You need only read the laws regarding Nutrition Facts labels to learn that if something has "0g" of something doesn't mean none.

I came here to say this. I buy some hydration tablets which claim, "Zero calories! 0g sugar!" But when you look at the nutritional information, there's actually something like 0.8 calories. Which, for a pint of liquid, is pretty close to zero; it's not exactly going to throw my blood sugar out of wack when fasting. Given that this is standard practice in the food industry, and no claim was made that it was "vegan", I think the judge is likely to throw this case out.

OTOH, the plaintiff's main goal may have been to raise awareness and/or pressure BK into making things more clear; a little "* Cooked along side meat products" is easy to add and would make "ethical vegans" (as opposed to merely "plant-based" vegans) a lot happier.

Forcing foreigners to install app to be able to pay for anything - brilliant

The problem is that you can't actually load money into the app if you don't have a Chinese bank account. The whole thing is designed from the ground up to prevent money laundering / underground criminal (or "criminal") economy; but ends up locking out anyone who's not going to be there long enough to get a government ID. (Yes, I've been to China several times; and this is more and more of a hassle.)

Their product is pure network effect; there is nothing about that software that should mean that almost every freaking company on earth uses it.

I've never used SalesForce, but the availability of people trained and certified has got to be part of it. My sister studied animation, and got certified with SalesForce just spending a couple of hours a day for a few months on their website, and now has one of the best-paying jobs of her life. She was prompted to look into it because a friend of hers, who studied music composition, had gotten into it "just to pay the bills". There are two people who are crack programmers (actually both are good, could have studied CS at university if they'd had different interests in high school) that currently only know how to program in SalesForce.

Never underestimate the power of accessibility. Remember "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?

The circadian rhythm changes for teens after puberty, pushing back their natural sleep times to from 8-9pm to 10-11pm.

The thing is, for most of humans existence,

• They lived near the equator, where it gets dark shortly after 6pm every evening, and
• There was no artificial light apart from fires

The result was, as I understand it, that most people went to bed shortly after 6, slept for several hours, had a wakeful time in the middle of the night, and then slept again until dawn.

So how does that match up with "their natural sleep times [are pushed back] to 10-11pm"? What would such a change look like during the thousands of years there was no artificial light?

The actual article says she was found "in the back of a car" (emphasis mine), not the trunk. That's mirrored in another article, where residents of the residential neighborhood where she was found "were trying to figure out how the young woman’s body had been right there — almost in plain sight — for what could have been days."

They aren't a "they" sorry. They is a pronoun for more than one, you cannot just co-opt words and twist them to suit your purpose.

Except that people have been using 'they' as a genderless single pronoun for hundreds of years. It is useful, for lots of reasons, to have a genderless single pronoun; and "they" is already well-established, widely used, and understood. There's no reason not to use it.

Given most phones now have some form of unlimited calling the pay per call model doesn’t really work since there is no call charge now like there used to be in the days of fixed minute allotments.

We have "unlimited" consumer mobile plans over here too, but I guarantee if someone started using those to do millions of robocalls, they'd run into the fine print pretty quick.

When someone from the US calls someone from Europe, the caller pays for the mobile connection; so the ability to track and charge is already built into the system. People in the US just need to decide they need to stop paying to subsidize the sleazebags harassing them.

I get zero robocalls . . . because they are illegal in the country where I live, Germany.

There's probably a much better reason -- it costs the caller extra money to call your mobile. I live in the UK and I've only ever gotten one robocall on my mobile phone, and I only *very* occasionally get spam texts. Not cost-effective.

In the US, the person receiving the call pays for the mobile phone connection; calling a mobile is as cheap as calling a normal phone, which with modern VoIP is very very cheap.

Switch to a caller-pays-the-whole-way model and the whole thing changes dramatically.

If you've only seen the first couple of episodes, I can see why you'd say that; I basically felt the same way. But as the show progresses, each of the characters becomes more like a real person; and more an object of empathy. As the summary points out, this is probably in part because of the effect of filming in front of a live audience -- obnoxious unlikable people can only really be tolerated for so long.

What the show does do is show lots of previously-reviled things in a very positive light. Scientific knowledge, esoteric knowlegde of comics or sci-fi, solving problems with technical solutions, are all portrayed as cool and enjoyable.

In fact, the transition is best captured in one of the episodes where Penny, after having broken up with Leonard, brings one of her "normal", dumb boyfriends around, and realizes that she just can't stand dating dumb guys anymore.

