What are /r/DepthHub's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Adam Smith is not particularly relevant to modern economics; in the same way that you can be a physicist without having read Newton's Principia or an evolutionary biologist without having read On the Origin of Species, you can be an economist without reading The Wealth of Nations. When modern economists talk about "the invisible hand", they're basically referring to the First Welfare Theorem. The invisible hand is just an elegant phrase to describe it, but economists don't base their belief in it on what Smith wrote. The modern concept is not a "propaganda disinformation campaign".

Wikipedia's editing policy definitely has its flaws, but if you want look at the other side of the coin, observe the mess that is/was Citzendium. Experts can be just as invested in defending their long debunked/pseudoscientific articles as Wikipedia power users.

But you don't actually get taught out of Adam Smith, right? They don't give you The Wealth of Nations as reading for the course, they'll give a modern economics textbook which uses proofs of the First Welfare Theorem ultimately deriving from modern general equilibrium theory. That's my experience, at least. I don't see why we should care about what Smith thinks, anyway; we've built on his work, and we now know a lot more about economics than he did.

All politics and opinions on the wars aside, YSK the Lancet figures are extremely controversial and tend to be higher than most other estimates.

As a statistician I am insulted by the way they calculate their averages. For example, they claimed the excess deaths in 2003 in Iraq was 98K. To get this figure they estimated a range of 8,000 to 194,000 and then averaged the two. This is a total abuse of statistics. When you have a huge range like that, you are basically saying "I don't know". If you want to average the numbers, you shouldn't do it in linear space like that, you should do it in log space. Intuitively this is because the relative error between 15K and 10K deaths is the same as the relative error between 150K and 100K.

If they averaged in log space, their figure would have been 31,600

There's some truth to that, but I think it's really just conterintuitive statistics, like the Birthday Paradox.

Basically, all the competent programmers have jobs and are not looking for employment. People interviewing don't have a job for one reason or another. Of course, some people want a change of pace to work on some new sexy project, or are looking for a pay bump. But I'd bet that you're not the first/only position that interview candidate is looking at.

So let's say in our pretend world there's 100 programmers and 10 job openings: 5 are rockstars, 20 are above average, 50 are average, and the rest below average.

The top five will surely get the job, and just for fun we'll say that 4 of the above average and one average make the cut as well. So that leaves 16 above average programmers vs 74 that are average at best. It's not like they decide to go become chefs instead, and it's unlikely that the ones with jobs are looking for new ones, so when the next job opening gets posted, they all apply. About a fifth of these guys are 'hiring potential', the rest just not good enough to make the cut.

And so this is why you see programmers apply for senior Java positions that can't tell you what an Interface is or what the super keyword does, or that can't write basic for loops, or write a substring function. I phone interviewed a guy once that claimed to be a Java expert. I asked him what the 'this' keyword in Java meant and he told me it was a trick question. Java doesn't have 'this', he said, it's a C++ thing. I've also see web devs that don't know the difference between POST and GET requests.

tl;dr All the competent ones have jobs, and the incompetent don't stop searching for a long time, so you interview them over and over.

This is a baffling interpretation of that post. I'm not an Econ major and I don't have a lot of formal training in economics, but I took an upper-level Econ course last summer taught by a very libertarian professor. He denounced The Wealth of Nations, not because it was outdated, but because he considered it too liberal in the modern political sense of the word. Smith's ideas weren't communistic or socialist by any means, but his ideas are often misinterpreted by people who haven't read him firsthand or twisted by people with an agenda.

He certainly has a point and I would agree with him for the most part, but to paint the picture so black and white is unnecessary. Physical books have their place, as do digital.

• Digital books are usually cheaper if you were to compare them to the retail price of their physical counterparts.
• You can carry a whole library of books that weigh less than one.
• If you are travelling/commuting then they easier to use and transport.
• You can read them easier in low light or in the dark.
• You can get thousands of classic books for free through public domain.
• They use hardly any resources and don't require the manufacture of paper, glue etc.
• If you were so inclined you could download them illegally.
• The profits go directly to the author/publisher/distributor, unlike second hand books.

