Disclaimer - I was subscriber 7454 to FB, however I moved on and never used it. I'm a little surprised that the EFF didn't mention the proprietary nature of FB in the article. The EFF used to champion open standards... what has changed?
What I loved about usenet as the author described was that the "barriers to entry" were pretty high. Because only researchers or highly technically competent people could generally gain access, the quality of discussion was really high. Less cat pictures, more learning. HN I think has retained some of the great spirit of the original usenet forums though... I hope we can keep it.
It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on chemicals that have major benefits reducing crop failures, starvation, pain, and suffering.
It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study.
The quoted study design has well understood flaws from selection, observation, and publication biases. And until the findings are independently replicated, this can't really be called "science" but rather a "single scientific publication" http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7871.abstract.
The economic effects of banning organophosphates based on a single observational study would be undoubtedly horrendous to the third world. The NYT article adds little careful review and seems to simply draw on the "chemicals are ruining the earth" narrative. Taken to its logical conclusion, although popular and on its surface appealing, basing policy simply on a "fear of chemicals" has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/
The search for yield... a predicted consequence of 7 years of zero percent interest rates. Last time around it was investors seeking yields in low-quality mortgages. This time, they're investing in low-quality Silicon Valley startups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
A IV drip regulator "changes how medical devices are made?" Hardly an example to compete with pacemakers, stimulators, orthopedic implants, biologics, endovascular devices, laproscopic surgery, electromagnetic navigation, CT and MRI scanners, etc. Bit of an oversimplification (not uncommon for "Fortune") I might suggest.
Absolutely. The taxi cab industry is example number one for regulatory capture. The foolish talk about "employee rights" for Uber drivers makes no sense. The market will determine the rate for labor of any types, Uber drivers included. All legislation around "employee rights" will do is take them away. Why is it necessary for the government to make illegal a voluntary exchange between Uber and drivers at any wage and any labor agreement? Either can walk away at any time. If Uber wasn't providing these drivers a service, they wouldn't sign up.
Completely. And the claim that "this doesn't impact wifi bandwidth" completely violates the laws of physics. As if the 2.4GHz band isn't junk enough already with noise.
And nor is this novel. Tesla did a large public demonstration of this in 1899. The only difference was the frequency and the target device (light bulb).