001sky

Quite so. But the point is more about path dependency in media appointments.

why is a story 7 hours old with 11 points and 3 comments ranked #page 2 of hN?

This is actually news, and sort of important.

But the article above has 300 points.//?

The baby boomers seem have TV news gigs monopolized to the detriment of the country.

Notwithstanding your good points about it not being fool-proof, it is an important point that your email software doesn't essentially promote or enable corruption of the meta data in the way you describe.

As a business person, nobody would [buy/use] exchange if it was not reasonably secure from an audit trail perspective. The intergrity of the communications is required for many business's who have record retention policy and what not.

Think about an analogy for a bank's accounting system that allowed audit trails to be compromised. Its a huge problem for the purchasing people and the managerial layer that has to sign off on sarbox etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...

Cites obama admin source

byline By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 2, 2015

24 hours before

Netanyahu’s Full Speech Before Congress, Mar. 3, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/10000000354782...

this is the correct answer. potus get to enforce (or not) the laws. meaning he can let hrc skate on this if he chooses.

well there are other laws (eg violations of certain statutes that some accuse clinton of breeching) but there is no per se morality test in terms of ideas. The latter is a fundamental pillar of separation of powers.

Thats not true. The reddit thread explicitly states what he wants to do is legally and ethically problematic. And it spells out why. "That is why the functionality doesn exist in exhcange" was the sort of end result of the larger logic here.

Couple of points -- (1) Colin powell's leaked e-mails apparently called the meetings a circus and a sideshow but also placed blame at the feet of HRC for outcome of that episode. that last bit isn't always quoted in the media.

(2) The leak to the NYT about the server that broke this story appeared has been originated by the Obama administration. They were seeking to clip her wings as whispers about her policy differences with the Obama administration were circulating on Iran. Once HRC became such a sure thing she was inevitable as POTUS it would rended BSO an early lame duck, and on policy in the middle east where the two differ, would create issues for obama establishing a legacy. Obama now has the ability to pardon her (or in the actual turn of events, the Justice granted 'stonetear' limited immunity and killed a looming FBI indictment).

So both of these narratives play into a deeper and more complex game existing in DC than any sound bite or talking point proffered from a PR agency will attest.

Market effeciency concepts have to do with incorporating information into a (well defined) market. Breaking the logic sequence of "well defined market", which can be done with trivial levels of "real world complexity", is problematic for EMH. This means you cant use EMH as a sort of backward logic to defend the status quo.

As to the concept of a market externality, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you just mean "uncaptured incentives", well surely there are myriads. But the bigger point is that this is not a simple solution. You cannot re-solve the maths as per a case of omitted variable bias.

The reason that this is so may be intuively grasped with an example. Let us posit that rent-seeking is a behavioral consequence of 'opportunistic' principals. And that rent seeking public policy architects are inevitable, because our politician is opportunistic (qua politician--behavioral assumption).

OK, but now I've just made mess for EMH, and this is why EMH has an 'H' in its name. Because general economic theory requires that we assume away several things we just introduced. And if you understand EMH you understand why having opportunistic, strongly authorized, unrestrained public policy makers is a problem. Namely, (1) they hold private information (outside emh); and (2) they are free to play zero-sum dynamic games with market participants; and (3) they can charge economic rents by implementing a 'protection racket' scheme whereby donor/lobbyists avoid (large) zero-sum losses by taking (smaller) zero-sum losses that benefit the policy holder (so called diversions).

"they're not asking for perfect proof of safety just that it doesn't cause long term effects which is done a lot with animal studies"

Lets hope its just one of those shitty translations of 'real science' being lost in translation when subjected to a journalist-friendly press release.

Theres 40 years of data using humans. Nobody doubts that dial sope or other similar soaps is safe in any meaningful sense. The science in this argument is being lost.

If these were legitimate tests they would have been done years ago and there would not be the various exemptions in this policy declaration.

I will insert the caveat here that I'm not a fan of everyday use of anti-bacterials. I also don't doubt that using anti-bacterials and prbably more importantly anti-biotics and various endocrine influencing chemicals and plastics with loose regard for the environment has negative impacts on society.

I think kids should eat dirt, assuming it's clean dirt, etc. They are made to handle the stuff that nature thows at them.

public policy variables are outside the market efficiency hypotheisis because. markets are therfore not efficient wrt to public policy in general. they only are efficient with repsect to a specificially dilineated (analytically tractavle) public policy context at a single points of time.

Isn't this a straw man? These products are used in hostpitals everyday. Nobody doubts they are 'safe'in any meaningful sense. Otherwise they would need to be banned outright.

OCD people, and their kids, are a huge problem in society and should be dealt with, but this is not 'science based' public policy at all.

Its like asking someone to prove a negatve, which is absurd in many contexts. "why did something not happen" does not have a finite, knowable answer in the vast majority of contexts.