I could probably think of more but it's late and I'm going to bed.

Phone repair seems to be the big ticket item, you can replace an iPhone screen for $40, Apple charges quite a bit, I charge my co-workers like $20.00 plus parts, saves them a shit ton of money.

A few days ago I swapped a USB port on an android phone, took 10 minutes and cost $6.00.

>I really wish you people would stop upvoting things that confirm your worldview, regardless of the actual science.

I really wish you'd actually read the science you quote. Reading the available studies in the aggregate, you'll see that they show only a modest effect, and if you'd taken the time to read my reply, the effect that they show is, more often than not, limited to a single sector of the labor force. In fact, some of the more recent studies show marginally positive results. The recency of the studies is important here, because the samples available to researchers in the 60s, 70s, and 80s were much more limited than those available in the 90s and beyond.

There's also the issue of specification searching and publication bias in these studies, which this meta analysis (PDF warning) of the time-series data does a decent job of showing.

Proof that Eminem is a terrible human being please?

Playing a character on an album for the purposes of satire or shock doesn't make you a terrible human being. I hope you never hear any Necro (or for that matter any number of death/black/blood/hummus metal bands out there), your brain might implode.

While I agree that the US is heading towards a kind of fascism, "corporatism" is not what you think it means. Corporatocracy is a better word

>Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves division of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests

Also, this rising fascism is not so much a direct result of corporate lobbying. Fascism has a very specific definition and it coming about through corporate lobbying is excluded from it. Fascism must be a populist movement. The Tea Party on the other hand is a definite fascist movement.

I wrote an article about it a few weeks back that I think explains it reasonably well, give it a look. It's on page 12 "A spectre is haunting America"

Funnily enough the BBC broadcast this documentary last week:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00103fr/the-blob-a-genius-without-a-brain

More details:

https://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=The_Blob:_A_Genius_without_a_Brain

Prostitutes, "easy women", women who are outwardly namuslu, as well as obviously a small number of foreigners. Additionally, I've heard anecdotal evidence that men may count anal sex as losing their virginity, while some women will not count it (indeed, like in some socially conservative parts of America, I've heard of women choosing to engage in this practice specifically in order to preserve their virginities). I wish I knew statistics on these issue in general, but it's something that for obvious reasons is very difficult to research.

I found one study that suggested that, among university students (i.e. relatively high status but young), 74% of women and only 32% of men were virgins. It's a really, really noticeable disparity. Of those who lost their virginity, 78% of women reported losing it in the course of a long term relationship, and almost all of the rest (19%) were in short term relationships. On the other hand, 49% of men were in long term relationships, 37% were in short term relationships, and 13% were in "transient" relationships (I suspect the bulk of these were with sex workers, perhaps some of the "short term" relationships as well). I found another study of university students that seems to support that some men count certain sex acts as "losing their virginity" that women don't count--this study found a male-female difference in sexual partners in the part year, but no statistically significant difference in terms of kissing, "light" and "heavy" petting, oral sex, or anal sex among men and women in the last year (though anal sex was almost statistically significant, it was clearly a smaller difference than sex partners).

spoilers obliviously >people who wanted a "happy ending" are being juvenile

That guy is full of shit there is nothing juvenile about wanting to work for and achieve a happy ending. If you did everything right you should get a happy ending, that would be the logical culmination to the choice system of the game. What was the point of doing your best in the game if the ending doesn't reflect it? Mass Effect 2 was perfect there: doing everything right gave you the best ending, putting less effort into it gives you progressively less good ending. You can even see it in ME3 if you imported ME2 save: if you made the right (good) choices in ME2 many many situations in ME3 have a better outcome. But at the end of ME3 the game loses it's way and what you did in ME3 let alone ME2 and ME1 has no influence on the ending. Why did we drag our saves from game to game to have them not matter at the end? I hope BioWare is just indoctrinated by EA to save the proper ending for the DLC or ME4, otherwise they are just incompetent because the ME3 ending is not just shitty it doesn't make any sense in the context of the Mass Effect lore, you can read about that here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true

