jbmorgado

Not really, not in English and not in Spanish or Portuguese.

"Next Wednesday" means "Next week's Wednesday" in all cases. It's not ambiguous.

"Obligatory: "Dollars are still used far more often for buying drugs than Bitcoin""

Sure, but let's compare apples to apples and compare the percentage of USD being used daily for buying illegal drugs (and other illegal) products with the percentage of Bitcoin being used daily for the same purpose.

That's because "next", and "this" refers not to the day but to the week.

It's the same in some latin languages as well and I think it makes sense, you are already naming the day with "Friday" if you are going to give some more information it should be about some other time measurement - in this case, the week - or it would just be superfluous information.

Excuse me, how do you know that 7% of all woman are raped if only 14% of those cases go to trial and if only 50% of those cases result in conviction?

The only real data that you provided is that 5.25% of all claimed rapes (1 x 75% x 14% x 50%) are actually proven to be true in a court of law, which means that the only real data you have is that, according to justice only 0.37% of all woman have been found victims of rape. You know absolutely nothing about of what are the real numbers, just that the lower limit is those 0.37%, yet you claim that 7% of all woman have been raped, based on exactly what?

Do you have access to some data that we don't (and that isn't present in the numbers you just provided)? If so, what data is that?

"Let's suppose that false rape accusations are a wide-spread problem. They aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape, but let's suppose that they are."

Can you provide a source for that?

People are downvoting you just like devs dismiss your bug reports about the issue, but I can tell it is exactly the same for me: Firefox on MacOS is extremely slow and uses too much CPU.

People can blame mine (and many others) particular system as much as they want but the fact remains: FF on some MacOS systems is a big CPU hog while Safari, Chrome and Opera just work fine.

In Linux (with the same plugins) it works rather well though (except when using some stuff like Google docs).

What's going on is that this is just showing what any sane people already knew: any kind of commercial transaction must be backed up by actual real life laws or sooner or later one of the parts gets ripped off.

Nobody can - or I would dare say, likes - to be watching is own back every single moment or their existence... but that's what crypto in general expects you to do.

I guess you can say that Ethereum is also in the "strong and stable" category.

Well, I'm guessing it will have something similar to the digital viewfinder you see in modern cameras.

If you use that together with a medium range camera and some basic computing (or dedicated chip) to stack and remove noise from images, what they are claiming seems doable, as long as you are under good astronomical observation conditions.

What surprised me in this article is that people still gather to play Pokemon Go.

I personally never got into the game, while my cousin was totally into it, but where I live (which is a medium city for Europe), the fad has totally passed in less than 6 months after launch.

I think this in fact comes from this engineering of language in order to pass some agenda.

You create something that is really not science and call it social "sciences" and then you put inside those stuff like economics and all the shebang.

Of course that some people think those are actually scientific and then, when all the predictions fail not only stop believing the social "sciences" like economics, but in fact start looking at all sciences, even the real ones, as some fake agenda from someone.

In the end it's a double wrong, first because you are telling people that social "sciences" like economics actually predict anything and second because we are destroying the public view of real science.

I think what we need is some outreach program that explains people what the real sciences are in order to regain credibility for science and to get people suspicious of any predictions coming from social "sciences".

Not to say that some social "sciences" are not worthy of research, but we must understand that they are only ad hoc fields of knowledge and that they don't predict anything. For instance like history, a respected area that doesn't need to get some fake validation from calling itself a science.

For some people this might be great but for me this is a total sensorial overload, I tried to use some of these fonts in the past and I just loose track of the code.

Did anyone experience the same in the begging and grew to actually like these fonts or was it always a "love at first sight" experience for you that use them?

Not for pedestrians, that's the point.

It shows promise but it's still a bit in its infancy.

It lacks (or lacked a couple of months ago when I last tried it) functionality that I deem indispensable, like putting and importing all the movies from the same directory (it wants - or wanted - every movie to be in its own directory).

Also, it uses a lot more memory. Which is probably fine for most people, but since my little server only has 1.5 GB RAM, it really makes a difference for me.

No, that's Apple, he is talking about Uber.

Hum, no. If you you drink someone's blood it goes trough your digestive system and it's processed that way, it doesn't become your blood, just provides you some nutrients.

Besides you do that almost everyday, i.e. eat animals younger than you and in certain cuisines part of their blood.

This here is something very different, allowing the blood to be used as is from an young individual in an older one.

Well, I was hoping for some quantitative benchmarks, the only conclusion from this posts is that HIP conversion tool is supposed to work 99.6% of times according to AMD.

I see, so there is actually no amount of data that is able to refute your narrative.

