Asking for $600M for a botched up laptop sure is gonna make the news in a few places like here (especially because anything Microsoft is clickbait on /.), but "recruit public opinion to work for him"? Fat chance, he just sounds like a whiny cheapskate.

I think we're headed straight for a big culture shock in that particular aspect though. As women rightfully rectify the state of things regarding sexual harassment, assault, etc., the expectation that ambiguity in responding to advances is acceptable will also have to vanish. Most men will not attempt an advance if the response could potentially turn into some form of accusation of depravity. Women will have to be more direct and obvious in their responses, or we'll see a sharp decline in relationships as overly cautious males avoid ambiguous women (which is currently still the majority of them). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Mind you, I see that as a good thing. As a man, the last thing I want is to have to decipher the mess of social cues and ambiguous responses that women use. Give me a firm "yes" or "no" so we can both get on with our lives, and if that makes women have to shoulder part of the emotional distress that comes with rejection rather than just delay and muddy the waters until the man gives up? That's called equality.

I'll absolutely agree on the lack of venues and cultural issues, but I disagree it's about an opportunity problem for socialization. If that were the case, men and women should realistically be affected to a similar extent, but that's not the case. The problem is almost exclusively cultural, in that men are expected to court women and thus women tend to have an easier time finding relationships without having to resort to online dating.

None of this is even remotely of the same magnitude as the core issue of online dating: men outnumber women on all these sites by a factor of 10:1, if not worse. Women get overwhelmed by the number of messages they receive and either drop out of the service or become extremely picky. Men end up with an extremely low positive response rate and so turn towards a "shotgun" approach of just sending identical messages to dozens or even hundreds of women, further exacerbating the issue.

As long as the gender imbalance isn't solved, online dating is going to remain a game of chance and a mess for both genders. Right now, all it's doing is taking the already fairly dated (but still very widespread) social norm that men should be the ones initiating romantic advances (and therefore take on the numerous refusals and the emotional toll that goes along with them) and push it to a ridiculous limit.

It's not even arguing for hiring worse people, it's arguing that we don't have a clear, reliable way to determine who's the best, so we should use different criteria instead. That's got nothing to do with whether hiring the best people is a bad idea.

That's why you have vocal instructions, a not recent at all innovation that allows you to keep your eyes on the road while still following GPS directions.

There's also another element to keep in mind: cancer doesn't spread between individuals. That means cancer cannot evolve counters to our treatments beyond the singular individual being treated: every new treatment we find will be equally likely to work now as in a hundred years. This makes cancer a lot more manageable than bacteria, which can develop immunity to antibiotics.

Essentially, once we have a type of cancer beaten, it should remain beaten. Every step we take, every battle we win, is a step towards our victory against cancer.

Public research allows fundamental research (where motivations like profit are not viable). Private research fine-tunes fundamental research into a marketable, efficient, easily manufactured product. Both are necessary for healthy R&D.

Holy shit this is bad reporting. Nowhere on the Nvidia page does it say that GPUs are actually affected by Spectre or Meltdown. It's in fact impossible since GPUs don't perform speculative execution. On top of that, GPUs don't run kernel code (so cannot leak it), don't run an OS, have a completely different architecture to begin with and so on.

So what's this announcement about? It's a driver update to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown which could potentially affect the driver's CPU code. This has also been confirmed by Nvidia many days ago.

Shameful reporting by Engadget, not that I'm surprised considering they barely qualify as "tech" reporting.

Oh, cut the crap out with the conspiracy theories. The MyCloud system is all about allowing external access of your data (so you have your own "cloud" hosted locally), so it makes sense there'll be a way to access it. This is just plain laziness combined with zero oversight and total carelessness. It's awful, WD should be ashamed of themselves, but jumping to the "IT'S THE GUBINMENT STEALIN YER DATA" just makes you look like a fool.

Itanium handles speculation so differently that it's unlikely to be vulnerable. IBM has released an advisory indicating that Power7+/8/9 are vulnerable to some extent (they don't distinguish between Meltdown and Spectre) and that patches would be rolling out soon.

The guys at Pebble were smart: they designed the new OS for the Time to have stylized animations that already feel somewhat like tearing (origami-like folding and various quick movements). This was done on purpose to almost entirely mask any tearing the screen may have had and it worked great.

I think the problem of uncited papers isn't that big of a deal, it's quite rare and it doesn't necessarily say that the paper was entirely useless (e.g. the industry will often use academic papers but rarely cite them since they do not publish, or do so very rarely).

What I find much more concerning is that modern peer-reviewed journals only care about successful hypotheses. Doing something interesting isn't enough, it also has to be demonstrably better, stronger, faster or something else along those lines. Failure is brushed aside and quickly forgotten, even though having access to all of the failed attempts of thousands of scientists would be an absolute treasure trove.

How many hours, days, weeks of work could be avoided by knowing that someone else has already traveled down your current path and figured out that it wasn't working? How many ideas have been lost due to a minor issue that the original would-be author didn't catch? How much more efficient would our science be if we also documented legitimate failure (as opposed to failure from sloppiness, outright bad ideas, and so on)?

Restaurants and pubs have no interest in serving larger quantities. They'd much rather you took multiple glasses or an entire bottle, and that way they don't have to stock large, expensive glasses which often require unusual cleaning setups (since they're just too large to fit in normal washing systems). For home use, though, you'll find a lot of glasses like this with capacities well above 300ml (this one's around 900ml filled to the brim, so something like 450ml half filled is reasonable).

Of course, those glasses are also expected to be filled to a much lower degree. The goal is to have a really large surface area for the wine to mix its aromas with the surrounding air while ensuring that it remains contained within the glass thanks to a taller glass with a narrower opening.

While that's true, I think having realistically usable quantum computers with stable enough qubits to perform interesting calculations is an important step towards determining whether quantum computers are any better than classical computers. In doing so, you increase the interest in quantum computers, since they can do more than novelty calculations or toy programs, which in turn increases research on further applications for them. The more eyes there are on the problem, the more likely it is that we'll figure out the answer.