software to get improved performance.