Well, that's the magic of social "sciences", you may dismiss all data as much as you want in order to fit your pre conceived ideas. So I must actually agree with the OP here: is a waste of time to give you facts about this since you are always going to find a way to dismiss them.

From the article: "The ruling in favor of Google, now part of Alphabet Inc., followed a court adviser's recommendation that Google did not have a "permanent establishment" or sufficient taxable presence to justify the bill."

Google makes billions worth of business in the EU and yet they deem that Google doesn't have "sufficient taxable presence to justify the bill".

I would like to know what are the exact terms that specify what is a "sufficient taxable presence to justify the bill", since nothing seems to fit the description.

This is not what the statistic or the study the OP pointed says.

The study is clear in its conclusions: in the hypothetical situation you just presented it is the white kid that has the higher probability of getting shot/killed by the police.

In a nutshell what the study based on the data says is: After you get stop by the police, you are more likely to get shot/killed if you are white than if you are black.

>Cops get away with murdering white people too.

Source? What are the relative numbers?

Here is the source and the only real study about the subject. The data shows that you are actually more likely to be shoot/killed when stopped by the police if you are white than if you are black.

This article uses real data from police: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a...

This one even more interesting used psychological tests and get's the same result. Police are more likely to shoot a white suspect: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27...

And yet a final one showing that black cops are more likely to shoot black people than white cops: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/black-suspec...

Totally destroys that theory some people are trying to spread that there is this systemic racism in police about killing black people.

Care to explain how pointing facts is an ideological flamewar? Can you actually point any falsehood in my comments?

Thank you.

This title is very odd, I suggest an edit: Research is unable to prove that working more than 40 hours a week increases productivity.

Yeah, I'm going on a limb here and claim this is nothing but putting a bunch of buzz words in the name of some PR stunt.

You can be sure there is nothing Holographic about this display at least, which makes me doubt all the other big words they trow around in the text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

Although I would welcome this, I can't understand how such broad demands can be enforced.

If the EU is really interested in increasing the lifetime of products, it's simple, just increase the mandatory warranty from 2 to 5 (or some other appropriate number) years.

That would right away, increase the lifetime of the products, but would also, put a strain on the manufacturers to make it easier to repair (after all, if you have to increase the number of repairs to your products, you are going to make it cheaper to repair it in order to save money).

What I found the most interesting in that comparison is that the Tesla, although having a lot more problems in other areas, had 0% issues in brakes and suspension.

Are they using some different much more advanced technology for those parts, or it's just some problem with the repair data?

Calm down, don't trow the baby out with the water.

Yes, enologists mostly lack coherence in their job and created for themselves a nice little niche of uncriticizable people that look at themselves with the highest regard.

But, let's not get into the fallacy of saying that because of that all wines are made the same. Wine quality varies greatly and some vineyards are very clearly better than others.

"That isn't how insurance works. To do an insurance pool, you have to have a lot of people, knowing that you won't be paying out to most of them. Otherwise, it is not insurance, but some sort of group savings/pay as you go."

Seriously, not only this is clearly not how it works, but it actually makes zero economic sense, it doesn't work like that at all.

Insurance companies have people there calculating the expected costs with the different groups and - whenever legal - they DO DISCRIMINATE amongst them. Why do you think woman pay less for life insurance than men? Or why do woman pay less than men for car insurance? According to your rational that shouldn't be the case, you should just put them all together and everyone would pay less.

Let's just reduce this at absurdum for you to get it.

You have a group of 100 people. 50 completely healthy according to a medical check-up, 50 with HIV needing constant medication: Now, where do you think the health insurance premium would be lower for the 50 healthy ones:

1 - If we charged all the 100 people the same?

2 - If we divided the group and charged the 50 people with HIV differently than the 50 healthy people?

Answer this question and immediately you will understand why what you are claiming is wrong.

"Even assuming that this was true... the logic doesn't even make sense. If you have fewer people in an insurance pool, than the costs of it are higher. Pretty much by definition."

What? That doesn't make any sense and it's surely not by definition.

If you have a set of people, and you create a subset with the healthiest people of the subset (so, what you are doing by removing the obese), of course that the costs per person will be lower for the subset than for the all set.

This is really interesting - in a geeky way.

Until now all fundamental units were defined in terms that depended on the constants of nature.

For instance:

- the metre as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 seconds.

- the second as: the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

And so on EXCEPT for the kg.

The kg was the only odd one out. There was this object stored somewhere and when people wanted to measure very well the kg they had to go there and try to measure the mass of that object as accurately as possible... which is a rather odd thing to do when aiming for accuracy.

Now we finally have the means to express the kg with a physical experience in universal terms.