But once spending is enabled, is it somehow bad to provide convenience services that cost very little? Especially if the person is happy to pay for them?

Because otherwise your post is irrelevant. Posting something true in a limited context but not relevant where it is posted is not insightful.

You trusted the summary instead of reading the article. It's relatively brief, and it took me less than 10 seconds to roughly grasp the confusion.

Node.js is a very tiny part of the whole explanation.

Fuck it, you're not going to click so here's the relevant bits. I'm assuming Node.js injects script into the pages it creates, meaning those developers don't need script libraries (other than Node.js)

The emergence of Node.JS has allowed JavaScript to be used on the server side, opening the door to creating isomorphic single page applications. New package managers (npm, bower) have spurred the rise of an ecosystem of 3rd party, open source, single-purpose tools that complement each other, embracing the UNIX philosophy and enabling very complex development use cases. New build tools (Grunt and its ecosystem of plugins, Broccoli, Gulp) have made it easier to assemble those tiny modules into large, cohesive applications. New application frameworks (Backbone, React, Ember, Polymer, Angular, etc.) have helped architect web applications in a more scalable and maintainable way. New testing tools (Mocha, Casper, Karma, etc.) have lowered the barrier of entry to building a solid continuous delivery pipeline. Standard bodies (W3C, Ecma) are standardizing what the large JavaScript frameworks have brought to the table over the years, making them available natively to a larger number of devices. Finally, browser vendors are now committed to making continuous improvements to their web browsers while aligning more closely with standards. With so called âoeevergreen web browsersâ, which are making it easier for users to run the latest stable version of a web browser, we can expect a significant reduction in the amount of variance across user agents.

</first post>

You cited counter examples, but failed to demonstrate how frequent these are, or how important they are compared to the topics that this administration has been forthcoming on.

I can explain all day why WWII was a poor decision, with great statistics and all kinds of stuff, but without the kind of context that almost every adult on the planet has given some fraction of an education, it means nothing.

Support your rage with information, not 2 random examples. Or if you must, tell us how no administration in history has ever been so secret. Because wow, do I have some really nice pyramids you can have for a reasonable price!

Right-click, Properties, select "hidden", and OK.

What, you thought that was general knowledge?

Great, you get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population. Or better yet, you get to be the editor for every technical article ever.

Here's the catch.

Every journalist at every newspaper or website writes for a slightly different audience. Every story has to be tuned for that audience. You have to find a way to describe "hidden files" to every target audience. If you type what I typed above and ask, "was that so hard?" then you failed. Because for the bottom 50%, they have no idea what you are talking about.

The last paragraph is maybe relevant, but redundant. If you spent less time being retarded, maybe your comment would be the relevant one.

Allow me to paraphrase on your behalf: "HAHAHA, things I know that most of the world doesn't. So obvious, cretin. Allow me to care by pointing out how obvious it should be to everyone who is not me! There, I cared."

86 million smartphones means that 1000 million phones of any type is realistic? I don't get your logic at all.

So I read the link you provided, meaning I'm no longer ignorant unless you are intentionally hiding relevant information, but I still don't think this paints a picture of a billion users being realistic.

Comparing American and Indian markets doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does give a point of comparison.

And we have someone like by Em Adespoton above, suggesting that this phone will replace phone, TV, and computer, which makes it financially more reasonable. For that to happen, smartphone adoption has to go from 7% to 80% for your numbers to make sense.

How realistic is it that a population of 1.2 billion will go from 7% to 80% any time soon? If you have some market insight there, given that this seems expensive, I'd love to hear it. We all would.

Specifically, if you are saying that nearly a billion people have dumb phones, will the infrastructure that will be available in the next year or two support a billion users converting to smart phones? How about to the point of replacing phone, tv, and computer? How many people are spending this much money on technology already?

These are the types of things I'd want to know to make a judgement on how realistic this sounds.

If you are lying unconscious, no one is going to make a decision about whether it costs more to save your life.

Lots of people are aware of good samaritan laws, and will do anything to save you.

Lots of people are aware of the legal responsibility of SURVIVORS suing THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO SAVE THEM and FUCKING WINNING.

If you are unconscious, you will hope for some ignorant retard, which is most of the population, to come along and call someone who cares. Most likely 9-1-1. And they will disclose your location but not their identity. And that's okay.

Emergency, please help this poor fuck. I'm out. Is that what you wanted? Great, because their job is done.

Or did you want your health care delivered by untrained strangers? Stats on Heimlich and breathing help suggests that even trained CPR means a very small advantage.

