Depends on your definition of market value. If they went to multiple companies I'd say CMU was paying below, but the fact they all went to Uber suggests that Uber paid well above market value to make sure they accepted the offers.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing but it's different from how we usually evaluate market value for employees.

The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.

What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.

Partially.

Tesla costs too much because the tech is new and somewhat experimental, but if rich people keep buying them the tech will mature and costs will come down until it's mass market.

Ferrari is different in that it's a luxury brand, so it will always be good quality but more expensive. I'm sure it drives technology forward as well, particularly is design and manufacturing, but maybe not to the extent of a Tesla.

So it goes for virtually any new product.

That's one thing the rich are actually good for, buying the sometimes dubious new inventions and supporting product development until things are mature enough for mass market.

I think it's a bit of both.

There are wildly delusional advocates for almost any position, I don't see why Russian foreign policy would be any different. Especially when you consider that Russia does have some legitimate grievances against the West (I get why people wanted the NATO expansion, but expanding an anti-Russia alliance into the former USSR was more than a bit provocative).

At the end of the day Russians are just like anyone else, and they'll be willing to swallow a boat-load of BS so they can cheer for Russia. Some of them will go online and undergo crazy rationalizations on comment boards to convince people why Russia is in the right. They're largely following the same pool of newspapers, blogs, and pundits, so they'll all repeat the same arguments and crazy theories.

I have no idea how to differentiate these people from the actual trolls.

Maybe, though I'm guessing a lot of people only watch shows from 3-4 channels on a regular basis and watch only a very small amount of programming for the rest. HBO is a very exclusive channel, but even if you did that for all those 3-4 channels you'd pay $45-$60 for almost all the programming you get currently, but commercial free and on-demand with a back catalog.

I happened to be in Ireland the day before the vote and asked several of the No campaigners why they thought gay marriage should be banned. They ranged from adoption scenarios that already existed, a weird insistence that equality meant two things were IDENTICAL making gay marriage a contradiction, and the innovative approach of comparing gay marriage to global warming (because even though no one has had any problems so far that doesn't mean things won't go bad in the future for unknown reasons).

In short every argument was absolutely terrible and I had an absolute blast listening to them.

They were idiots if they acted on those suspicions and started spying on Comic Con or individual geeks, but to have never researched them at all would have been stupider by far.

Geeks are a major cultural force and a lot of those shows have their own utopian ideology mixed in, the 20th century is basically a story of different ideologies fighting it out, Democracy, Communism, Fascism, etc. Almost certainly nothing sinister would ever emerge from Trekkies, but when you have a national law enforcement agency those threats that almost certainly won't happen can be worth checking out.

So sex differences only exist when they benefit men?

That mothers would be more invested in their offspring is easily predicted by that fact that they have a massive biological investments in their offspring that men lack, it's one of those things that I'll simply cite as obvious.

Unless you bring a weapon into the equation strength becomes relevant because it creates a power imbalance. I don't deny that female physical abuse exists, it might even be at similar levels to male abuse, but I'm very skeptical that it's as harmful.

I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased. (And yes, I'm sure there exists seemingly unjust anecdotes on both sides).

Is that an actual policy or are you making a generalization.

Certainly DV by women exists, perhaps it's even the case that incidents the could be classified as DV are more commonly done by women.

But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic, I have little doubt that the most severe abuse is overwhelmingly committed by men.

You're kind of proving my point.

To justify killing him you're literally dehumanizing him. I think that's an extremely dangerous road to go down, to justify treatment of others by denying their humanity. He might be a fundamentally evil person, taking pleasure in the death and pain of others. He might be a good, though horribly deluded person, convincing himself he would do the most good by committing a terrible act. But either way he's a human.

Accept that by executing him you're executing a person.

I'm still not comfortable with the principal that the state should be killing people through the judicial system, I don't like the idea that society gets into the habit of having these discussions of whether someone deserves death.

Just say that killing someone with the objective of killing them (as opposed to winning a war or saving a hostage) is never acceptable. I think it's a lot healthier and what's the downside? I understand why the friends and families of victims might want vengeance, but I'm not sure that should be a goal of the judicial system. And is it such a big deal if a handful of people who deserve death end up with life in prison instead? If you're going to screw up it's better to do so on the side of mercy.

I wonder what commercial uses they're thinking of.

Presumably they're thinking of some super-low footprint embedded devices, but still this seems like a lot more of a fun project than a viable product.

It's become necessary because of the media size for HD video. Even using BlueRay there simply aren't enough ponies to ship all the disks to carry the content.

I'm not so sure. You're conflating taste with stigma. If the water tastes gross then it tastes bad every time you drink it so of course a lot of people are going to buy better tasting water.

But if it's just some stigma over the fact that the water cycle is slightly easier to track then that's something people will get over within 5 minutes of the changeover. I live in a major prairie city, I've always assumed the water was "Toilet To Tap" and the idea never bothered me in the slightest.

People still swim in the ocean afterall, and I find the stuff you dump in there to be far more disturbing.