Just because your heart rate is above the average does not mean you are an athlete. Otherwise all coke addicts would be athletes, and we surely don't think that.

There is a problem with that strategy. While the pissed people might not cancel, they will not accept higher fees. For example my wife and I had a two screen subscription, but we downgraded because Netflix did not have enough content to make it interesting for us.

No actually people in France know about this law, but they flaunt it. Until it bites them in the ass. For reference I am in France.

As I am in France and about to run a Gite I know about this law. The ISP will log the data and whenever something odd comes up they will delegate it down to the client of theirs. Then the police goes to the client, and confronts them. If this case is a GITE and a client, then unless you can prove it was a client, you are liable. They will apply this law for terrorism, and copyright violations.

I read the comments and the idea that you think in your country logs are not kept is ludicrous. All countries keep logs. You just might know about it.

Agreed!

Give that man or woman or person a cigar! That is exactly the point!

Oh wait it will all be bitcoin and the likes right? /s ;)

Let me be cynical... Because they are idiot scientific folks. By idiot I mean the inability to comprehend that this is not science and there is one single one best tasting anything. However, since this is Silicon Valley, not surprised whatsoever. I have worked there enough to understand that they don't understand there exists a world outside of their bubble.

That is the rub, I don't think voters will leave. I think they will buy into his narrative and thus it just gets more people thinking his way.

You took the words right out of my mouth. If you look at the overall tax rate of the big corporates it is peanuts. But hey let's buy back shares and keep issuing debt. I am not against capitalism nor big corporations, but this is just becoming downright stupid.

If we can manage to have options of Chloroquine, Hydroxycloroquine, AZ, Zinc, and one other treatment then I pretty sure I can put together a full controlled trial of the various combinations and find at least one that comes back as helping with a statistically significant p=0.05. This assumes, of course, that one skips the slightly more subtle multiple-trials Bonferroni statistical corrections, but that would be easy to do (its subtle math, and who really knows that much about stats anyway). If we can manage successfully produce a wide-scale controlled trial with positive results (and with 5 options and all combinations thereof, odds are that we can), I would be unsurprised to find a large amount of anecdotal evidence in favour of it, especially if you add in a little subjective validation, and extra attention paid to these particular drugs.

While it is nice to see an article discussing real issues in mathematics, it is a little sensationalist in places. While formalized proofs amenable to computer proof checkers are definitely a good thing, it isn't really the case that math is going to fall apart or turn out to be wrong any time soon. For starters a surprisingly large amount of mathematics has actually been fully formalized to that level: check out metamath for example. Second, while complex theorems at the edge of current research may potentially have an issue (it was issues with some of his proofs in very abstract homotopy theory and motives that made Voevodsky a convert to computer formalizable proofs), the vast majority of math is used routinely enough by enough mathematicians (and verified by students as exercises) that errors are at this point vanishingly unlikely. Finally, if by some bizarre circumstance something did go wrong, the result would be a patching of axioms assumptions to make most of the mathematics we have true again -- at the end of the day math has to be useful; as Russell said in Introduction Mathematical Philosophy:

We want our numbers not merely to verify mathematical formulæ, but to apply in the right way to common objects. We want to have ten fingers and two eyes and one nose. A system in which âoe1â meant 100, and âoe2â meant 101, and so on, might be all right for pure mathematics, but would not suit daily life. We want âoe0â and âoenumberâ and âoesuccessorâ to have meanings which will give us the right allowance of fingers and eyes and noses. We have already some knowledge (though not sufficiently articulate or analytic) of what we mean by âoe1â and âoe2â and so on, and our use of numbers in arithmetic must conform to this knowledge.

The practical applications of mathematics to science and engineering have been so rich and so effective that any new "corrected" theory of mathematics that didn't recapitulate the same results would simply be ignored or rejected. We would instead modify axioms, or logic itself until we could regenerate much of the mathematics we have.

That's the good case where you just have to move a factory. For many industries it is all about complicated supply chains, which you can't just move wholesale because you likely don't control a large portion of. Unentangling a supply chain enough to make it tractable to move the parts of it you can control to the US could easily take many years in and of itself, if it is really possible at all. What do your contracts look like? What do the other companies tangled up in your supply chain have in the way of contracts?

Wow, cool that you caught that and I agree with you. The only thing I would like to add is one should catch the name -> LTSE Long Term Stock Exchange. Well in the 90's there was something called LTCM (Long Term Capital Management). Run by really smart guys and blew up in an utterly spectacular fashion. The parallels are truly hilarious.

Apparently nobody told them about LTCM... Thus to put up the facade one must call it LTSE...