Why not? Doing bad things to others in the name of someone you dislike seems like a relative straightforward way to get other people to dislike that person too.

The difference between this and Clinton is that the impeachment against Clinton was not liked in the pools (roughly 30% was for it), while this is quite close to 50/50 (with slightly more for when against). It likely wont hurt democrats too much (note, while it will fire up republican voters, the most common response from democrat voters asked about the process was “neccesary” - thus not doing so could easily hurt the democrats more). Much of this is from 538.

I think that the democrats problem is more that they currently do not have that good candidates in their primary. Biden - he likely did something with Hunter Biden for that position/company Trump wanted investigated. I have heard no other reason why Hunter would be on that board than his father. That would be a mess of an election. Warren and Sanders are likely too far left for a general election (I would personly like either but I doubt this is the case for much of the US). Conversely, this might be the best chance for that much of a move left in the next many years, since Trump is not that liked. Buttigieg might be ok, but not that well known yet (I only know a few lines of his biography without looking - I had to look up the spelling of his name even). Everybody else are too far back in the pools to have a chance without a big miracle.

You just print the money. It is then a tax on wealth, in effect...

It was (allegedly) tried. In short: the children died.

The following is from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

An experiment allegedly carried out by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in the 13th century saw young infants raised without human interaction in an attempt to determine if there was a natural language that they might demonstrate once their voices matured. It is claimed he was seeking to discover what language would have been imparted into Adam and Eve by God.

The experiments were recorded by the monk Salimbene di Adam in his Chronicles, who wrote that Frederick encouraged "foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which he took to have been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. But he laboured in vain, for the children could not live without clappings of the hands, and gestures, and gladness of countenance, and blandishments."

It was done in 2012 by someone else. http://www.toothycat.net/~holo...

It is a bit different with two players I guess, but fundementally nothing new. (One can easily modify tye construction on that website to 2 players as well).

I clicked and was slightly surprised. I thought the most obligatory one was https://xkcd.com/1810/

Well, seemingly nearly twice as many people watched the NBA in China as there are people in the US in total (watching NBA or otherwise). I fear they will be thinking about that when picking which values to follow...

If your ISP could access the information, they could also sell this information! But then the fact that Google knows which sites you access would be less valuable!

Google can also argue that it is a privacy issue (which it is to some extend in that it is easier for others to know what you are accessing).

He was clearly just trying to sound presidential...

I hope this does not somehow influence their ATMs: Most ATMs in Japan do not accept Western credit/debit cards, EXCEPT 7Elevens ATMs.

It is a consumer issue so the European Union might step in (provided that they also do it in the EU). It has happend quite a few times before after all.

That said, the person, Margrethe Vestager, who has been starting all those courtcases (against Google and others) is likely getting promoted to vice president, so maybe nothing will happen.

It is private data. The point of multiparty computation (MPC) is that you encrypt data in a specific but safe way that allows computation on the data without figuring out what the data is. Like, say that you and someone else wants to know who earns the most money. You do NOT want to tell him and he does NOT want to tell you how much each of you earn.
To solve the problem, you both encrypt how much money you earn, using a specific encryption scheme, and then using MPC you can compute, from the encrypted values of what you earn and what he earns, what the encrypted value of the max of these two values are, without decrypting the values ever. From that you can see if you or he earns the most.

What Google is talking about is similar, but with other types of data and functions (i.e. databases and joins).

Its worse than that: They are saying basically, "while we are experts at delivery, we could not make this profitable, hence, we would like you to take all the risk"

Well, royality of the current day british sort is basically a bunch of people that have been groomed to become diplomats from birth (or since they married into the family) that you can use to interact with head of states instead of the current leader of goverment, without insulting other countries. Yes, in theory, they have some more power over laws in the country, but they never use it. Besides that they also give turists something to look at and overall bring more money in than they are paid.

It is a bit hard to come up with a good pragmatic reason why this style of royalities should be removed.

I think it is plausible that free to play games, where the goal of creating them is more or less to get people addicted (so they buy more stuff), could be more addictive than drugs or alcohol, where the goal is to give plusure. I am not sure if we are there yet, but in principle I could see that happening.

The important difference between free to play games on one side and drugs and alcohol on the other is that the cost to the individual is much lower. The cost is mainly in terms of time spend on it that could be spend more productively for the games (and lets face it, most everybody waste quite a bit of their time on things), where for drugs and alcohol it futher includes the persons health and that they can easier lead to crimes (because you need to spend much more money on getting a fix and crime is consided an easy way to get money, correctly or otherwise). It also means that it would be harder to ban, because while drugs and alcohol has negative effects on society outside the individual, the negative effects are more exclusively focused on the individual for games.