You pretty much have to use the middle button, because they've made the scrollbars so small they're difficult to hit.

No, I'm not. I'm actually (slightly) strengthening the claim.
Originally I considered that he was the (nominal) head of state was significant. I removed that requirement, which makes the claim stronger. I will say that removing the head of state, whether or not valid, is a more extreme action, but even removing a resident by force is not legally justifiable.

But that's totally irrelevant. That he was a resident of Venezuela is sufficient to say that foreign governments have no right to arrest hime for acts committed within Venezuela. That he's the (perhaps) nominal head of state is just a cherry on top of the illegality.

There is no accepted legal principle that would allow the US to prosecute the head of a foreign country for acts in that country. That Venezuela might have grounds for the prosecution is irrelevant.

What is is, is a claim that "might makes right". It has no other real basis.

You give Trump too much credit. He is for sale to anyone with money. That a company isn't a US company would mean nothing to him, except as a talking point.

Calculation are done with a different system, a slower system, than is normal time recognition on an analog clock.

FWIW, I have no trouble reading an analog clock, but I strongly dislike using polar coordinates, even while I recognize that in some situations they are valuable. They aren't the same skill.

Even if it's explicitly taught, if it isn't used it will be forgotten...unless the teaching is continued for a long time.

E,g,, at one point I could read German with fair fluency. (Not good, but fair. It never became enjoyable.) These days, I could barely say "That is the oldest car around here.". And I couldn't spell it.

I had sort of felt that way, but if Microsoft is pushing that line it must be wrong. They've got a history.

He's only a small part of the problem. A very small part.

Yes, he benefits from the problem, but he didn't create it. It's been increasingly obvious and significant year by year for decades. The only solutions I've seen are "chain of provenance" solutions, and those are only practical for extremely limited uses. Remember the movies about things like giant squids tearing down the Golden Gate bridge, or giant tarantulas roaming around the country? Those are parts of the problem. And unless you want to get rid of "special effects" and even cosmetics, the problem still exists. And cosmetics goes back to before Babylon.

So the real question is "How should this be dealt with?". The obvious claim is "teach critical thinking", and that would help a lot, but it's both not practical and not going to be seriously attempted. (And it probably wouldn't work anyway.)

The one's I've heard being pushed are things like "watermarks", which don't do the casual observer any good.

Yeah, but those are problems that could actually be solved. Difficult, but possible. I'd question the benefit, and see it as only reasonable as a research project. And I think the farside radio telescope more worthwhile. (Also easier.)

>The statistical methods used medical studies are relatively much simpler than in say, engineering. That's not where gotchas are. So we need robust studies, a convergence of evidence, and meta-analyses from competent centers.

I don't follow (that last line). Engineering, at least in my area uses fairly simple models because we can get lots of data and we can control confounders because silicon doesn't care the same way that human subjects do. E.G. for PUF reliability you can measure the distribution of pairwise hamming distance across thousands of chips. This is more conservative than golden value hamming distance, but you compensate for the drop in sensitivity by getting more data.

The need for meta analyses in medicine comes about because of the large amount of underpowered studies in medicine and nutrition. The use of statistics in the source studies is often, well creative. The metas read like the statistical clean up crew. It feels like larger studies (costing more, I know) would lead to simpler statistics - but that's a guess.

Definitely I've come to 'trust' some researchers to do the research in a way that you know the claims match the data, because they've been consistent in doing that. Many others I just ignore for the opposite reason. Medicine has had its research problems, but nutrition research is where the real shit show has been going on for decades.

That's a real problem for all spaced based nuclear reactors (fusion included). It's a difficult problem, but not one that's intrinsically insoluble. And it really should be solved.

(My design goal here is building a large mobile habitat, but not within the next few decades. Ideally something that could be converted into a SLOW interstellar vehicle... say averaging less than 10 km/s different from the local drift. And subsisting by savaging off that drift. So it needs to be a pretty closed ecology.)

That's currently true. Does it have to remain true?

Of course, I think the smaller bodies hold greater promise. It's easier to rebuild an asteroid.

The summary indicated that it would be a joint project with China.