If you look at the URL for the link, it looks like it has been typed in wrong: <https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/g38ir/there_is_a_lot_of_videos_of_the_tsunami_this_time/c1kne45>.
You will notice the "reddit.com" portion is in there twice. Cutting it out and using the following address directed me to the correct page. http://www.reddit.com/comments/g38ir/there_is_a_lot_of_videos_of_the_tsunami_this_time/c1kne45

edit formatting

The method in Mindfulness in Plain English works fine.

After you've learned that try to use those skills to calm yourself if you get excited or frustrated and feel like you want to quit. When things make you nervous "shut out the lights" and bring yourself back into focus on the task at hand. Overcoming frustration is the most important one though.

Basically you want to use meditation-like skills to:

• focus intensely on something (the spotlight), and when that is not enough
• become indifferent to distractions
• calm yourself, mentally and physically, on demand. like every time you exhale.

If you're into sports you've probably learned how to do the first two without thinking, and also without being able to explain it to others.

I totally agree with you. I don't think the buck should stop on the advertisers. OP's main focus on the topic was centered around trust- and trust is a two-way road. (ok ok... i'll stop with the cheesy idioms)

I just remembered that Adblock has a "acceptable ad program" and by default adblock will not block ads that are qualified under this program. So, there is in fact already an option that advertisers can use, that will show ads on the majority of adblock-enabled browsers.

> but we should be doing a better job of punish websites that use bad ads without hurting every other website too.

So in response to your post, in a way, we already are making a good effort to allow non-intrusive ads show up on our browsers.

Assuming that the aforementioned publication companies are already aware of the acceptable ad program, this makes things look even worse for them. They are whining about lost revenue when there is a clear (and ~~free~~ free to only small and medium sized websites) alternative that will allow them to reach out to most browsers that have adblock enabled.

EDIT- may I also add that I personally would whitelist a "mom-and-pop niche website" website if I come across one and feel that they deserve my ad revenue. I oftentimes see the websites will display a "please consider unblocking adblock" when it detects my adblocker, which is totally fine as long as it's done in a non-intrusive manner. Once websites start making the ads unobstructive, it will be much easier for the users to start unblocking these sites.

After a quick google I found this from Sept of 09.

http://mashable.com/2009/09/27/reddit-attack/

What happened was someone found out a script exploit that would activate as soon as you moused over it. Once it activated it made you reply with the script to everyone that had ever sent you a message. Think of how interconnected reddit is. If you have ever replied to a comment, that person sent it to you. As soon as you moused over it, it went to everyone that had replied to you. Shit was chaos. It was quite funny if you realized what was going on.

*Edit: I should note it wasn't an attack per se. They guy had alerted mods/admins about the exploit and they didn't really care. He did it as kind of a proof of concept and it spread way to fast.

I posted a [formatted version](https://rentry.co/Portarossa_on_The_Donald) here.

Portarossa, if you would like to edit that, send me a DM and I can shoot you the private edit link

Ultimately it's not about right or wrong. What is fundamentally right physics is philosophical question. It's about how well your model fits the data.

The jobs of physicists are:

1. figure out new interesting phenomenons and consequences of the current models,
2. to find data that does not fit the current models (test the model),
3. find new models that fit the data that old models can't explain,
4. finally, if you have models that fit all the data and can't figure out anything that breaks it, try to discover new models that are simpler in MDL sense. It's more likely that this simpler model will fit the new data than any more complex model when we discover new data.

my mistake. I misremembered the facts. It was 8 pounds of apples vs 1 cup of oil. Taken from this

Traditional economics assumes that economic actors are rational, but the relatively new subdiscipline of behavioural economics tries to factor our particularly human brand of irrationality into its predictions. Dan Ariely is one person who has tried to communicate the findings of behavioural economics to public audiences. You can look up podcasts by him on iTunes, I think he has some TED talks, and then there's his book Predictably Irrational.

