underwoodley
There is no test for having worked your whole life needed to get an old age pension. Unemployment benefit claimants get a National Insurance stamp.
New Yorker article about 'a secretive mogul's entertainment kingdom': https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/16/the-man-who-ow...
This guy worked for the California office of Homeland Security, now works for Anschutz's company: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewbettenhausen
(I don't know anything, and I'm not claiming anything about the GP's allegation or their truthfulness. Just wanted to save others the time of making the same Google searches.)
> Some journalists and film critics have cast doubt on the filmmakers motivations. Kyle Buchanan of MovieLine questions why the filmmakers would begin obsessively documenting Nev's online relationship so early on, and argues that it is highly improbable that media-savvy professionals like the Schulmans and Joost would not use the Internet to research Megan and her family before meeting them. Buchanan and others have suggested that the filmmakers likely discovered the fabrications in Wesselman-Pierce's story earlier than is presented in the film and pretended to be fooled only so that they could exploit her story for the documentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish_(film)#Authenticity
But I don't think either of these is more intuitive. When you learnt how a GOTO works, you probably learnt immediately afterwards how to use it to loop. This loop is a 'pattern', one which you would have to grok as a single idea before you could write a program like the above. This is similar to learning about a while loop, and then knowing you would need one when you wrote the Python script.
I think the comparison with other populations such as Poland still seems to point out that something about Hungary in the 20th century was special, other than the presence of many Jewish people.
It's worth adding that comparing the proportion of Jewish Nobel prize winners to Jewish people in the world might not be a fair comparison. Much of this can probably be explained by the strong correlation between being European (including Russian/Soviet) or American, and being a Nobel prize winner.
That's not really a good analogy. Suppose someone decided to offer one of their securities (or pay a dividend, or give some 'thing') to everyone who has one of your company's shares. All investors have to do is show a share certificate, and get a one-off gift proportional to how many they own.
If the new thing has value, your company's shares should all go up in value by roughly its value. Then shares which have already had the thing claimed, should go down by the same amount, leaving them roughly where they were before. If you decide not to claim the thing, you lose out by its value, but your original shares are still the same and you shouldn't have made a loss on them, just as a result of this split.
Of course, if the new thing is something which competes with your company, your company's shares might go down in response. But this isn't directly related to the value of a share in the new thing.
In every social interaction we can never really be certain of the other person's motivations or feelings about us, or even if they really have feelings as opposed to being an automaton or a hallucination. In many cases it doesn't really matter that much. When a waiter smiles and laughs with us, they might just be thinking about their tip and how much their shoes hurt, but we can still enjoy their company.
Parenthood, romantic love, close friendship are not like this. They rely on a deep level of trust. If you pretended to be my lover, it wouldn't be enough to say "well you couldn't tell and you enjoyed it". There is an implicit shared emotional connection.
In particular, children need to be able to trust their parents.
1. It is just as unscientific as saying that Facebook MUST be listening, without finding any evidence in the workings of phones, app source code, etc. Almost by definition, there is no experimental evidence for the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.
2. It posits that everyone who has experienced this is unsophisticated and ignorant about cognitive distortion. Clearly, some people who believe that Facebook is listening to them talk also believe that there were no planes on September 11th, etc. However, many many people today have a good understanding of psychology, are well aware of (basic) cognitive biases, have thought about these experiences. People also have experiences of unlikely events but which have well understood or easy-to-estimate probabilities, which didn't occur much historically. Lots of people can distinguish quite well between their own illusory biases and events which are coincidental, but not 'in the mind'. Some of these people seem to also believe their speech has found its way into advertisers' profiles.
Your own comment points out that in SF, the median landlord makes roughly what the median software developer makes. But a software developer in the Bay Area is one of the most productive workers on the planet, with a literally unparalleled opportunity to generate value, both for the company he works for, and for global society/consumers in general. In contrast, the landlord does not produce anything.