horrified's comments

Sorry, WaPo.

I guess he was certain that anybody so well versed in the 80ies cult products would have to be a good person.

A better comparison would be to say "the hottest 10 days were all this July. There seems to be a trend here". Then it would be obvious that it was simply the hottest July, so of course all days were comparatively hot.

Just saying that there could be climate patterns that span more than a year, and "all the hottest Julies where in the last ten years" would be similar to saying "all the hottest days were in the last month".

Not saying it is the case, but also not saying that I automatically believe the fearmongering.

Are years the appropriate units for such comparisons, though?

Anyway I give them their record, my main gripe is really the talk about averages. It's just plain misleading or at least not as informative as it could be.

Somehow there is little reaction when white people are being shot, though (or killed in general, like the white guy who died in the same way as Georg Floyd sometime before). I think there is more to it than just accessibility.

Is Apple's approach even likely to catch any pedophiles? Seems to me at most it would succeed in keeping such photos from Apple devices, which is perhaps good for their public image, but does nothing to catch predators?

It is very public now that Apple will scan for such pictures, so how many pedophiles will keep them on their phones?

Do Indians also count as Asians in those statistics (like 40% of Google)?

I guess one problem with the virtual world in RPO is that it is centralized, and therefore people are fighting each other to control it.

Seems I misremebered it, thanks. I found two different estimates right now, too, one for ~1.6%, one for ~0.4%.

Sometimes real estate the owners live in themselves is not counted?

With 1.6% the odds of having a millionaire neighbor would still be high.

Why shouldn't the house count, though?

MSCI world hat positive returns in all but three years since 2007: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/178e6643-6ae6-47b9-82be...

Granted the -40% in 2008 were brutal, but even that would have been compensated in a few years.

In my country (Germany) afaik a little over 10% of the population are at least millionaires. So I think the likelihood to have a millionaire living next door is quite high.

"If Read suffered from poor health during his working years or required long-term care, his estate would be a fraction of what it was."

So don't bother saving or trying to get rich, because you might become ill and have to spend the money on your health?

The whole article seems weird. What is their point? So 300$/Month is not enough, but 500$ would be? Surely that is something many people could at least aspire to?

I think the poverty discussion often overlooks the fluent nature of the economy. People who have low paying jobs today (say pizza driver) don't necessarily have the same job forever. But new "poor people" (often young people) will enter the market and become pizza drivers.

Should pizza drivers give up all hope and just "live"?

Also afaik the markets had good returns in the long run pretty much always. If it really would not be worthwhile to invest anything anymore, some serious questioning of politics would be in order.

I only recently read "The Millionaire Next Door", and while I didn't really like the writing style, I think it still made some good points.

I would imagine most Ethereum miners are pretty well off by now, so the "working class" analogy is really off.

Also "the ruling class" can not really force their rules on others.

Everybody participating in cryptocoins right now is hopefully aware that it is an experiment with uncertain outcomes. So the "promises were broken" thing doesn't really convince me, either. I don't think the users of Ethereum were promised a finished product.

"Code is law" also only applies if people accept the law. In the DAO case, people decided to change the law, or stick to Ethereum classic.

There was not that much context to the story to begin with, so it is unclear how awful he really was.

They seemed very keen to communicate high risk things, though.

NYT is paywalled, but all articles about it that I have read are a mix of scary anecdotes without statistics ("Johnny was unable to remember his biology lessons" - how often does that happen" and statistics about "x% experience 'such' ongoing symptoms", where "such" is sneakily a mix of severe and non severe symptoms that can be lumped together under "long covid" to make it sound scarier.

Not saying there is no risk, but I wish there were some clearer statistics about it. There should be enough data by now.

I personally think that if there really was a significant risk for kids, it would have been clearly communicated by now.

Thanks!

I said they felt he is awful. Maybe he felt they are awful, too. It is a thing that happens in human relationships, that people end up disliking each other. We have only heard one side of the story here.

It is a pretty normal thing that people don't get along with each other, for whatever reason. Just because one party goes public and frames the other as a horrible person, doesn't necessarily mean they really are.

If nobody who is disliked by somebody could become boss, there would only be very few candidates left.

No "drinking for the planet" then? Disappointing.