>Everyone seems to think science doesn't apply everywhere, it may not, but people jumping to conclusions that it can't be in a situation where you're not measuring something with a ruler is ridiculous, same goes for morality.

Agreed! (A combination of both points that I rather enjoyed.)

>I know language isn't perfect but pretty sure sitting down and listening to people talk about their points of view could work, and that comes back to breaking taboos.

Definitely, breaking taboos is extremely important.

I accept that you have a unique perspective and set of experiences as a man. I was certainly not belittling your ability to reason out sexism or anything of the sort, simply pointing out that being a certain gender definitely will affect your experiences and, thus, how a joke might affect you. A woman will likely never know exactly what it feels like to be assumed to be a pedophile and how that type of common experience affects men, but women can understand what it's like to be victims of sexism in other ways and, hopefully, make a correlation... which is, I think, what you were meaning with the "butt of the joke" bit?

Yeah, This article in the Journal of Atomic Scientists lays out a pretty clear timeline of how the military's initial lower figures kept getting ratcheted up over time.
Also, the internal logic is a little lacking in that post. He/she throws out "Estimates were around '1.7–4 million American casualties'" at the beginning (without any citation. Also, that seems insanely vague and large), but then refers to the 500,000 purple hearts made in advance of the invasion later. But why didn't US make at least make 1.7 million?

The following article may appease any concerns about people reducing their weekly hours or even dropping out of the labor market entirely as a result of basic income:

Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

Ok op I'm good at getting subreddits going so, ask for a logo in r/redditlogos, then post in Newreddits and shameless plug.

If you want to get good content, start spamming (removing) imger and quickmeme links.

Well, National Cash Register but yeah. They grew into a massive IT and equipment company (ATMs, self checkout, etc) with a big data subsidiary called Teradata. Back in the day they were hot shit. In the early-90's AT&T acquired them, took the IP they wanted, sold off the profitable pieces, and then spun out a skeleton of a company saddled with debt and little income. Ever since then it has been a bloodbath of layoffs and reductions. They are finally starting to regain their footing after 20 years of stumbles.

The whole ugly story.

Yup. Last year I decided I wanted to become a journalist. I didn't want to go to Law School anymore. Unfortunately it meant my Philosophy degree would be worthless.

So I sat down and wrote everyday using http://750words.com/ as my visual achievement guide (you get chains for writing 750 words everyday).

After a month of doing this and rapidly improving, I got a job at my student paper with no prior volunteer experience. I then started to freelance for a niche mag and was awarded an internship with them.

Now I'm back at uni for my last year and in great shape. I'll probably be freelancing with the CBC this year before heading back to the East Coast to network again and consider jobs.

Takes a post doc to actually get published nowadays.

I can't find anything of his besides Mises, which is not considered peer reviewed.

This article answers the question about where the money comes from and also explains how it is in no way communism and has the potential to enhance capitalism.

It sounds like you would like to live within the benefits that our framework gives us, have a phone, own a computer, etc. But at the same time you don't want to contribute anything of value. Value in the sense as valuable to somebody else, who is willing to pay you for it.

I probably misunderstood your ideology, maybe you can clarify.

> the vast majority of people actually suffer under the capitalist system, those who produce goods that we import, just to throw away next year

These people wouldn't have any work at all if they weren't able to export their goods. There's an interesting TED talk about that topic.

Here's an example of Jazz musicians being subsidized by the Dutch government.

EDIT: Note that this article was published in 1981. On a side note, musicians get paid around $75-150 a night for a jazz gig in LA circa 2012.

I do like this idea, but I think you should be careful about reinventing the wheel. You should really look into previous simulations, I'd look at NetLogo for a good starting point of some population modelling projects people have started on. Actually in a lot of ways NetLogo is very similar to what you are proposing just more broken up into separate models instead of one integrated simulation.

However, looking at http://www.reddit.com/r/improviseit, it looks like you are looking for something slightly different.