Literally, people who call 911 anonymously and fuck off have as good a chance at saving you as the people who really try to save you. They might as well fuck it up.

Call an ambulance, sure. But you really lost the point.

The VICTIM has to pay the cost. If she does not have insurance, she either dies or wishes she had. Your hate is on the side of hospitals and medical billers and health insurance.

Not on the side of the people who will invariably call for help regardless of whether you're a foreigner. We love all people, because we can't tell the difference immediately. We hate them equally, for the same reasons.

This one did not involve any economist misunderstanding, other than the idea that someone watching a beheading video is going to donate to red cross, or really anything ever in their entire life.

Other than that, it's not really objectionable.

well, there is the bit about being posted by a douchetastically horrible thinker to a really self-indulgently retarded bunch of ass-tastic thinkers, I can't find a single fault.

Respect for the dead is a very fundamental basis for respect for the living.

Censorship is wrong, because understanding the causes and solutions honors both the living and the dead.

ISIS will not stop beheading unless it decides that no longer supports its goals. Can't upload to youtube is irrelevant. Please make you laugh yourself, you're an idiot. They don't want to stop beheadings, only the consumer, sorry product, reactions.

People wanting to censor it have their own reasons. If that sickens you, then you really need some disaster in your life. People really do this, really want this, and genuinely would like it if you fucked off. I'm not one of them, but it's true.

I don't understand the denial/force point, because I could find many, many, many, many. references to this video without the video censorship angle. This post by horseshit logistician Bennett Hasslehoff is all about putting a pre-roll logo on your video.

As much as I want to shit down Bennett's throat at all times of the day, this seems like the absolute least you could do, and certainly not objectionable without specific complaints. Harm the ISIS group if you are going to post the video. Are we good? Great, then make a point that isn't stupid.

The gp does not reference watching as a defence. That is entirely within your mind, and we should surmise things about you as a result.

Also, sick curiosity is not a need to imagine that beheading is gruesome.

I agree that no one should comment on CP unless they have seen it.

Many who abhor it will probably like it, and think it's harmless. Many who think it's harmless will realize it's absolutely in no way harmless, and cannot be tolerated in any fashion. This is how generally people on grandstands work.

Curiosity leads to understanding. If more people understand what a horrible thing this is, you have won if everyone actually sees it. Especially if they thought they might be okay, and realized they were not okay. If more people think this is harmless and deserves to be tolerated as a result of seeing it, society has gotten its judgement. And you will have been proven wrong, much as the wholesome people may object.

Isn't there a quote about defending the worst people to protect the rights of the population?

I saw the same one, unless a very clever magic trick substituted.

I too will not watch one because of that.

For the family members, I certainly thank YT and Twitter and all that.

For humanity in general, I strongly encourage any of them to watch this, and shame on anyone who censors this.

This happens. To people. And it probably really sucks.

People starve. People have diseases, and deformities. And people die horribly.

People need the chance to watch this, and realize how really horrible it is. It's not just awful. It takes a few strokes of the machete. Did you think a clean chop did it? Nope, it's not a Hattori HanzÅ sword. It's something some random dickhead had on hand. It's not really sharp, and not really clean.

Several chops before they die, and several more before it is done.

The news is: this happened. It happens. This is real.

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.

Or do we disagree with Trek lore?

You're wrong. Here's why. "Bait" as you use it can be good, and for a number of reasons listed in the article you mention.

Clickbait specifically applies to things like advertising and titles on news aggregators. It can also reference baity headlines on the same site,

Here's what I found when I went to MSNBC because my go to news site had few details on today's active shooter incident.

        1Thousands pay tribute to 'gentle giant'
        2Scott Walker's big blunderWatch
        3Gay marriage comes closer to SCOTUS
        4The wrong prosecutor for the job?Watch
        5'Weâ(TM)re guilty until proven innocent'
        6Obama caught between rock and hard placeWatch
        7Darren Wilson supporters 'won't back down'
        8Paul Ryan runs from DREAMers
        9Military: Fort Lee shooter has died
        10Letter from Foley details detention

So here's why I immediately went to another site:

        1 Who the fuck is this?
        2 Everything ever?
        3 Closer means nothing
        4 If you have to ask, yeah.
        5 Yep, that's America for ya
        6 Like every other decision where (R) are involved?
        7 I don't know who this is, and it's not as baity.
        8 Yep
        9 I didn't read this one
        10 I didn't read this one, also who the shit is Foley?

