kurtosis

I'm too lazy to look up the ref, but someone told me that the preference for average faces was actually an artifact of the averaging process. It turns out that averaging images of faces also makes the skin look a lot younger and smoother, and therefore more attractive.

Essential question:

send and receive telephone calls

play music with headphones and podcasts

nice maps with gps

basic internet

I have never owned a smartphone before, I like the maps on ipad, and want something more portable

This review is pretty fluffy, what is the best android phone right now?

if I was in that situation I would have likely just melted the gold and poured it into a hallowed out brick or something..

Well the deactivation page did automatically say that the users "friends" would "miss" them. Did they actually check with these users to see if they would want their image and identity to be used in this way? If not, then it seems pretty disingenuous to me. How do they know that these users will actually miss them? Why is facebook assuming that my friends would not respect my decision to leave facebook if that was the case..

"my definition of a terrorist is somebody who uses stealth to deliberately target civilians in an effort to affect political change."

Shouldn't the definition of terrorism include the fact that they are violently targeting civilians? Economic or computer terrorism that doesn't actually hurt or kill anyone doesn't meet the definition in my view - and the publishing work or WL definitely doesn't either.

Yes but isn't the possibility that your communications will be disclosed to the public by an anonymous insider already a part of this game? I don't see the naivety or idealism here - It just looks like standard journalism to me. WL has done a lot to make the "game" more interesting by making the possibility of insider leaks more credible than before. There are many reasons why an insider with the story to tell would rather talk to WL than a newsmedia reporter.

why not take the simpler explanation that the reason families have broken up is that they actually weren't that happy?

Also why doesn't having multiple people in a family earning an income lead to an increase in security? i.e. the impact of a (e.g. job loss, illness) can be buffered by the other partner's income.

This confuses me. If it is impossible to time the market, then why does he think it is "pretty clear that the market is getting overheated"? [edit: in the comments he explains that he's looking at "revenues and cash flow and discounted cash flow to get values", but if these are only weak predictors that don't enable one to time the market, why worry?]

Read "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age" by Larry Bartels. He gives some evidence of the harmful political effects of income inequality. I don't know why it matters whether the scale is increasing - I think it's enough to show that it is harmful. It's honestly a pretty boring book, so more work needs to be done on this.