Nacraile

I don't think you can reasonably claim that the market for houses above 750K-1M is independent of the market for houses below.....

Sure, but they why kWh/h instead of kW? If you're inclined to measure the quantity of gas in terms of its energy, why not measure its flow in terms of power? (of course kWh/h _is_ power, but why denote it so strangely?)

Why would one presume that the reason has anything to do with computation error rates, rather than something obvious and mundane like "Graviton instances are more profitable"?

> If you talk to Dell/HP/other, they can advise you and sell you large storage appliances. Problem is, the larger appliances will only host 1 or 2 PB. That's nowhere near enough.

This is just incorrect.

If you talk to HPE, they should be quite happy to sell you the my employer's software (Qumulo) alongside their hardware. 10+ PB is definitely supported. (The HPE part is not required)

If you talk to Dell EMC, they will quite happily sell you their competing product, which is also quite capable of scaling beyond 1-2PB.

> Then you can mine the currency and provide them to other players in the game, either by giving it away or selling it.

> “It’s a way to compensate people who really believe in us in the beginning,” Schiermeyer said. “That’s how we’re structuring the blockchain. The people who were first to play it are going to get more than people who are last to play it. So, I mean, there’s definitely a reason to come in.”

So, uh, it's a pyramid scheme, thinly disguised as a game?

Please RFA more ;)

"the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families"

So this has both the most and least effect on families that have little reason to care about needing a bigger car (because they can easily afford it, or they can't afford any car at all, respectively). When you go fishing for a correlation, form a post-hoc hypothesis for its mechanism, and then other data fits that hypothesis poorly, it's a strong sign you've found yourself a red herring. Which is the usual result of failing to properly understand the distinction between correlation and causation.

So, honest question, because I'm genuinely bewildered: why would you bother doing this, when Firefox exists, is perfectly functional, and isn't made by Google?

I believe it's the one that is now a crater full of water, just north of the siloes.

There are lots of games that run on linux these days. Personally, my wishlist has a deep enough backlog of linux-supporting games that there's very little risk I'll ever be "forced" to dip into the windows-only portion of the list.

For those times when I really just want to play a specific game that's Windows-only, dual-boot works great. I couldn't care less if telemetry tells Microsoft I start my PC every few months to play a few games ;)

I'm pretty skeptical that there are many real cases where eliminating Windows as a primary OS is a matter of "can't" and not "don't care enough to tolerate an occasional minor inconvenience". The latter case gets little sympathy when they complain about Microsoft's bad behavior.

I'm not sure it's as much of a contradiction as you think it is. Noting "It manifests itself in the declining visit and posting frequency on Facebook across many cohorts", I find it entirely plausible that feeding the trolls yielded short term lift in target metrics at the expense of (much harder to measure and correctly attribute) long-term attrition of non-troll users. That hypothesis certainly fits the popular perception that FB is dying/dead. It somewhat fits my personal experience: I fairly aggressively pruned my news feed of any political content, which seems to have kept away the trolling, but the personal content that I wanted has dried up and my feed is now mostly ads and generic "recommended" clickbait. Why bother visiting?

Doable, although annoying to configure correctly. Beneficial if you want to obscure your identity from the second VPN server (i.e. Twitter's, in this case, which ought to be logging connections)

I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. In your example, the painful boots were clearly inadequate, and by the heuristic, it was time to upgrade to the best equipment you could afford ;)

Skiing does make for some examples of a couple weaknesses in the heuristic, though:

First the "best equipment you can afford" part is pretty poorly defined. Suitability of ski equipment is contingent on the skill of the skier and the type of skiing, so you can't just pick the most expensive thing and expect it to be the best for you. Skis are especially nasty in this regard in that the most expensive equipment often makes performance trade-offs that are actively hostile to beginners or use in the wrong conditions.

Additionally, ski equipment is consumable (at least in the hands of an aggressive skiier), which largely invalidates the cost-optimization rationale of the heuristic.

Skiing probably wants a somewhat modified heuristic, along the lines of "Start with the cheapest tool, use it until it wears our or you find an intolerable problem, and then choose a replacement that solves the problems with the previous iteration."

It's important to bear in mind the small sample size: 4 women took the private interview, and 6 took the public.

Still a compelling result, but not quite as incredible as it sounds in the article. I'm not sure what the p-value would be.

> it might be better than fill a unit with a tenant who has a 15% chance of not being able to pay rent

That's nowhere near the worst-case "bad tenant". The worst-case scenario takes months to evict and leaves behind tens of thousands of dollars of property damage. There might even be some personal harassment thrown in just for good measure. Avoiding such a tenant is absolutely worth missing some opportunities to fill the property with a paying tenant.

Not that missing rent this April 1 is likely to tell you much about that particular risk.

Because neither of those have a history of volatility or risk.

1. Outer tmux on local/primary machine, for your usual daily use-case (i.e. managing multiple terminal sessions).

2. In outer tmux, ssh to some other machine you need to administrate.

3. screen because you need multiple terminal sessions on that machine, or need detachability/reconnectability for some long-running process.

