The FDA isn't entirely free from distorting incentives. Suppose you're the FDA boss. Do you want some scandal about some guy dying due to a false test? Of course not. Simpler just to ban it. But what if the test is sound? Well, nobody will know that some other dude died due to not being diagnosed because the test wasn't administered.

It would have made more sense to make sure consumers understood that the FDA had not yet finished it's product approval, while letting them continue. People can decide for themselves how to react to a test.

They can just check the blockchain on any web browser, and it will tell them if they've been paid. You don't need any particular client to receive the things.

The addresses can be followed, that's true. But that doesn't mean anything while the coins are in the system. Anyone can create a bitcoin address, and get someone else to send it to them. They don't actually need to use their computer to receive or send them. They can just go to a computer cafe with the private key and move the BTC like that.

Your problem is when you are turning it into fiat currency. There's money laundering controls that requite strict ID. I don't just mean a passport and utility bill.

The worst is when they tell you one of your colleagues is leaving, and they've recommended you to them, so they need your CV.

I turned around and asked my three partners what they were selling their shares for. Recruiter hung up while they were laughing.

A chimp may not have the hardware to do higher math, but who's to say that most humans don't? Why is that fine genetic line somewhere amongst humans, rather than between us and the chimps?

You may not be able to rival Usain Bolt, but you'd certainly benefit from training. It seems clear to me most people are not at the limit of their math ability. In fact, we have a society where being innumerate is perfectly acceptable. I think the easiest gains are to be had in training people more (if math is what we want) rather than to try and move the limits.

The example of Bolt is also interesting. He's of a type that is not normally pushed to do sprints (too tall), yet there he is, the fastest man ever. It will be interesting to see what they conclude about genetic influences on math skill.

An EE course is not a course in soldering. Nice troll though.

Makes sense. Perhaps it's the same dynamic as whatever it is that makes the title "Engineer" more widespread than actual engineers.

There are places that work more or less like that. I don't know how common they are, but I used to work at an incubator site that had a common IT desk. There were some very young kids there, but they'd get things done for you like installing a new OS, sticking memory in your machines, and configuring networks. Every now and again there would be a leaving party for some kid who'd gotten himself a university place, studying something related. I think a fair number of them would get a CCNA or an A+ / MSCE whatever they're called.

But the things you list are provable. It's easy to separate a room into people who understand ASM from ordinary people who clearly don't. You main problem would have been getting a job interview, and after getting that first job, you wouldn't have much issue with getting in the door.

For other degrees, such as say history, it's a bit more tricky. Even asking a historian about a topic outside his specialism could put him in a category with ordinary people. So you need a piece of paper saying you get it.

There's an xkcd about this.

I have an EE degree from a top university, and I write programs all day.

I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to diagnose a malfunctioning motherboard. I doubt I have the tools available, either. What exactly do you mean by diagnose, other than ascertaining that the MB is indeed broken? I don't think I've come across anyone who's had the necessary hardware to find this stuff out. Maybe somewhere in the lab of a chip manufacturer I used to work for, but obviously not everyone works for the people who actually makes them.

Not at all. But not everyone has such uncomplicated friends and family. Your friends might like to tell you one thing and vote another, though.

How do you know how many people you talk to actually agree with you? They could just be saying whatever makes the situation least unpleasant. Anonymous voting is the only way we can be sure people vote their conscience.

Not wanting to open a whole can of Bitcoin worms into this discussion, but I see some things in that design which could be used for this.

First, there's some problems, one of which you have already addressed:
1) Anonymity. We need this so that people don't feel pressured into voting for someone they don't like. As you say, you can generate addresses anonymously.
2) Tampering from made up votes.
3) Tampering from made up people.

The key lies in the scripting language used to determine who gets to send a certain coin on to the next wallet. So if you don't have a certain secret key, you can't move that coin. You can also make a transaction that requires multiple keys. So then you could have a system where certain trusted people (eg independent observers) could sit at the voting locations and stamp everyone's votes, and people would have their own secret keys. You could even have the observers in a sort of tree of trust, so that nobody can fraudulently pretend to be an observer.

Lots of details on the technical side, but that's how I'd envision it.

This is just having it both ways. Steve Jobs does the stairs, while Tim Cook does the finances. Is that delegating or micromanagement? To anyone with common sense, it's both.

More common sense, dressed up as management lessons: you need to know what you're doing, and a large business is too big for you to do everything. No kidding, I always wondered why Amazon actually has more than one employee.

So you're saying there's something he can do about it...