ejk314

It's arguably more fair. At least purely random scoring doesn't incentivize cheating.

You mean they might be committing acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims? You mean 'terrorism'? Should we really validate terrorism as a means of political protest?

I mean, there is an argument to be made there. If people are lashing out violently, they've probably run out of non-violent options and that's something that should be addressed. But I think it sets a horrible precedent to allow violence to shape political discussion.

The same arguments against doing heroin?

Oh they know. It's just that the expected value added to their car sales, even factoring in the negative PR and potential lawsuits, is >0

I'd be interested to see how crows and dolphins fit in this ordering.

I think there must be a fundamental difference in the way Americans view privacy vs how Europeans view privacy.

To me, 'privacy' means that my actions performed at home (or in other places where I can reasonably assume to be alone or in private company) should not be under the scrutiny of others.

I should have the right to act how I want in public as well, so long as my actions do not affect other people. But I don't see how I could reasonably expect to have privacy in that case.

Do Europeans have a different view?

Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.

The reason someone's search results are considered 'objectionable' is because they consider those results private. The private citizen, in the case, is the censor. The french government is just the enforcing body behind that censorship.

I'm not getting why this is supposed to be impressive. It just looks like they lined up several tiny motors and used a small gear ratio. There's very little ant-like cooperation.

Edit: large -> small

This is such a risky game to play. Yes, I took a similar approach to HS with similar results. But I remember competing with another student to see who could do the best in a class without opening their book. I passed. I didn't do as well as I could have, but I passed. He wasn't so fortunate. By the time he accepted that he was behind, it was too late for him to save his grade. What I'm saying is, students should be taught which homework to do, not to just to skip it.

That hypothesis isn't falsifiable. We know "X effects Y" from experimental result. You're asking for proof that "X and only X effects Y", which is the same as asking for "There does not exist some X' that effects Y" where the set of X' is unbounded. No, that's not testable and doesn't need to be.

Just like we didn't need to know about the X' of Einstein's equations to know that the X gravity was the primary force holding you to the ground.

There very well may be an X' that effects observable biological features other than evolution, but that X' needs to be tested on an individual basis. So while it's productive to hypothesize an X' and test it, there's not much we can do to rule out all X' as a class.

Is there any way to hedge your investment in a SF house if you must move there anyways?

I feel like this post misses the point of the whole "technical debt" analogy. They way the author talks, it seams like their org. uses it as a catch-all term for complaining about the code base. But that's never been the point of the term.

"Technical debt" is the justification for process and development decisions that require more time up-front but will save time in the long run (especially as a term to communicate this to non-technical management). It only comes into play when you're talking relatively about two or more different choices.

Just as an example: when deciding to move ahead with less testing or to move more slowly and write unit tests for every function, you should consider the first to come with more technical debt. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision, it just means that it should be a factor in your thought process.