It managed to get picked up by mainstream outlets like the BBC.

Case in point, I was getting NXDOMAIN for mailarchive.ietf.org until I switched to 8.8.8.8 from my work's DNS.

Those recommendations are ridiculous. It depends on the airport but for my home airport I only budget 45 minutes and usually only need 15.

The section on Lisa Randall seemed unnecessarily personal as well.

>I don’t care how cheap the policy is, I’m assuming they’re charging more than they payout on average.

How would an insurance company stay in business if it were any other way?

Insurance companies make money by investing the premiums. It's possible for an insurance company to make a profit from investment even if they had unprofitable underwriting. From Warren Buffet:

> Insurers receive premiums upfront and pay claims later. ... This collect-now, pay-later model leaves us holding large sums -- money we call "float" -- that will eventually go to others. Meanwhile, we get to invest this float for Berkshire's benefit. ...

> If premiums exceed the total of expenses and eventual losses, we register an underwriting profit that adds to the investment income produced from the float. This combination allows us to enjoy the use of free money -- and, better yet, get paid for holding it. Alas, the hope of this happy result attracts intense competition, so vigorous in most years as to cause the P/C industry as a whole to operate at a significant underwriting loss. This loss, in effect, is what the industry pays to hold its float. Usually this cost is fairly low, but in some catastrophe-ridden years the cost from underwriting losses more than eats up the income derived from use of float. ...

That’s just saying the nominal premiums are less than what they pay out, but the real value of premiums including expected return on investment is more than the losses paid out (obviously since the insurance company is in business). This real value is available to everyone since nowadays everyone can invest like the insurance companies with index funds, so comparing the real value of the premiums paid by the policyholder when the insurance company has to pay out is an accurate comparison.

That's a fine point, but the question was probably asked in the context of the nominal values.

It doesn’t seem useful to me to talk about nominal values when discussing value of money over long periods of time. The original comment was that insurance charges more than they payout, which was disputed saying they make up for it in investment earnings.

What I’m saying is that since the same investment earnings are available to the premium payer, it is true that the insurance company charges more than they pay out, hence the original poster is right in avoiding insurance whenever they can (i.e. they can afford to pay for a loss they might have been planning on purchasing insurance for). All they need to do is invest it in one of the many nearly free index funds, and they’re in the same boat as the insurance company, but without having to pay for the salaries of the insurance company’s employees.

There's also a huge reinsurance market that insurers use to mitigate local risk, and arbitrage. It's how they can survive during the exceptional cases like a major flood where everyone is claiming.

I don't understand this for dental insurance in Canada. The premium I paid while a student was a fraction of a single visit. I visited twice a year and had additional work done some years.

My best guess would be that it's cheaper to pay extra towards your routine appointments and catch problems early versus waiting until you need major work done down the road due to neglecting your dental health.

But this is student coverage: the expensive problems tend to:

1) come along later

2) not be wel reimbursed (eg: 60%), so if it can wait, many will until they have employment and better coverage.

They make money investing the float (the money they have received but not yet paid out).

>/new is mostly just TechCrunch articles and things like that

Those are all copyright-protected works. Literally everything of any substance is automatically copyrighted.

Those articles also aren't uploaded but merely linked, so the rule doesn't apply.

Another article of the same law (Article 11) would apply copyright also to shortest excerpts of news articles, anything longer than "individual words". (Colloquially known as the "link tax" provision.)

So even reproducing the full title of a news article would likely be an infringement, and then that becomes another thing platforms take liability for/need to filter under Article 13. Whether there's a link or not would be irrelevant.

(It's meant to allow EU news publishers to bill Google and the social networks for distributing snippets/link previews of their content.)

You are absolutely right: The mere fact that these publishers don't block Google using robots.txt and that they in fact spend a lot of effort optimizing their metadata so that link previews show up just the way they want them to proves that it's at least mutually beneficial, and not an abuse of their intellectual property.

Because google owns the index, if they don’t allow google to index they get no traffic. Google is a monopoly, there is no choice here, no market driving competition.

The sources I could find with a quick Google (yes, possibly ironic) search suggest news sites get most of their traffic from direct visits, but Google contributes a substantial amount[0]. It seems to me that the news sites want Google to provide them traffic and simultaneously pay for the privilege of doing so.

The behavior of publishers in countries where they won this battle is telling: a when laws were passed in Belgium and Spain requiring aggregators to license even small excerpts, Google stopped, and the publishers didn't take very long to offer free licenses.

[0] Here's one slightly dated example: https://www.sistrix.com/blog/new-data-is-google-or-facebook-...

They don’t want google or any other monopoly that is in competition with them to ‘give’ them traffic. They do want their services available and indexed on the internet. If the internet search market was evenly distributed among 5 search engines the I suspect this conversation wouldn’t exist.

Sort of, there is a big push in that direction mostly from the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlink...

Clang (tested with v7) however does issue a warning even with no flags set.

Any compiler should because as a definition, int foo() { } does in fact inform us that the function can only be correctly called with no arguments.

Formally, this is not introduced into the scope as type information according to the language spec, but that's no reason not to warn about it informally.

I just signed up and 2 out of the 4 questions could easily have been looked up on Zillow and they're all multiple choice with 4 options. The 2 questions were the year my house was built and the original sale price.

So anyone would've had a 1/16 chance of just guessing it right.

>Copyleft is one thing, but this is so invasive and byzantine that it beggars belief that anybody actually thought this license made sense.

It makes complete sense if its purpose is to be so onerous that no one can actually use it without a commercial license.

Yep. I don't understand why Mongo doesn't just come clean and say "We're discontinuing support for the free version." Maybe they're afraid it'll get forked?

I'm a millennial and drop means abandon to me except in the context of music.

Millennial here too and I agree. I want to add that "drop" is used only for music I don't listen to and that I never use the word drop to mean release in any context.