Yeah, they're pretty good, but I still think it's important to build rules here rather than steal them wholesale from elsewhere, because it makes people feel like it's their rules they're following.

Let's rewind, because we're on different pages:

• If you struggle with cooking, and
• If you want to follow a particular diet, such as IIFYM
• Then it helps to have a meal-prep system

If you have a handle on cooking & meal-prep, and are not interested in following a particular diet, then you don't really need a system. It sounds like you do not really need a system because you know what you're doing & already have a really good method that works for you, is that correct? If that's the case, then you're good to go! Some people are not in that situation, however, and need some extra help (like me! which is why I created this tool, lol).

>And who the heck needs a blow torch?

I use mine all the time! For melting cheese (burgers, sandwiches, etc.), for creme brulee, Baked Alaskas, all kinds of stuff! You can get a ton of fine control over your torched results, plus you don't have to buy a home salamander for thousands of dollars or get mixed results from broiling in an oven. A basic torch is literally ten bucks on Amazon too! I use mine for all kinds of little job at least 3 or 4 times a week!

> Are you aware of the Internet's topology? Topology, as in physical connectivity? Are you aware that TLAs have dedicated racks and rooms at every major telco?

Even in Russia, Norway, Yugoslavia, Sealand, Sweden, Vietnam, Morocco, Swaziland, etc? I'm well aware of the infrastructure in place in first-world internet hubs, but it is not as pervasive as you seem to think it is.

This is getting us nowhere, let's try a different approach.

Here's a scenario, tell me how you would conclusively identify a person using such a setup. If you can't, how close could you come? Let's say this guy leaks a pile of extremely sensitive data to Wikileaks and he's on the top of the find-this-asshole list.

• Internet user in USA, right in downtown DC.
• Uses a laptop environment booted from a LiveCD.
• Browsers use no flash, no javascript, no cookies.
• Uses public wireless at various locations.
• Random MAC address every time he connects.
• Uses an encrypted VPN with StrongVPN, paid for by BitCoin.
• Uses a different StrongVPN exit point every time (they have 15 different countries).
• Uses ProxyChains HTTPS after exiting from StrongVPN.
• Uses Tor on top of Proxychains.
• Tor whitelist of entry nodes in non-US friendly countries.
• Tor whitelist of different exit nodes in non-US friendly countries.
• Uses 12 hops through Tor between entry and exit.
• Uses a secured HTTPS browser that leaks no information about itself/OS.

Let's also say he does it seven times from seven different locations. Could you find him on the first attempt, or not until enough intel was gathered on the fifth or seventh? Let's say this all happens over a month of time.

How exactly is this traceable? I'm off to lunch, I'll look forward to reading your reply when I get back. And thanks for the discussion.

Don't forget that guy wrote a book about the time period before Caesar, which also happens to cover a bit of the early time of Caesar's life. The book is great and covers a story that you have probably never heard.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N9ZJXZJ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1

I am very interested in what constitutes human biases, and honestly you can't escape them, only mitigate them some times. It's surprising how little things influence us, and the more you read on it the more you realize that thinking of yourself as a really rational being is misguided (this is one of the things that made me unsubscribe from /r/atheism years ago). It's also a good reason to never be too sure about your opinion on many topics and keeping an open mind. We are all biased, and it's actually helpful for some things.

As /u/ohanamore said, it's good to cross reference from different sources before reaching any conclusions, and remember that there are some topics that you might not understand deeply enough to ever have a solid opinion on. There's only so much we can be experienced in, and that's ok.

If you are ever interested in a basic primer on these integral biases, you can read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahnemann.

