You should read this article, The truth about recycling. In particular

...the trend is toward co-mingled or “single stream” collection... But the switch can make people suspicious: if there is no longer any need to separate different materials, people may conclude that the waste is simply being buried or burned. In fact, the switch towards single-stream collection is being driven by new technologies that can identify and sort the various materials with little or no human intervention.

I think you may be basing your beliefs about single stream recycling on outdated information.

I like the way they consider the fact that a particular graphic was used by "White supremacists" to argue for a particular viewpoint, to prove that that graphic must be unscientific. I wonder if they would consider such graphics to be unscientific if they were used to argue that America was becoming more diverse, rather than that it was being 'swamped'.

Yes that seems to be the case.

Ok first, even though as about 20 people have posted "correlation does not equal causation", the authors are also aware of this and therefore control for many other things. So whenever you doubt the causual relationship claimed by a study, it's always good to actually read the paper.

However in this case, the "correlation does not equal causation" crowd were right, and the authors even admit it

Fourth, residual confounding may still exist even though we adjusted for all the potential confounders available in the present study. Smoking is likely to be one of the most important factors to cause residual confounding in this investigation. We therefore stratified the analysis by smoking status and the results are shown in Supplemental Figures 1 and 2, available online at http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org./ We did not [my emphasis] observe the significant association between coffee consumption and all-cause mortality both in current smokers and non-current smokers.

Not only do they find that the relationship goes away once you look at just smokers, or just non-smokers, but they hide this fact in a single sentence, and don't even comment on this result.

Yeah those guys are a bunch of fat ugly (not that people should be judged by their looks, or we should promite thinness as a body image) pussy faggots (not that there's anything wrong with being a woman, or gay) who can't get laid (not that women are sex objects or we should promote an image of manlyness that involve having sex with lots of women).

I bet these guys are just bitter cause they got bullied in school while all the girls got with the cool kids (bullying's ok when they aren't gay, right?)

No I was just mocking the tendency of anyone who criticizes Israel being called an antisemite. I was pointing out that a person who said exactly the same thing about the Israeli policy, as people are saying about the Thai policy, would be called antisemitic.

The problem with saying "I'm an anti-Zionist, not an anti-Semite" is that it plays into the narrative that there are these bad guy anti-Semites out there, and every time someone criticizes Israel they have to prove that they are not one of them.

But what's worse is that some anti-semites might compare this to what Israeli is doing. Clearly such a comparison would be unwarranted.

They just need to get some top notch CS guy to help them make the right abstractions.

E.g. you don't need to agree on a controller design, you just need to specify a functor from the category of user intentions to the program's control flow monoid.

Got any evidence for that claim? here are some benchmarks that suggest gaming performance is the same (which is what you would expect since the OS isn't participating much, except through the graphics drivers).

Is the irony intentional?

Yes, you are so much braver cheering Bloomberg on from the sidelines.

I heard they had 50 different words for ice.

The problem with your critique is that the DSM classifications are themselves clusters of symtoms. So what is being proposed is to shift from "cluster symtoms, then try to find things associated with these clusters" to "cluster symtoms, along with genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data".

Your post contains a lot of contradictions.

First, private equity firms do invest a lot of their own money in the firms they buy (hence the name. They invest private money (that of their owners/shareholders) into equity by buying firms). If they didn't banks would be rightly suspicious of the deal since the private equity firm would get paid no matter what happened.

Second, because of this, it is in the interests of the private equity firm that the company do well. In theory, if the PE firm bought a controlling share (say 51%) they would be in a position to screw over the remaining 49%, for example by selling the firm's assets to some other company owned by the PE firm, at a discount rate. This would most likely be illegal. Apart from this mechanism, the interests of the PE firm are exactly the same as the remaining shareholders: to get as much money from the firm as possible.

Finally, if it is more profitable to sell a companies assets and fire all its workers, then this is a good thing. If you don't already believe this then I don't have space to prove it in this post, but the general idea is that labor and capital are just like any other commodity, and so a company whose share price today is less than the value of its in place assets, is like a giant inefficient machine that consumes capital and labor for what is effectively negative profit.

As others have said VC's care about money, but the money your company can make is a direct function of the value of your algorithm (and also team etc.). Other commenters have talked about business plans, market reserach etc. but this is really secondary. What is of primary importance is what is your algorithm in itself, what does it do? Nothing you have claimed so far makes your algorithm stand out as something of value. If I were a VC I would ask you the following: Does your algorithm automatically fix the video with no input parameters needing to be speicifed? If it needs parameters, how is it different to composing a number of conventional video filters? Also do you have videos comparing the "best" current algorithms applied to video, with your own? Remember you are selling your algorithm, not the video editing software that could theoretically be built using your algroithm, as such software could also use other algorithms too, so that is not your competitive advantage.