Nietzsche's whole opus documents this quite well. You can google him or look him up on amazon maybe.

success is a monotonic function of amount of work

nah, you're mis reading this. the issue is continuity. most people will never become successful because of hyper-competetion and the need for continuity (ie, being in the game). You don't see that many michael jordan career sabbaticals among the great athletes either. And obviously being a great athlete takes loads of work, but not each effort is the same contribution obviously either. But great athletes have a very short window to prove themselves as junior/early pro players, and 95%and fewer in the talen pool will never take a "sabbatical" from the NFL (or whatever league/sport) and get their job back with no questions asked...its cut throat enough as it is for a bench/roster seat.

Then, there are people who are so successful in terms of their brand and personal networks etc that they can dabble in and out of various projects at will. But that is not your typical junior partner or junior parent or early-career stage founder. At least not realistically.

The point you're missing tho is that pandoras box is not a box of chocalates. You don't know what you're gonna get when you unleash a war--or a revolution. It says something about the ability perhaps to look at the actions of other objectively, but be blinded by either hubris or wishful thinking when evaluating our own actions. You're arguing that people don't see or agree with what is correct in the one view, but it the contrast not the correctness that is being highlighted.

This is one of those papers where the title sounds vaguely legitimate, but the underlying analysis is only tangentially related to the topic. Also, consider

"less attention has been paid to the question of how to manage those workers on the opposite side of the spectrum: those who are harmful to organizational performance."

Which is complete rubbish--GE placed a huge focus on doing performance reviews and culling the "bottom 10%". A practcice which started a trend (called forced ranking) that grew to include many of the fortune 500, in cluding perhaps famously Microsoft.

Its either a bafflingly careless omission or a cynical gesture to pretend this topic is somehow "under the radar" in business school or corporate HR departments.

"the scientific consensus is that there is now more than a 5% chance that human beings could be virtually extinct in as little as 90 years from now"

--Extrapolate trends much?

Affluent liberal media hating on the sports of the common folk...no irony here

That was quick

National Geographic gives Fox control of media assets in $725 million deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geog...

For example, carrots have a high GI of 47, but you have to eat a pound and a half of them for there to be a steep rise in blood sugar.

carrots are full of water, not to mention roughage, so they don't have high caloric density per unit mass/weight

the glycemic load is precisely articulating the index number adjusted per unit mass to account for stuff like caroots or beets etc.

So basically if you ate de-hydrated fruit or vegetables that will load higher (per unit mass) than stuff full of water...because whater has no cals...so water and starch dilute glycemic index

The glycemic load is calculated by multiplying the glycemic index of a food by the amount of carbs in a 10 gram portion of the food.

In practice, you can dilute glycemic index using fat and protein in addition to water.

"juice is dangerous. It’s far too easy to consume"

This is the sub-text of the article, so I think you're being a little naive. Working backwards from the conclusion, there is no difference between various type of juice.

"The article is not saying "Firefox doesn't need any corporate money". Corporate deals are really the only reason why they're still alive at all since they are virtually nonexistent in mind share.

Instead, the article is simply saying that Google wised up and realized they had no need to give Mozilla that much money so instead, Mozilla convinced other gullible corporations to give them money.

Once that stream dries up (and it will), Mozilla will meet the fate that it deserves and die."

== I don't see why this text was offensive or the comment was killed by flags...

The article clearly says that 2014 revenues was something like $300 million and most if not all was from a single-point corporate contract. Somehow, undisclosed in the article, all of this revenue has been replaced by non-google corporate contracts. Such that 2015/2016 will presumably not see much decline. Or, in other words, Mozilla was able to fully replace one Corporate sponsor with another (or another set).

The key question for everyone here is what, if anything, does that matter? By not explaining of discussing the changes in the terms of the contracts/business model, not much at all transparency has been added to Mozilla's motivations or long-term outlook.

Maybe this info is out there somewhere else, but decent reporting should have highlighted those links somewhere in tha artcicle. I'm surprised as well HN comments don't seem to cover this topic anywhere either, but maybe I;ve missed the discussion somewhere...

Do you have any sense of proportion? FB is worth hundreds of BILLIONs and somebody wasted $500K or whatever on diaspora...thats not a waste of resources its a single FTE for at one of these companies today....Or do you have something else in mind?

don't understand this comment. what about current accounts, checking, transfers?

thanks, mods will have to do this or be re-submitted

LOL admins don't like me..."submitting to fast" shadow ban

you're incredibly overconfident. I'll leave it at that. good luck.

Odd comment, in this context. Have you read the article?

"Since the act of accepting a gift can create a sense of unfulfilled obligation on the part of the receiver, gifts are sometimes refused, depending on the situation."

This notion from an etiquette guide to foreign culture I think is relevant.

no gift is ever free. that is the problem.