Seems rather obvious now that they point it out!
Subject A: my bones grow too much!
Subject B: my bones don't grow enough!
Researchers: Hmm, I wonder if we can find out what causes A and apply it to B?
Lotteries are a tax on stupidity.
People paying for fancy cars is a tax on stupidity because I personally can't see the value of it. People paying to see a play is a tax on stupidity because I wouldn't enjoy it myself. Paying any money at all for a coffee is a tax on stupidity because I hate coffee. Everything you do for enjoyment that I wouldn't personally enjoy doing is a tax on stupidity.
If you don't get any enjoyment from it, don't do it. Other people enjoy it, which is obvious, so why be a prick about it? Very, very few people buy lottery tickets as a financial strategy, so the actual odds are irrelevant as long as it's run honestly and someone shows up in the news with a win occasionally. Personally I spend about $10 per month on lotto tickets. I enjoy it, it's fun for me, so fuck off with your judgmental generalization.
but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
As someone else mentioned, it is conceivable that women have a much larger pool of ads being targeted to them than males, something this study should have been able to discern, but the article is all "NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE SEXISM!!". If women have an ad pool that is 10 times larger, such profiles would expect to see any specific ad significantly less often than men. There is nothing nefarious in that case, and it certainly seems plausible.
While I agree that certain ads probably shouldn't be allowed to be gender-biased due to societal concerns, such restrictions by themselves would not make these statistics even.
Sigh. I've never even watched the films. Now my feed is full of people tweeting me about skynet.
buy the new phone, or stop using phones altogether.
Option b seems perfectly reasonable from a waste management perspective, especially when we are talking about personal phones (we want them, we certainly don't need them) - and to be fair I did miss the AC saying they wouldn't participate any longer, and I assume that means not buying newer phones. I certainly would be unwilling commit to that, which means I too am part of the problem.
This might've been insightful if you'd removed "Americans". I'm in a canadian middle-income neighbourhood, and even here we have households who never put out a recycle bin. We have 3 programs here: rigid plastics & metal, paper & cardboard, and compost. It is paid for by taxes, and if it wasn't then many more would opt out. Even the bins are given out for free by the city. Thankfully most people realize that when our city's current dump fills up, it will cost far more to start shipping to the next available site, so diversion is a high priority.
The only non-recycling person I've ever spoken to about it said that she doesn't bother because sorting is too complex - so in my experience the kind of people who don't recycle are mainly just stupid, or have zero sense of community. And I only spoke to her because she had left a TV sitting on her curb for a month, it boggled her mind that such things can't be thrown out in the trash anymore.
If I accessed a non-youtube URL and it redirected me to youtube, I would never use the original URL again because it is most likely some click-counting intermediary. YouTube is a well known and trusted video streaming site, while mylamedomain.com/youtubevideos is questionable unless you've already visited it.
YouTube was offering people branding by giving them simple URLs with their account name at the end, now they are taking away their offering from one individual and giving it to a company because money. It's scummy, it's selling out, and YouTube should know better than to treat their users this way.
No human owns the rights to the genes in your seeds...
You are technically correct, but only because corporations own those rights.
By one account, Uber was handing drivers 300 yuan (about US$50) for every 30 trips and 400 yuan for every 40.
Seems like they need to add other metrics into their bonus system, like a minimum fare required to count towards the bonus.
Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955