Cataract surgery is an elective procedure. If you want to read or have other sources of stimulation you may want to get it. In other words the desire for the surgery may say something about the likelihood of the onset of dementia.

They probably make up for in health costs. Norway has universal health care. ICE cars emit pollution that's expensive to treat when it gets into a human body. They've saved that expense and it may go a long way to compensate for their lost revenue.

Facebook makes more money when people keep coming back to them and hence read more of their ads. The most active people are those that can't find the information they are looking for anywhere else. One type of information you can't read in the mainstream media is absurd lies (e.g. vaccines cause you to be magnetic). Facebook would be stupid (which they are not) if they didn't have algorithms that push material to users that has been proven from past experience to make people like them more active later on. There are a pile of creative people, called influencers who in turn have learned how to produce information that Facebook will spread. What's worse the counter information probably is not pushed by Facebook, because the best debunking is likely to cause the reader no longer to explore the topic and so be less active on Facebook. /pa /pa Section 230 is intended to protect a common carrier from liability from something one of their users posts. But it should not IMHO protect an organization which pushes some of those posts more than others, especially when there is reason to believe that what they are pushing is harmful (e.g. girls should have bad self images based on their body type) or false (much of the info on who won the election, vaccines etc). The trick is how in a regulation do you define what's pushed? That's a hard question.

Inside IBM people, men and women are traditionally referred to by their first name. Fran was my first manager, and it would have felt very very weird to refer to her as Dr. Allen

Here's the next step: https://www.reddit.com/r/Coron...

What was posted in the abstract is not enough to justify the conclusion. Battery storage, wind and PV are dropping on a curve that now makes energy much cheaper than that provided by fossil fuels and much cheaper than nuclear, who's cost have been going up. I'm actually a fan of nuclear and think while it needs to be carefully regulated we could use more of it. But there's no clear reason other sources can't grow at a fast enough pace. We do need to commit to do required items. For example, we need to build a newer smarter grid than the US, which will require some work that's not just engineering. 10 years ago it would have been sensible to say we could not replace fossil fuels without nuclear. That's no longer a reasonable position to have. Saying that nuclear is a good component to be in a mix is reasonable but is not what the abstract states.

instead of Gizmodo clicking on a link would likely have compromised the target's machine. There's been indication that Russia compromised the RNC in the same way it got into the DNC, they just didn't publish the results because they wanted to asymmetrically influence the election. This just re-enforces that had the Russians wanted to they could have gotten through.

What's mildly surprising is that after everyone knew the DNC was hacked and that it was by way of phishing still a lot of these key players still clicked on the links. Some of the potential targets have not only partisan information but probably have access to national security information. If they don't then by compromising them, it would be possible to further spread malware to those who do.

Gizmodo may have run afoul of a law designed to prevent thieves from knowing just how vulnerable some targets actually are. But it's also true that along with thieves learning the general public should learn to be more wary of clicking on links.

A patent can talk about previous ideas. The title of a patent can often look like it's about something already discovered. But it really is about what is in the claim section. This one is about comparing what is in someone's calendar and automatically sending a away message as a result to people who have not already gotten an away message. I've gotten lots of away messages but they are always because I tell my mail program to send them for a given time, not because I've marked on my calendar that I'm not available for those days.

One can argue, and I might well, that this is not a deep insight and that the patent system should set a higher bar. But people here who want to comment really need to decipher the claims on this or any other patent.

Here's an excerpt from the abstract of the original paper: "If realized in the fields, the effects of elevated CO2 could considerably mitigate global yield losses whilst reducing agricultural consumptive water use (4–17%)." The article is not saying that elevated CO2 is good, just that it might not be as bad, and in particular further study is needed. The slashdot blurb is an extrapolation of an Ars Technica summary of the actual paper. The real thing can be found here: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1038/... The basic point is that fresh water in many regions will be harder to get but plants will use that water more efficiently so it won't be quite as bad as might be thought.

Reading the actual article has something for everyone -- particularly scientists. Those who want to claim that scientists all basically think we have a problem will see that these scientists who've actually studied things agree. Those who want to believe it's not going to be as much of a disaster as some think may be partially vindicated, though only very partially. Those who believe scientists are honestly struggling to figure out what the future will bring will feel good.

There's a very nice full explanation of the issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Basically in a system like our solar system, the inner planets, e.g. Mercury move faster than the outer ones and if they didn't they would either fall into the sun or escape the solar system. In galaxies we see that the outer stars go at pretty much the same speed that the inner ones do. If gravity is the reason orbital mechanics suggest that rather than a point source of mass like the sun or a big black hole, there must be a lot of mass spread out through the galaxy. The speed can be measured using red shifts etc..

So a big black hole in the center can't be the explanation. There are lots of other explanations that have been knocked down (e.g. a lot of dust, stars that are more massive but somehow don't emit enough light etc). Look on wikipedia for why those don't work. I'm just pointing out why this new observation isn't the answer

Some of the evidence for dark matter is that parts of galaxies revolve at a different rate than would be expected if all the matter were of they type we understand. This black hole is much bigger than the black holes in some known galaxies. The rotational speed of those galaxies can't be explained by a super massive black hole in a different galaxy. One of the mysterious effects is the difference in rotational speed as you go out from the center of the galaxy. Again that can't be impacted by something that's only in the center. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... From that same article you'll see other evidence based on gravitational lensing that again can't be explained away by even a large number of super massive black holes.

Most of the comments here are about whether the woman in question is a whiner. That isn't the important point. The National Labor act makes it illegal to fire employees for "discussing terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees". The NLRB has ruled that social media is a way to discuss conditions with other employees. Unless she was discussing company secrets not related to things like salary she can't be fired for that. More detail can be found here: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outr... If Yelp fired her because of this post, then they are going to owe her back wages and maybe a lot more.

The article is based on projections from the Department of Labor which are in the Bureau of Labor Handbook. In that you'll find that Programmers, Software Developers and Electrical engineers are all different. Programmers will decline 8%, while Software Developers will grow 17%. In truth, the part of the industry that's building hardware is becoming a smaller part of the IT industry while Software becomes larger. From the BLS Handbook, SD is the creative part behind programming. I think this derives from the time when you'd have someone describe the code and someone translating that down to a lower level. Now a days, that distinction is of course confusing. I suspect SD now means a high quality programmer and a programmer is less creative. If that's true then it's not surprising programmers are going away because someone building code by composing things doesn't need that help. Our industry is going through a transition. Some parts will shrink and others grow. That some parts are shrinking doesn't mean labor demand overall is down. (Of course that some parts are growing doesn't mean demand is up either).

There's lots of blog posts about the solution to this dating from June 2013, at least two years ago. Would be nice if Slashdot were up to date. It does seem like a nice story though.

But it's such lovely clickbait. When she got the email it was not classified and so it came to her personal server. Given that the joint chiefs email was read by the Russians using her personal server might well have been more secure.