So the question becomes, who makes a phone that could be trusted?

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea uBlock had this capability.

It's not like Niantic doesn't have experience with these kind of events. They regularly have large events for Ingress where thousands attend. Although I'm sure Pokemon Go drew a lot more, I'm also sure they would have expected that.

I get that most only have Prime for the shipping, but Prime Video isn't as horrible as all that. There's plenty of overlap with Netflix (which I have sub to as well) but I use it and like it. It's interface *used* to be somewhat lacking, to put it charitably, but it's improved immensely over the time I've been subscriber.

I wish I had a mod point. This is a really interesting take on the differences in the mindsets, and one that I had noticed, but never quantified. Nice comment.

Where is that like button again?

You know you can cache maps in Google Maps for offline use... or have you found that lacking in some way? (It's worked brilliantly for me.)

In some neiborhoods, broadband over power is available through Cincinnati Communications, (http://www.cincinnaticomm.com) previously known as Current Broadband. I pay extra for the 3MB, which is the same speed both directions. (I actually get about 4MB) Highly recommend, if you can't get fiber from Bell and can get this.

That first article you link to is especially interesting.. a statistical look at how often papers are false. It's a dense read (for me, not being well versed in math used therein) but does seem somewhat self-contradictory in it's recomendations. How can "Better powered evidence, e.g., large studies or low-bias meta-analyses" "Improve the situation" if those studies and analyses will be, as the title of the article suggest, mostly false? Garbage in is still garbage in, even if there is more of it. I suspect this paper was intended to "stir the pot", so to speak, (Which, based on the comments it received, it did.) and hardly supports the conclusion that the peer review system is corrupt or overwhelmed.

And the "publish or perish" is a well discussed topic even here in the threads of Slashdot. Yes, there are pressures that cause scientists to do dishonest things. They are, after all, still people. However, as I noted before, the aggregate results the people lab coats generate seem nonetheless to work. (e.g. satellites, medicine, skyscrapers, etc.) So someone in a lab coat, somewhere, somehow, is doing things right enough to make the fantastic things we use everyday come in existence.

Really??

Hrm. The structure of your sentence suggests these "guys in lab coats" are wrong more often than not and this it is an accepted fact. But as modern science is founded on "guys in lab coats" doing research, and as a beneficiary of their work, I can plainly see that this is not the case. My phone works, my medical presciption works, etc. And of course, nobody blindly accepts anything in science. Peer review, and other "guys in lab coats" recreating the original experiments and publishing their results. You post as a whole seems an supportable attempt to instill doubt in science, despite your otherwise reasonable final sentence.

From what I've read, it seems like drugs like that don't get produced very often.. not enough volume (even at shockingly high prices) to make it profitable enough to consider.

I think that is a matter of perception. I was just remarking recently about how much better Fords look these days. I saw a new Focus on the street, and I had to do a walk around to see what it was.

Felt it here too... seems a bit far away, but perhaps it's because I'm in a hi-rise. Building swayed for several seconds, long enough for everyone here to wander out of their cubes asking if anyone else felt it.