EDIT: I meant unsubscribe from r/atheism.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/iphone-4-hits-fcc-becomes-worlds-second-announced-pentaband-3g/2

http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/02/02/nokia-lumia-710-is-a-pentaband-phone/

They have Pentaband radios, the OS's might not support it though, that i'm not sure of.

my understanding of the term strawman is that in an argument one invents a claim their opponent did not make. I am not sure why you think I did that here... he was fairly obviously dismissive of the existence of frivolous litigation in this post, saying that any lawyer who pursues these cases is disbarred and judges always and quickly throw them out. I found that to be a bit of an exaggeration. In another reply to my comment, dudleymooresbooze called me out for not citing this assertion so I'll do so here: a quick google news search turns up plenty of frivolous lawsuits

I think I mixed up the Library of Congress with the Fifth Circuit court, sorry. This is a bit better:

>Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners... The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing.

However, as the article notes, SCOTUS hasn't (hadn't? I can't find anything that says that it has gone to them yet) looked at the case, so the ruling only binds Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, though other courts can look at it as advisory.

I actually found this interesting performance of WTC with a review stating:

> ...Egarr subscribes to a currently controversial theory that by "well-tempered" Bach did not mean "equal-tempered" but intended a tuning encoded in the decorative figures with which he adorned the title page of the work... the musical result of this tuning [is that] it tends to intensify and individualize the character of each key, whereas equal temperament tends to flatten out the differences. The major keys turn out brighter, the minor keys, for the most part, murkier... His playing emphasizes the differences among the individual pieces... The sound is appropriately dramatic, and the Dutch harpsichord copy used is well suited to the realization of Egarr's aims.

I'm expecting an interesting and enjoyable listen.

Your concerns are very valid, and can potentially apply to any money-making business in the world. Of course it's reasonable to assume that a business would try to make as much money as possible. And, given free reign I totally agree that they will use any means necessary (including "evil" ones) to achieve that goal.

This is where "transparency" plays a big role in my confidence in a company. If a company is able to prove that they aren't using any shady methods to generate revenue, this gives me a huge +1 in my trust in them. In Adblock's case:

• When a new advertiser is included in the acceptable ads program, a post in their forums will be made announcing the public of this fact.
• The acceptable ads "whitelist" can be publicly accessed here

Given the measures implemented above, how easy do you think it is for Adblock to accept bribes from advertisers for preferential treatment?

> but one could still argue that if the motivation were magnanimous - that is, if it were for the "good of the internet" or the good of the user - then why would they be charging for this in the first place?

No business exists for the "good of mankind/the internet." They exist to make money. If they can demonstrate that as a by-product of their profit, they are also benefitting me, then they deserve my money (or in this case, my pageviews.) This is the very foundation of our country's economy.

The Times article well-researched and well-documented?!

My good sir, you are gravely mistaken

I'm not sure how you've come that conclusion, when Author's of the paper you cited are arguing that the CQT method of conducting polygraphs is terrible. That this method is wholly inaccurate, leads many innocent people into a deceptive tagging, and is very prone to bias.

Here's the paper.

You said said "zero people were miscategorized." That's simply not true at all. You also completely misuse the numbers from Table 2. Those numbers show the bias in the examiners conclusion, it does not show the polygraphs were accurate.

>Excluding inconclusives, the hit rate for guilty subjects (97%) was significantly above chance, ×2(1, N = 35) = 31.11, p < .01, but for innocent subjects (56%) it was not, ×2(1,N = 16) = 0.25.

and again they say

>The overall hit rate for innocent cases verified with maximum certainty (based on mean blind scores, excluding inconclusives) was 55%,

As for the high chance of flagging a guilty person. He argues again it's deceptive, even citing other papers on the bias with how the guilty hit rates are biased.

>In contrast, the overall hit rate for guilty cases verified with maximum certainty was 98%. However, only 1 of the 52 cases in this sample was verified by information obtained independently of polygraph examiner records, and the vast majority of examiner-verified guilty cases meeting our certainty criteria (48/51 = 94%) were verified by post test confessions. As Iacono and Patrick (1987, 1988) noted, the use of post test confessions as a criterion for guilt contains an inherent bias, namely, that a polygraph test subject is normally interrogated during the post- test phase only if he or she produces clearly deceptive charts. As a result, virtually all post test confessions are guaranteed to corroborate the chart data.

