I went and enjoyed it a lot. The variety of the exhibitions was great (personally I loved the watercolor pen plotter) and the age of the exhibitors - both very young and old, was delightful.
I believe Google explicitly stated that they used data collected from Ingress (arguably a predecessor to Pokemon Go) at the time. It's the reason Niantic was founded. It's hard to take these complaints seriously.
Sounds like a great opportunity for a startup to fix!
In the country I live, there is a standard AML/KYC service that allows customers (banks, utilities) to easily perform ID verification in a few minutes.
What's interesting is thinking about what (if any) parallels of "PFOS" exist in the tech industry - collective delusions of products that aren't harmful. I would vote for most social media apps, maybe?
The article does a good job of addressing the nuance, but the headline and most attention grabbing parts of it don't.
Most of the new housing built may have been illegal under previous parking rules, but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.
The article/quotes acknowledge this,
> “It’s impossible, really, to tie a specific code change to changes in the market,” explained Brennan Staley, a strategic advisor for Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development. Other local regulations, housing prices, and international finance markets all play a part in the real estate market. Michael Hubner, who works on long range planning in Seattle, agreed: “It’s very difficult to point to a causal relationship.”
and also note that off street parking is still present in the majority of new housing
> In both cities, the majority of new buildings still included off-street parking voluntarily
Given that the rocket blew up more or less at launch, it should be full of unspent fuel. How does one put out that fire? I'm guessing there's a lot of energy stored there, so letting it burn through doesn't seem wise.
I would disagree. Mathematicians certainly don't need to visualize everything but "intuition" is a commonly used phrase which is a notion of understanding.
Although math merely requires proving some statement, often having an intuition / understanding of how concepts interact with each other helps figure out which things are likely to be true.
The contents of the link are so far from what you describe them as it's hard to believe that you're arguing in good faith.
Put another way, what is the government even bringing to the table? Clearly Twitter had the tools to attempt to sway the election on their own, so why do they need to meet with <insert 3 letter agency>?
Other than the practical reality of it being expensive to construct nuclear facilities (which may or may not be solvable), what is speaking against building new ones?
As someone who once had an NYT subscription (no longer) and now has an Economist subscription, I totally agree with the sentiment. The Economist absolutely has an angle, but it comes across with much more explanation of the objective facts around a given situation, akin to a 3rd party observer explaining an issue and their opinion of it. In contrast, the NYT is quite patronizing, with half-assed attempts to explain "both sides," but you always know what the "right side" is.
Edit: I think this quote from the article summarizes the NYT shift:
> Focusing on potential perpetrators – “platforming” them by explaining rather than judging their views – is believed to empower them to do more harm.
> Trying to be helpful, one of the top newsroom editors urged me to start attaching trigger warnings to pieces by conservatives. It had not occurred to him how this would stigmatise certain colleagues, or what it would say to the world about the Times’s own bias.
> I came to think of the people who were fragile, the ones who were caught up in Slack or Twitter storms, as people who had only recently discovered that they were white and were still getting over the shock. Having concluded they had got ahead by working hard, it has been a revelation to them that their skin colour was not just part of the wallpaper of American life, but a source of power, protection and advancement.
> At one point, Baquet, musing about how the Times was changing, observed that one of the newsroom’s cultural critics had become the paper’s best political-opinion columnist. Taking this musing one step further, I then noted that this raised an obvious question: why did the paper still have an Opinion department separate from the newsroom, with its own editor reporting directly to the publisher? If the newsroom was publishing the best opinion journalism at the paper – if it was publishing opinion at all – why did the Times maintain a separate department that falsely claimed to have a monopoly on such journalism?
> The Opinion department is a relic of the era when the Times enforced a line between news and opinion journalism.... by the time I returned as editorial-page editor, more opinion columnists and critics were writing for the newsroom than for Opinion.
> The Times could learn something from the Wall Street Journal, which has kept its journalistic poise. It has maintained a stricter separation between its news and opinion journalism...Journal reporters and other staff attempted a similar assault on their opinion department. “Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility,” shrugged the Journal’s editorial board in a note to readers after the letter was leaked. “The signers report to the news editors or other parts of the business.” The editorial added, in case anyone missed the point, “We are not the New York Times.” That was the end of it.
The reasoning is correct but the conclusion is backwards IMO.
You should "adjust for inflation" (using other measures for inflation) to examine the current price of gold. If gold is still expensive, either the inflation adjustments are incorrect, gold is mispriced, or external force is driving demand for gold.
Put another way, because gold is an "independent yardstick" for inflation, you have to "adjust for inflation" to draw any conclusions about the current price of gold.
> To keep it simple, consider starting by reporting SMSes.
> For robocalls, expect that many robocall CIDs are spoofed
I pretty much only get spam calls (texts are pretty rare), and I'm 99% sure all the source numbers are spoofed and I assume it's infeasible to actually trace them. If this is wrong, please let me know.
Is public housing the main driver of lower housing prices in comparable economies?
I would have guessed that the HUD being unable to build more housing isn't helping us, but isn't the main reason that prices are skyrocketing in urban areas.
Are there any factual assertions that you disagree with in the piece? Otherwise this seems to be more anti-Binance than crypto itself (although the author's viewpoint on crypto is clear).
> it varies considerably by income, location, and whether you do drugs
It's not even that complicated - if you've lived to age 54, you've already lived long enough to not die for the first 54 years and so your life expectancy is higher than the default "no info" value of 73 years old.