Ah, yes, it is definitely reasonable to draw that conclusion based on people's disinclination to spend 100% the fare for a 10% larger, somewhat less uncomfortable seat, and/or 1000% the fare for 50% more space and an actually comfortable seat.

Would you support methadone being banned while heroin is available over the counter? Because that's the proper equivalent comparison to the e-cig policy.

I feel like you're missing other commenters' points. The thesis of the article is not "willpower is poorly defined". The thesis is right in the title: "Willpower is a dangerous, old idea that needs to be scrapped". The chosen title and much of the verbiage would be ..very odd if the main thesis were what you claim. The article might successfully argue the much weaker latter thesis, but other commenters are rebutting the main thesis.

They haven't sold their ethics because they didn't have those ethics in the first place, and haven't ever seriously tried to pretend otherwise. Amazon is pretty transparently in business to make money, with little regard for anything else. The closest thing they have to ethics is "Customer Obsession", but even that is explicitly justified as a means to maximize long-term profit.

I really don't know how this response surprised any of their employees (as a previous employee, it certainly does not surprise me). Those who can't abide it oughtn't work there; this isn't something that is going to be changed from the inside.

Not so. I'm just saying that it's valid to disagree on the definition of a thing, and that when that happens you need to have debate about the real underlying disagreement, rather than making a pointless and foolish declaration of your correctness by your definition.

Although I'm not sure why I bothered typing that, given the current readings I'm getting on my troll detector.

> You might disagree with the principles of the definition, or think that the definition isn't useful. But that doesn't make it any less of the definition. If you want to do something different, you need to call it something else or you are lying to people.

This argument can be applied to your definition just as well as it can to my definition. Which underlines the pointlessness of arguing over the definition of "open source", and therefore the pointlessness of telling somebody that their thing is "not open source".

> No one disagrees with these who isn't trying to sow discontent in the open source community.

No. Everybody who disagrees with these has been driven from your ideological bubble. "Open source" has become a general term that is part of the natural language; nobody has the right to demand everybody use their preferred definition. Many people who use the term will never have visited gnu.org or opensource.org. Many others will have, but will have concluded that the strictness of those definitions is silly. It seems quite reasonable to disagree with a definition of "open source" that makes it practically impossible to make a living off of your work. If you want to have a debate on the merits, fine, but running around telling people they're using English wrong because they disagree with you is just foolish.

> The problem I find with remote work usually is that people pay you less than if you work onsite.

Is this actually a problem, or even particularly surprising? Remote positions provide massive non-monetary benefits to employees (flexibility in general, but particularly: you can live wherever you want, including on the road, with no commute, in low cost-of-living areas, closer to other things you value, etc). These benefits attract more applicants, which alters the supply/demand balance, with predictable effect on market salary. Remote work should be understood as a win-win, where the employee gets significant quality-of-life and maybe reduced cost of living in exchange for somewhat reduced salary, and the employer gets significantly reduced costs (directly in terms of salary and office space, indirectly in terms of easier recruitment) in exchange for (maybe) somewhat harder management. If you don't like the employee-side trade-off, tough to be you, because you're competing against a lot of people who do.

> when it's remote you compete with people in India, China

It's not clear that this is really true. It's relatively easy to run a distributed organization that has a common native language, legal system, and continent. Language barriers, massive timezone discrepancies, and ..challenging international legal systems make successful management much harder. In practice, it seems that many companies are unwilling to take on those costs and risks.

You all do realize that (at least by default) ubuntu will keep old kernel versions around, and you can choose to boot them in GRUB, don't you?

This is certainly a pain, but it's hardly the first time a broken kernel has shipped. Reasonable recovery mechanisms are in place.

Presumably, the classic mechanism underlying speculative bubbles: investors buying because they expect to be able to sell to other investors at a higher price, later.

I think parent took their criticism a bit far with "ad-hominem and smug", but the calling out of a specific individual makes me uncomfortable also.

The issue, I think, is that the specific name doesn't really add anything to the discussion: you don't actually contact Hamano and get his perspective, and you don't use the name to link any additional relevant information. You could omit the name entirely without detracting from what you're trying to say.

Including the name makes the (public!) criticism needlessly personal. Not really cool.

Economist also lets you a few articles per week for free. If you find yourself bumping against their paywall with any regularity, perhaps you should actually pay for the content? Or, would you like to live on an internet where the only content that can pay for itself is clickbait?

From what I've read, initial attack vector is still not known for sure. Spear phishing seems to be the current best hypothesis. I don't think anyone's seen a mass phishing campaign.

See: https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/05/an-nsa-derived-rans...

Sample-size-based variance is a nice nit to pick, but it doesn't really seem to match the data presented in the article. Outcomes are strongly correlated in adjacent counties across the map, which is not predicted by sample-size (which would produce uncorrelated noise, in inverse proportion to population density). On the other hand, there is substantial correlation between the given geographic distribution of life expectancy changes and geographic distribution of wealth, as observed in the article.