I too feel for those people harmed by technological progress, but you must also consider the benefits from the automation as well as all the engineers that are now employed to create and maintain the automation.

I'll quote from Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: >Yes, we should keep at least one eye on Joe Smith. He has been thrown out of a job by the new machine. Perhaps he can soon get another job, even a better one. But perhaps, also, he has devoted many years of his life to acquiring and improving a special skill for which the market no longer has any use. He has lost this investment in himself, in his old skill, just as his former employer, perhaps, has lost his investment in old machines or processes suddenly rendered obsolete. He was a skilled workman, and paid as a skilled workman. Now he has become overnight an unskilled workman again, and can hope, for the present, only for the wages of an unskilled workman, because the one skill he had is no longer needed. We cannot and must not forget Joe Smith. His is one of the personal tragedies that, as we shall see, are incident to nearly all industrial and economic progress.

See here, Chapter 7: The Curse of Machinery http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

The thing that I really like about Java, and I say this with some small bit of mirth, is that it's such a thick, cumbersome language, that all kinds of smart processes, tooling, and patterns have come out of it. They've had to, just to keep Java programmers sane. All of the smart things I've been interested in in terms of quality code writing, and code craftsmanship seem to spring forth from Java experts. I got "Head First Design Patterns" - all of it was in Java. I've looked up countless things on TDD - virtually all of it comes from the Java community (and some from Ruby these days). I've been watching tech talks and reading up on refactoring, and again, it's all the Java crowd - Bob Martin, Kent Beck, Michael Feathers, etc., all Java guys.

http://www.ted.com/talks/what_we_learned_from_5_million_books.html

I think this has a very important place in this discussion.

Regardless of what method might better preserve history, the digital realm allows us to study human culture in ways otherwise unachievable. You might argue that digital technology might not be able to preserve history well enough, but it certainly enables us to better understand it and that heightened understanding is certainly worth preserving.

I do believe in the end this is just a matter of added complexity. Like all new technologies, this one requires more support from infrastructure. I also believe that the benefits far outweigh the hassle of designing proper preservation and retrieval systems for the information.

Sorry, I don't think you realise you can play football, hockey, rugby, basketball, whatever for free when you're young and learning. Yes you have to buy shoes, maybe that's the only expense. You join a team, and that's it. And again, as I've already said, I'm not talking about just what it costs to take your child to go on a horse, I'm talking about having such access to a horse that you could become competitive at the olympic level. And choosing soccer is a really bad example as it's famously a working class sport that almost all children play.

Here is a great article on the cost of a horse.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Approximently_how_much_would_getting_your_first_horse_cost_How_much_would_everything_cost._Like_Feed_Vet_Farrier_Tack_The_horse_supplies_ect...

Not to stomp on the unbridled optimism here, but we've got some pretty damn big problems to take care of before the world can be amazing and wonderful.

I share the optimism, but only on the condition that corporation and state don't destroy it all in a flash. I think the next century or two will make or break our species. We either abandon slavery and exploitation and learn to live like smart, civilized apes, or we progress toward neofeudalism and trash the ecosystem, and die like a stupid infestation, that flared up the earth for a few thousand years.

I think it's far from clear which one it'll be.

Closer to the second meaning. To &quot;prove&quot; was to test; hence, something bullet-proof is something tested against bullets. So exceptions "prove the rule" by showing counterexamples to the generalization and showing its limitations.

It's not so easy in Germany, which is ironic for two reasons:

1. Germany is the homeland of many of these composers.
2. The music industry restricts access to music.

I would've missed some great moments if it wasn't for ProxTube.

I may be applying my own experiences to everyone, but for me personally I find that sometimes I can perfectly understand the lecturer and what HE did but when it comes time for me to do it, I can be forgetful of the order of things and need help and direction.

In any case, I don't think anyone has linked you to Mr. Khan's efforts yet. Here you go:

Salmon Khan's TED Talk

Or, you can get free legal advice if you buy a hot dog

Some lawyers are jut nicer than others.

