HN user
I don't find any reason to believe this is inherently problematic. The federal funds rate is ~2.5%, and inflation is ~2.0%, so the real interest rate is approximately 0.5%.
America's current debt-to-GDP ratio is not unprecedentedly high by any means. What is slightly concerning is that our debt-to-GDP ratio is increasing even though the economy is relatively strong.
> Prolong your life by increasing your muscle power.
This seems like a hasty conclusion to me. The researchers found a correlation between muscle power and low mortality rates, not a causation. It could be, for example, that people with generally low health levels have lower muscle power and also higher mortality rates. The study does not provide evidence that people who improve their muscle power live longer, merely that people who already have high muscle power will live longer.
You're correct, but it's not immediately clear to me what it means to be part of such a conspiracy.
Would simply receiving classified information from Chelsea Manning count? (Probably not, I would guess.)
What about receiving classified information and then remarking "Wow, this is great stuff! I'm going to pass this information on to prominent news organizations through my website called Wikileaks. You don't have more that you could send me, do you?" Would this count as conspiracy if his remark lead to Manning obtaining more information in an illegal manner? It seems that something along these lines may have happened.
It seems to me that Assange should only be prosecuted if he broke into DoD computers himself. It doesn't appear that such an event occurred. I believe that discourse between a journalist and a source (or any two civillians, for that matter) is protected by the 1st Amendment. Thus, encouraging Manning to hack government computers, or even describing to her how to hack government computers[1], should both be protected by the 1st Amendment.
[1] Perhaps this opinion is controversial. Allow me to lay out an example:
Source: "I've sent you all the info I have! Everything else is password-protected." Reporter: "The password isn't 'password123', is it?" Source: "Hey, that worked! Let me send you some more stuff to help with your expose."
In this case, or even if the reporter suggested something more technically advanced like "Hey, look up sql injection on Wikipedia," I believe that the reporter's speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. (The source's activities are almost certainly illegal, but that doesn't answer the question of whether they should be prosecuted for them).
I have frequently seen the argument that Assange should be incarcerated because he is dis-likeable. Thankfully, that is not a crime in the U.S.
It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for obtaining classified information from a source, a practice that is common among investigative journalists. (The details, I suppose, are in exactly how he obtained that information from the source). This seems to me to be clearly protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A democracy that prosecutes civillians who obtain secret information from sources for the purpose of disseminating said information to the public will likely not remain a democracy for long.
Dictatorships have always ruled through fear and surveillance, and today's China is no exception.
John Adams (2nd president of the US) famously represented the British soldiers who were tried for the Boston Massacre. He argued that everyone deserved a legal defense, regardless of how heinous their alleged crimes may be. A good test for a legal system is whether it fairly doles out justice to those accused of the most terrible crimes.
I find it frightening that local governments in the U.S. are installing microphones to spy on their citizens in public.
> It's not a secret that women's employment is largely counterproductive by itself
This kind of sexism can be quite harmful. You might want to rethink this one.
> They could do all the things described in the article for their working husbands.
True, but there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't be men who do these things for their working wives. Why should one half of a marriage devote their time and effort to the other half's success rather than having their own success as well?
I do not understand why you hate this. Making a false statement is lying, at least in my playbook.
That the argument is semantic is irrelevant. It may be the case that Google is only wrong because of a technicality, but they are wrong nevertheless. (Unless you believe that Google is right and the author is actually Israeli, but that is a different discussion.)
I believe the title is slightly misleading; most college students are above 18 and are thus widely considered to be adults. This guide seems to be written for adults who are 25 and older, which is a subset of all adults.
Not in my experience...
I have noticed that people who exclusively use "his" rather than "her" or "their" tend to be men though.
The match between Stockfish and AlphaZero was played with certain unjustified parameters (time control, ponder off, different hardware, no opening book or endgame tablebase for Stockfish etc.). By "unjustified," I mean that the authors of the paper did not justify their choice of parameters in the paper as being designed to implement a fair match.
At a glance, the parameters of the match seem unfair to me -- and tilted heavily towards AlphaZero. If the code, were open source, this would not matter; anyone could run a rematch. As it is, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that AlphaZero is stronger than Stockfish when Stockfish is allowed to use its full breadth of knowledge and run on equal hardware.
I think it should be noted that Stockfish and AlphaZero were running on vastly different hardware during this match. I wonder which engine would win in a more typical fair match (in my opinion, the match they ran was unfair). It's a shame that AlphaZero is proprietary, and as such, there is no way to find out.
I think that one of the key insights of Emacs is that moving the mouse is a very slow process relative to using the keyboard.
I use Firefox - Chrome is too slow/buggy. Also, who knows what code Chrome is executing when you start it up on your computer?
I agree. Although perhaps more infamous than famous.