Digit-Al

More like Automated Super Stupidity" or ASS.

Python 2.0 was released in October 2000. Maybe you're thinking of Python 3.0.

Reader mode bypasses the paywall

On YouTube there is a channel called Good News (@Good_News) that has a monthly show highlighting positive environmental stories.

I guess, if you really think about it, a lot of the safety checking is to make sure that the person trying to adopt is not a predator who will abuse the child. In this case, someone who was like that would not have called the police and handed the child in, they would have just taken the baby to abuse; so his handing in the child to the authorities automatically ticked the "not a child predator" box. Thanks for helping me to think about this in a different way :-)

> A comparable example I suppose would be the question of what's the best strategy for seeking help if you're lost: basically, statistically, it's approach the first person you see and ask for help.

Ah yes, from the Paul Graham article on security. I bring that one up myself from time to time :-)

> It can also be the article skipped on these difficulties for a better headline.

Thanks for the reply. That is certainly a possibility that I didn't think of. I guess they could possibly have thought that if he was caring enough to take time out of his day to call the police and look after the baby until they arrived that he might potentially make a good parent as well.

I find this story slightly odd. I'm not trying to suggest it's not true, I have trust in the Guardian not to print falsehoods; but do they really offer abandoned babies to just anyone in America?

Here in the UK, I used to work with a guy many years ago who was trying to adopt. He and his wife had to go through months and months of vetting and paperwork to be allowed to become adopted parents. You basically have to prove that you are fit to be a parent. And yet in this story a court basically says "hey, you wanna adopt this baby you found? Yeah? Here you go."

Sounds like this guy I knew should have moved to America. He and his wife could have just pulled up to an orphanage, said "I'll take that one", and been parents immediately - if this story is anything to go by.

Taking advice from Paul Graham on why you should not impose a wealth tax is like taking advice from the neighbours cat on why you should allow him to crap on your lawn.

His argument is incredibly disingenuous; the sort of people who will be affected by a wealth tax are the sort of people who find ways of avoiding paying income tax, or indeed any tax at all if possible.

It makes me very angry when these billionaires who build up enormous wealth, partaially by avoiding paying the taxes that fund the infrastructure that help them build their wealth, get upset at people who suggest that maybe they should pay something back to society.

Paul Graham should, maybe, stick to blogging about tech, because when he gets into politics he really shows his true colours... and it ain't pretty.

I know a lot of people like to dump on Firefox, but a number of paywalls, including the Guardian one, completely disappear when you use it. For those that don't, some of them disappear if you use reader mode.