I think your comment on the problems with cultural heritage items was DepthHub worthy, too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13ri0u/this_is_short_sword_found_by_my_family_member_at/c76opi2

I'm sorry, I don't want to concede this argument, but I'm not sure what your point is. All I was trying to say is that I wonder why women don't use reddit as often. I then offered possible explanations.

I'd like to see an internet community composed of women that has a level of discussion regarding politics, science, current events, pop culture, etc. that is on par with reddit.

Is it so implausible that women don't have such a community, and use the internet primarily in other ways? Obviously I'm not saying that women are incapable of high level discussion - I'm not an idiot.

Internet interactions involve often heated arguments with strangers. In my experience, women don't enjoy arguments as much as men do. I love to argue. I've found that women may view my disagreeing opinions as personal attacks. I was reading a very interesting article about how men, now that physical strength is not the determinant of social order, create symbolic arguments to establish dominance. (Here's a link I found trying to support my unfounded theories http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Symbolic_Interactionism.aspx)

Anyway, I hope I clarified my point here. I'm not a bigot. My original offending comment was typed on my phone so maybe I didn't express myself well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1980/08/31/deng-cleaning-up-maos-feudal-mistakes/4e684a74-8083-4e43-80e4-c8d519d8b772/

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Tragedy-of-Good-Intentions%3A-Post-Mao-Views-of-the-Joseph/50b9674db61be08f804bb9f5bc59c64d9ca2a11a

Deng's 1980 interview, the first time a Chinese leader was interviewed by the Western Press since the Revolution, and a 1986 paper on how the GLF and the CR is viewed after Mao and Gang of Four, concluded how the disasters that came from listening to some long dead German on how to run your economy might not be the best idea and paved the way for Deng's Reform and Opening Up.

No idea, but I believe there's a lot of research going on, what the most effective employment reward system is.

I also recommend a book Where wizards stay up late. Well written story about beginning of networking, focusing mostly on people that have been behind it.

>tiny amount of absurdly dedicated people.

Reminds me of the story of the first OED. One man contributed an insane amount of work on hundreds of entries, it turns out from an insane asylum: https://www.amazon.com/Professor-Madman-Insanity-English-Dictionary-ebook/dp/B000FCKM7E

> I am very interested in what constitutes human biases, and honestly you can't escape them, only mitigate them some times.

I highly recommend reading the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. He and another psychologist, Amos Tversky, were pioneers in understanding cognitive biases and the analysis of how people make decisions under risk, among many other topics.

The book is essentially a primer for behavioral economics, but it's a good read for students of psychology, cognitive science, and really anyone that's interested in bias & decision theory in general.

Speaking of King's conciseness, his book "On Writing" is great for explaining his creative process and being short. I remember him saying that the first time you write a book, it's to tell your mind. When you edit it, it's for people.

I guess your controversy comes from dismissing classic authors, who may have been significantly concise and used language to get emotions more effectively than their contemporaries. A better example would've been Charles Dickens, who was paid by the word and it showed.

Yeah you're right, .9mm are actually apparently 21c each, not a dollar. Buy the pack and then unless you're breaking like one pencil a day it won't really matter.

Though your solution is probably better for the environment if you break a lot of pencils.

I bought fairly affordable set, and I really love them.

http://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Cutlery-18-Piece-Insignia-Sharpener/dp/B0016P3708/

I think it's a good set for people who like quality, but aren't regularly cooking gourmet meals. One-piece, so there are no weird crevices getting stained and no wear to the handle. You're not supposed to put any high-end knives in the dishwasher, but I do and it's fine. I was surprised by the non-serrated steak knives originally (no serrated knives there), but now I will never go back to serrated steak knives.

The other brands mentioned by the real pros are probably better, but I thought I'd throw this out in case you don't want to blow that much money. The worry-free dish washing machining (how am I supposed to say that??) is another benefit of affordable knives. I know I'd hand wash more expensive knives, and I prefer tools that save me time rather than costing me time.