I'm pretty sure they did not. =)

Ahah :D So, because we don't know how the virus spreads exactly, and all our models have failed so far, we are designing a brand new model. This is hilarious. This thing will just never end.

OK. After that everything can be said.

Have you actually read it? Because if you had - at least the main points - the "risk far outweighs the benefit" is a gross overstatement. Nothing of the sort is stated in the linked study, as far as I've read. For CVD, which I guess is the main reason low dose aspirin has been recommended for a long time, things haven't changed that much, actually. Quoting: "Despite this accrual of new evidence, findings for CVD outcomes and bleeding harms were remarkably similar to our prior review'. It's for CRC prevention, again as far as I've read, that the benefit is more questionable. So the article doesn't seem to accurately reflect the study, and looks a bit like a click bait.

Ahah, yeah! Anyway, I would really like to see this "mounting evidence that the risk of serious side effects far outweighs the benefit". I can't wait for them to share their data.

Well, with the closing of many spanish and german mines, the polish and bulgarian ones will probably get a lot more profitable, and I too doubt they will stop :)

We don't even need to get that far. It's about *unprofitable* coal mines. That absolutely doesn't mean this is a move away from coal. This just means this is a move away from unprofitable coal mines. Expected consequences are a loss of many jobs and the accelerated profitability of the remaining coal mines, which is probably going to be pretty easy once we have gotten rid of all the unprofitable ones. Another possible consequence for Germany (for instance) is the future need to import coal from less picky countries. :D

I'm pretty sure this is going to fall apart. France is trapped in the EU and this kind of decision will cause many issues if it's doing this on its own. It's never going to work IMO. Just sounds like a bullshit announcement. It's part of the announcements to calm down the protesters which amongst many things, protest against tax injustice. As the french government refused to reactivate the "rich tax" (ISF), this is done to compensate, knowing that they most likely won't be able to enforce it anyway. EU rules promote tax optimization. The rest is just comedy.

Bigmouth strikes again.

Several studies show there is no clear trend. Global climate is a tricky business. Thanks for pointing this out with a published paper in a respected journal. There is no way we can conclude anything relevant at this point. Anyone claiming otherwise is dishonest.

That said, all this warming frenzy consistently makes politics focus on that potential issue almost exclusively, whereas there are many other very real problems caused by pollution (health problems for instance) that seem considered as secondary at best. This is where we should all focus our energy.

I'm afraid all this focus on a problem that is not yet quite clear helps people ignoring most of the other pollution factors, which may be handy for some. It's interesting to notice, as an example, that the relatively non-conclusive studies on the risks of pesticides on animal and human health are used as an excuse not to do anything, whereas the non-conclusive studies on global climate seem good enough to warrant a political frenzy (while still doing pretty much nothing except getting more tax money.)

This constant stream of insipid blabber about Bitcoin and how it's going to crash soon, that has been going on for years through self-proclaimed experts, is certainly doing much more in terms of money and exposure for those fuckers than they'd get actually investing in cryptocurrencies or in anything else for that matter. I'm inviting anyone to take a look at just how many Youtube channels, just as an example, deal with Bitcoin analysis an predict its crashing, and how many views they get. :)

Indeed, most people promoting these supposedly "safe" languages kindly ignore the fact that their internals may use or generate unsafe code even if the top-level code you write seems inherently safe.

That sort of shifts the risk upon the compilers/interpreters/runtimes, which you'd be supposed to trust blindly. Which causes even more potential issues than using tools you know you should be careful with IMO. Excessive trust in any tool is much more risky than using tools that are known to be trickier to use. A lot more accidents are caused by an excess of trust (in yourself or your tools) than by faulty tools in general.

Speaking of Idiocracy. http://www.24usatv.com/feeds/h...

Now if anyone thinks this has anything to do with people's will, they would be sadly mistaken. This would be a first in history. Get real!

You're actually kind of right. Whereas being a native speaker certainly gives you a temporary advantage, english is a simple and widespread enough language that the advantage is not THAT great. Besides, native english speakers, particularly the american and british, tend to speak only one language, their own, whereas a lot of other people in the world now speak at least two - their own, and english. So who really has the edge in the end? Not that clear in fact!