The US government has no authority to break up a monopoly just because users don't like its ads. Google continues to provide a valuable service, and your cost is the ads you're served that you don't want. Google's not a charity. I'm tired of opinions about "user hostility" and so on from tech people about valuable services as they ramp up user revenues. If you don't like Google's ads, use DuckDuckGo or Bing.
There's another perspective to that, my clients, if google is spamming with ads how will i be able to reach them over search? Google had become somewhat too big, that me not using it, does harm too. But indirectly.
edit: Seeing the flood of downvotes I'll give some data. Home ownership increases with age. 60+ers leaving their homes from death, poor health or inconvenience will be supplemented by today's 40+ers over the next 20 years. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/08/homeownership... . We were in the same situation 20 years ago, 21 years ago, 22 years ago, and so on.
Does that somehow change how many current 60 year olds will be moving out of their house in the next twenty years? A demographic change isn't what's being discussed.
It’s very different. I’m fortunate to be in a good place from a retirement perspective, but at this point my parents had made a 10x return on their home that they purchased in late 70s NYC, plus a legacy pension, plus a retirement healthcare.
Most of the housing wealth will be eaten up by health costs. With families moving away and people retiring to alternate locales, property wealth will be seized and sold off by the county to pay for Medicaid.
Many of the folks in our field are doing great, but tech is boom/bust and people are making way too much money now.
> Most of the housing wealth will be eaten up by health costs
Unless the home is somehow stripped down or otherwise damaged, the intrinsic value of the housing wealth will not change; it just is owned by a different entity.
The issue is not in 2040, it's between now and 2040. For example, the current population in the 40-45 age range is nearly 2 million less than the 55-59 range. So sometime between now and 2040 (probably around 2030) we are going to see a decrease in the number of newly retired individuals. By 2040, the first wave of millennials will start retiring, which should make the 'silver tsunami' less of an issue.
I agree there will be a small peak, but there is no cliff on the other side. 5 years is a pretty small range to look at 10 years you get the following:
There are 37.5 million folks in their 60s now.
There will be 40 million folks in their 60s in 2030
there will be 39 million folks in their 60s in 2040.
The point is that there is a surge of baby-boomers who will die and the number of people younger than them are a significantly smaller group, so there will in fact be a surge in available housing.
This argument is missing the point - the questions is not how many people will be of age X in 2040.
It is about how many homes will be released due to owners passing away in 2020 vs 2040.
The very fact that there will be more older people in 2040 also contributes to getting more homes released.
What the statistics does not even consider is what happens if we manage to extend life, even by say 10 years. A completely different picture emerges where homes get even more expensive.
There's a precedent for this: schools. A lot of towns had to build out to accommodate the boom, then deal with declining enrollment for GenX, then another increase for the "echo" generation that we now call millennials. If you want to know what retirement homes will go through, look at what schools already did.
Why do demographics matter? It's completely missing the point. The only thing that matters is that the population is still growing and therefore there will be no housing shortage.
If I yell "he's got a gun" as a prank intending people to stampeded out of a movie theater, trampeling and killing a someone in the panic, I'm responsible for the very predictable consequences. If I promote tea leaves as an effective innoculation to measels preventing people to get a life-saving vaccination, I'm responsible for the predictable consequences. There's a fine line somewhere and probably has something to do with opinion vs fact, but it's not crossed here.
It's a plausible mechanism but a bogus study. With most of their confidence intervals including hazard ratios of 1.0 (or very close to it), they need to rule out even slight correlations like smoking and (low) income. Recall bias of the survey participants is another major factor in cancer cases. Overall this reads like they collected data of a bunch of chemical exposures setting their p to < 0.05 and found this one that they could publish on.
I'd like to see antiperspirant usage as a variable, but it seems like it would be hard to find a control. Having tried several times to buy deodorant without antiperspirant for my wife, I can say how hard it is to find an armpit product without aluminum oxide. It's not so hard to find masculine scented deodorants.
Exactly this. It's mostly just the ivory-tower kind of docs that say "acetaminophen" over "Tylenol." If you use the generic of something like Zosyn "Pipercillin/Tazobactam" you'll firmly go in the weird category. Same with most (but not all) antibiotics. The normal parlance changes from generic to trade with each drug and even region of the country.
The actual medical shibboleth is knowing your dose and dosing interval, total doses over time period X, dose adjustments, that gives doctors the information they need about your drug. Basically just know your history down cold. You'll be forgiven for mispronouncing med names, using the trade or generic name when the other one is more common, etc. Nobody cares. All (yes, all) doctors have a specific framework when it comes to history taking, and it's easy to get. And it's easy to tell when people don't get it. It goes something like, "I (or pt Y) have med problem x, y, z. Recently, I noticed u happening. I tried a, and then b but neither worked." Boom. You're now miles ahead of everyone else seeking care, you're not wasting time while the doc tries to organize and digest everything you're saying, it's that simple.
How is this different than a standard opening database? Chessgames.com has had this for probably at least 10 years-- https://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer as do a bunch of other sites and software packages.
It's a toy compared to serious chess database software.
It looks like it only goes about 6 moves deep and often only considers the most popular moves. For example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3, reaching one of the most popular positions in all chess, it only continues with 6...e5. Chessbase mobile shows 42k games for 6...e5 and 25k for 6...e6, as well as 17 other options, at least 3 of which are theoretically important. It also shows their statistical score and some stats about the strength of the players who chose each move. A couple of taps away are the full games and a computer analysis on my phone: on the desktop app I'd also have crowdsourced evaluations with up to three different engines at depths my phone would take all day to reach.
I see the warning to try it on tablet or desktop for the best experience, and maybe I'm missing some features I need to see later. But for now I don't think this even offers a cool visualization. I'd be interested to see a competitor here, but the state of the art (lichess, Chessbase, chessgames, chess24, Scid) is around 10 years ahead of this.
My heart tells me that the vast majority of serious chess players are kind and genuine people (eg Jerry from ChessNetwork), but the amount of rank snobbery i actually observe severely limits my interest in learning more about the game.
There are a few ways I find the graph representation of openings to be interesting:
You can naturally view transpositions in a way that can be tricky with other opening explorers.
I find coloring moves by player rating to be very helpful for spotting obscure moves better players make (Black-White win rate can be less helpful as good players play each other so win rates don't change much).
I also just find it more fun to look at a graph than a standard opening explorer, so find myself exploring openings I otherwise would not have looked at.
I mean the game of controlling 3rd-party devices that we don’t really own via side channels is always gonna be a cat-and-mouse of ever more elaborate hacks.
The next game will probably be mitming these devices by flashing a new CA store.
There is no general solution to running an openly adversarial app/device in your network.
There's so much effort put into timing the next recession. It's not just that they can't even do that with meaningful certainty-- it's that they also can't tell you how significant the recession will be. I mean, with full employment right now, of course a recession is on the horizon (who knows when). But, going from full employment to 1% less doesn't mean the economy or its people is even worse off than they were 2 years ago. Same thing with virtually any thing else that plugs into GDP.
Because there is nothing else to do? Whatever happens to the market it keeps going up. There is little reason to search for an upturn (and you don't want to jinx it), so they are searching for a downturn.
