If you spend 300$ million in secret research you can realize 1.5 billion in profit.
The numbers for research where you're forced to make the production research public mean your competitors can get to market faster and it may mean an investment of even 3 million isn't worth it.
There are some medicines/procedures/devices where this is the only way to make the numbers work to sell it.
I’d like to add that the FBI has been happy to sit idly by and watch the theft of consumer data for more than a decade.
Now that they have found a political ally in the trump administration and have something to gain in the way of budget and powers they are suddenly concerned about this, “new heightened threat”
The story is long and complex. I dont know anything about the Chinese side, but we in the US have amassed the largest prison population on earth, by percent and absolute numbers.
100 years from now, my kid's kid's will be embarrassed that their grandfather didn't do more to stop the oppression.
You might be right, but my guess is that 7's reputation for luck isn't famous enough to make a difference, and in fact it's common because other numbers seem too "unrandom".
We could test by asking people to pick numbers less than 100. I bet people would focus on odd numbers, especially those greater than 50, not ending in 5 or not having both digits the same.
I definitely overpaid on Mechanical Turk per response, given how lightning quickly the data came in. (I decided to pay $0.10/HIT for 50 responses and got 68 responses in 8m26s.) I suspect that offering a nickel would have gotten the survey filled in under half an hour still...
One of the hardest things to do, I think, for a platform like reddit is to get users to curate and specialize the content and create real communities that people can be involved in.
For reddit, that's their specialty. That's a solved problem. In their specific case their subreddit user groups don't act as filter bubbles. By some miracle they largely act as intended... As communities for like minded individuals to share their interests and largely in a positive context.
The money and advertising and focus is always on the "front page" and the jockeying for position to make headlines and drive traffic to affiliates but this is a huge distraction.
Reddit should focus on investing in the positive and great communities that are built on the site. Build tools to help these communities do what they do even better and use more front page real estate to drive people to these positive experiences since they already exist today. That's the real value of reddit.
Some censorship is inevitable, some bad actors need to be expelled from the site, but ultimately you need to lift up the good examples, not just play "bop a troll"
played the game. It felt like I was taking a "push poll" where I'm being asked if I understand a conclusion being drawn for me. I found it to be less than compelling to say the least.
it's a tutorial on how to run a fake news profile that kinda turns into a game in the last 3 minutes where you actually have to skip a few memes to increase your score
There is a worthwhile discussion to be had about the cost of college tuition and actuarial tables of different degrees and their earning power and how that relates to pay structure for graduates and for professors and how college programs are run.
Trying to have that discussion on hacker news starting from a primary source consisting of a CBS News poll is like trying to get to the moon on a North Korean rocket with sadness and starvation as your rocket fuel.
If you want to measure economic potential vs cost, what you propose is reasonable. If you want to measure regret, it's not. Regret could have more causes than cost vs payback. (It's interesting, though, that loans were the primary regret, and choice of major was also high.)
If I remember correctly, the previous administration proposed a program where schools and degrees were valued based on their potential earnings but the collective pushback from universities killed the idea.
The idea got killed because it's really hard to measure value added as opposed to just graduates' earnings (students who appear identical on paper self-select into schools and majors and later on careers based on non-measurable stuff). And if you basically just measure graduates' earnings, you're going to punish schools that take a chance on less prepared students, majors that cater to students with weaker backgrounds, etc.
University administrators and professors aren't dumb. They know that good faith efforts to measure value added today will give way next month or next year to laziness and crude numerical targets. The end result will maybe be better numerical scores, but little substantive improvement in how well students are educated or prepared for life.
Most people who suffer from this could be shown a 3d modeling or CAD tool. I would explain it as having access to this when you close your eyes, except its hazy and comes in and out of focus.
It can also be used to conjure a short movie like sequence or animation as well. I most frequently use it to plan routes in my mind whether its in the car or how I'm going to move through a particular space it helps orient you and improves reaction speed and can be tied to muscle memory. It takes some focus and is rarely used simultaneously with other activities. It's more like a planning or focusing activity for brief bursts before you take action.
Its actually quite like those slow motion 360 sequences in the matrix. I think that's probably why that film technique gained such traction, as its a slowed down version of what our brains do when we use our visual memory to navigate our movement.
I'm genuinely curious, "Pure politics: conflicts around party, ideology, nation, race, gender, class, and religion that get people hot and turn into flamewars on the internet. We’re not so concerned about stories on other things that happen to have political aspects—like, say, software patents."
The comment above seems to be speculation that backroom deals played a part in a major tech news story. Speculation based on expert opinion often seems welcome, but speculation colored by negative experiences with the political jockeying that tech firms often do to accomplish their goals is not welcome.
Suppose the user above is a tech CEO with expert experience negotiating land deals with city government. Suppose they're a clerk in city government who often are privy to these deals. I feel like you may be making some broad assumptions of your own about what rises to the level of expert opinion and that's got a noxious effect on conversation here as well.
I'm not sure what your point is. If the commenter is an expert on the subject, or has some inside knowledge, making those things clear would be one way of making the comment more substantive. As it stands, it reads as if it has just been made up.
I'm assuming that by "the locations were pre-selected" the comment means that the outcome of the process was predetermined. That's a huge claim. Obviously a comment making a wild accusation without providing any basis for it is unsubstantive. It lowers discussion quality noticeably when people sling such charges around. I realize it's a fun thing to do on the internet, but there are other places for it.
Its the subject matter that seems to warrant intervention by a moderator. Speculation about a state actor in a high profile breach or outage or speculation of any kind where the poster might only have tangential knowledge and not be a true insider doesn't seem to warrant moderation.
I've noticed lots of instances where a high profile technology company may be responsible for some wrongdoing gets the notice of moderators.
It leads me to believe this particular kind of speculation presents a specific problem for hacker news and the moderators.
Such perceptions are in the eye of the beholder; whatever a reader feels most strongly about, that's what they'll notice the moderator moderating, or failing to moderate. It is an inverted image of your own feelings and beliefs. People who like/dislike other things have different images of moderator bias.
I don't much care, either way, about Amazon or any other high-profile technology company. I care about doing a good job for HN. Assuming I didn't misread the GP comment, it seems like an obvious case of somebody making something inflammatory up on the internet, so I posted a moderation reply. This is routine. Yes, there are plenty of other cases just as bad where we don't reply. That doesn't mean we secretly agree with those comments. Most often it means we didn't see them.
Perhaps you could update the guidelines regarding your take on when it is acceptable to speculate and an appropriate way to do it.
This did not seem to be a throwaway comment to me. It seems entirely plausible that a backroom deal was reached between local politicians and Amazon. Such deals were solicited and a major part of the reporting around this story.