This was MSNBC trying to get me to click on news when I went to their site for news. If I read it every day, maybe I'd idly click on one of those. Since I don't, I got bored and gave up.

Now, defend the practice of making the user click on more stories than they normally would, as a regular reader. It is wasting the reader's time, and gathering more advertising from companies that use the readers' dollars to sell them advertising so they buy more products.

Dollars are wasted. and people don't read the articles for details, so this kind of horseshit is completely unnecessary.

Your turn.

"I doubt" is not helpful here.

The article mentions "unrefined grains, nuts, fruits, and vegetables" so your "for example" has holes in it.

"Probably died in their 40s" sounds like you don't have data, and it's a well known bias in life expectancy that infant deaths bring down the average "lived to be" date. I suspect you fell victim to bad statistics.

The popular embrace of a Paleo diet, Ungar and others point out, is based on a stew of misconceptions

Hmm, that sounds like something you would say, but it's right there in the article. H. Erectus ate meat and developed a complicated brain, the article says, and then the advent of agrarian society pushed people towards things they could grow.

Agriculture is widely seen as the start of civilization, as people had to band together and grow stuff together, and not migrate where gardens weren't being grown and tended. Consider that well, because it means that an agrarian diet is also part of the origin of civilization. Also, the article mentions domesticated cattle as being sources of parasites and disease.

At this point in time, you can compare farmers and hunter-gatherers and see how they fared.

Salt and coffee are pretty much irrelevant. If you have high sodium, it might damage you personally and you should not eat things that *will* hurt you, and that's an individual thing, not related to what our ancestors eat. Coffee likewise seems to be irrelevant, since it does not seem to have much effect on our health. Significantly high intake of each are probably bad, but high anything is usually bad.

So what is left from your post? Just a bunch of ignorance.

Think about it from the perspective of the CS graduate. The one who doesn't know how to tune a C.V. to be a good picture of what they know. They have experience and can prove it, as CS300 and 305 were all C, all the time. That's a year of C experience right there!

But it's also the perspective of not knowing what you don't know. If you use standard C functions to find length, append, but never get into truncating because you make a new array and copy instead, you may actually get through 2 courses without ever needing to know there is a zero.

You were told once, but you never wrote a line of code that needed to know about null-termination. Even writing the code "while(*p++ != '\0')" does not communicate the idea of null-term. It could be just a magic way of getting the compiler to do what you want, without conceptualizing the behavior.

Pro tip: People who claim knowledge often don't know how much knowledge to claim.

That did not preclude women, and that seems to be a new area of study for this problem. Women aren't being pushed out by misogyny and male culture (according to this hypothesis) - they are self-selecting, or pushing themselves out. They have the option, but choose not to.

Except when it is part of some other goal - that is, women do use computers, just not for the sake of using computers (generally). Women are utilitarian in using computers to support other endeavors.

So women stopped studying computer science because they didn't have to anymore?

We can oversimplify if you (grandparent and the post to which you replied) like, but the attribution is wrong. Fields constantly diverge and evolve, and the PC revolution meant having access to advanced processing power without competing for time at a mainframe. Women didn't *have to* study computer science before, but it helped in knowing how to get this hunk of metal to give interesting answers.

And it's not that women didn't have to study it anymore - in many cases, the computer became part of the curriculum.

We could rewrite this entire article to say that (advanced) courses of study embraced computers as virtual assistants, which pushed basic computer science into many other fields, increasing the number of women who took CS informally along with their chosen major.

So you don't have to study a specific CS course of study in order to incorporate CS into what you really want to do. Which brings us back to women seeing CS on its own as not interesting, not helpful, or something else. And without further insight, we could stop here and write it off as personal preference due to the underlying brain structures that heighten verbal skills, and give up on all of this "not enough women in the field" nonsense and "men are pushing women away due to misogyny and male culture" beatings.

The next step is obviously to come up with some sort of number that tells us women should be 30+/-5% of the computer science course for X reason, and stop trying to make it 50% unless that reason itself exposes an obvious requirement to do so. Then given that non-CS people can work in software development, what percentage of an IT workforce should be women? What happens if we turn traditionally male cultures like start-ups into female friendly environments?

What if it's a tech company that does lots of completely non-software-related things, how many women should work at that place?

And let women, since they are not precluded and only excluded by choice, be underrepresented where women choose to be. And if we get to the end of all of this and realize that men are just being dicks and it was male culture causing problems all along, men will have no more excuse to fall back on to explain the difference. This is the first step in really getting to an answer, rather than pitting gender against gender in suppositions.