Are the characters still portrayed as a bit "weird"? Yes -- but that's kind of the point: We're all weird in our own ways, and that's OK. Generally speaking, the closer we are to someone, the more we see their "weird" side; as C.S. Lewis said, "No people find each other more absurd than lovers." Finding someone "weird" and having affection and respect for them are not mutually exclusive.

The show's not perfect, by any means, but I certainly see myself and my friends represented in it, and represented in a positive light. I think that's a big step forward.

"People tend to be frustrated when a vehicle is actually obeying the law" by stopping completely at intersections and making turns cautiously, Dugan said. "That happens regardless of if it's self-driving or a person."

If people really get frustrated when a vehicle actually obeys the letter of a law for things like stop signs, that's a pretty clear indicator that the letter of the law is broken and needs to be revised.

I've lived in the UK for over a decade now, and basically all non-traffic-light intersections are "yields"; which are effectively the same as a roll-through stop. It works just fine. The US rules around coming to a complete stop at a stop sign are unnecessarily strict.

This wasn't covered in the video, but in the DeepMind Blog about the match, they link to a paper describing a custom network architecture specifically designed to do "micro" during a battle, where each individual unit is acting as its own miniature agent. From the paper:

In this paper, we focus on the problem of micromanagement in StarCraft, which refers to the low-level control of individual units’ positioning and attack commands as they fight enemies. This task is naturally represented as a multi-agent system, where each StarCraft unit is replaced by a decentralised controller. We consider several scenarios with symmetric teams formed of: 3 marines (3m), 5 marines (5m), 5 wraiths (5w), or 2 dragoons with 3 zealots (2d 3z).

There's no way any human can get their "micro" to the level where they're calculating optimal behavior for individual units on the battlefield.

Once people saw personal computers being used, they "got it". Once people saw tablet computers being used, they "got it" Once people saw cell phones, and later, smart phones in use, they "got it"

Wasn't old enough to say for sure re the first one, but re tablets and smart phones, "That's not the way it happened at all."

I bought a Symbian "smartphone" in 2007. Made a good-faith effort to use it. Determined that it probably wasn't really worth it to have a "smart phone". So when the iPhone came out, I didn't buy one. Eventually bought my wife an iPod Touch as an experiment... and within a month she'd upgraded to an iPhone, and within a year I had as well.

People had been trying to make tablets work for decades before the iPad, and they all failed... until the iPad. The same thing can be said of music players before the iPod. (I never owned an iPod or an iPad, BTW, just pointing out patterns I see in the marketplace.)

Cell phones I'll give you. There are some technologies that transfer pretty easily from old to new. Other technologies don't really take off until someone manages to hit the right usability matrix to make it actually useful for the average person; and sometimes that usability matrix isn't possible until technology reaches a certain point. I'm pretty sure the iPhone as it was in 2008 wouldn't have been possible technologically in 2002; and that whatever was possible in 2002 wouldn't have made the impact that the iPhone did.

So: just because IBM hasn't been able to make machine learning accessible, doesn't mean it never will be. Maybe machine learning hasn't advanced enough yet to be ready for widespread usability. Or maybe machine learning is ready, but nobody's hit the right usability matrix yet.

Neat fact: If you're in a wireless only home, it's more likely you are poor. Statistically, higher income homes have a much larger chance of having a land-line versus homes below the poverty line.

Surely that's because higher income homes are almost certainly more likely to have high-speed internet, and a landline is required for DSL, which constitutes a pretty large percentage of highspeed internet? I have a landline at my house now, but I don't know the phone number, and there's no phone plugged in. It was a prerequisite for getting DSL, which is the only internet available in my area. So I'm part of your "higher income home" statistic, in spite of the fact that I don't use or want a landline.

Humans can hit 200ms or less when they are coming on a situation they understand, but watching programmers in StarCraft, reaction times of 500ms upon seeing something slightly different are more normal (or even a second).

But how much of that delay is visual processing the situation (character X is in location Y casting spell Z), and how much of that is mentally processing the situation? It is true that in the game, when the situation changed suddenly (e.g., being ambushed), humans took a second or two to adjust, whereas the AI seemed to react instantaneously. The AI were never caugt "flat-footed".

But would it actually have been any different if the AI had had to interpret pixels instead of getting information from the API? I don't think so. The way the AI do processing, they don't have a context; they aren't "expecting" one thing or another , they never have to deal with shock or regret -- they always think, "Given this exact situation, what is the optimal thing to do next?" That's hardly "cheating", that's just the intrinsic nature of AI

Again, it's been known for a long time that AI can win with faster key presses and response times.

Then why did they lose so completely when they were given sub-optimal heroes? Clearly the strategy of which heroes to chose and how to actually use them is far more important in DotA than faster keypresses.