This is sort of missing the point. There is no real rule-of-law in Russia right now, so any company or person operating out of that country is completely at the mercy of the whims of Putin. Kaspersky could be the greatest defender of free-speech and computer security the world has ever known 99% of the time, but if the day comes (or has come) when Putin wants something out of a computer, and he wants Kaspersky's software to quietly do it, the guy has literally no recourse.

The post (suspiciously) left out the most important explanatory part of TFA:

...

I'd be much more worried about a White House advisor spouting nonsense if we had a White House that actually listened to advice.

With this administration, if the Big T himself didn't say it, its just meaningless noise. And sometimes even if he DID say it.

Yes, they do. If you want proof, go check any political post from late 2015, and set your threshold to +5. You'll see an inexplicable love for Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. If you want to see the more typical /. skepticism of those people, you'll have to jack it down to -1.

Russians had /. completely pwned the last 2 months of the election.

In the US, if you act as a foreign agent without registering as such with the US Justice Dept., you are considered a "covert foreign agent.". If you ever find yourself defending the nuance of difference between "covert foreign agent" and "spy", you really need to reexamine your priorities.

The problem is she quite possibly has information that will be useful in court with the other targets (besides her and the other arrested and cooperating witnesses) of the Russian hacking investigation. The point of arresting her wasn't to take a spy off the streets, it was to be able to use the charges against her as leverage to get her cooperation in taking down some of the bigger fish in this ring. This is how conspiracy prosecutors work.

That will be unavailable to US prosecutors if she's conveniently back in Russia, traded by the boss of "US Person 1" (from her indictment papers) for a US citizen Russia purposely picked up for this exact reason. There will be no leverage to get her to help prosecute her former US contacts, and its quite likely (as you imply) she will end up even more inconveniently dead, like many other Russians involved in this affair..

Which means the next question is, if the POTUS agrees to "trade" a prisoner to a country who was otherwise perhaps going to cooperate with an investigation into his underlings, and possibly himself, is that interference in an investigation? The answer is "Yes", but its an innovative new way to do it.

The next question after that is, does anyone have the authority to refuse? I'm not sure the answer to that one. I'm thinking probably not, unless she perhaps has state charges against her too.

That means the average adult can expect to move once every 10 years (which is a bad way to look at it because the odds drop as you age), or perhaps more like the average adult can now expect to move about 5 times in their adult lifetime. That doesn't seem all that high to me, but I guess YYMV.

If you read TFA (which you won't do, so I did it for you), they largely put it down to millenials, who are moving significantly less (although still far more than the average over all ages) than young people of previous generations. OTW: This is yet another "Millenials are killing X" headline.

Of course we've seen pretty much every one of those are really down to that generation being far poorer and more unemployed than similar generations were at that same point in their lives. There just aren't the opportunities there used to be for young people. This ain't their fault, and the headlines really should be blaming the people with power and resources in this society, not the victims.

If your interests are entirely serial, and not time sensitive, that might work OK. Most humans aren't like that. Example: I'm a Tottenham Hotspur fan. To watch their games, I have to do the following:

• Regular league games against big teams: Over-the-air (can't get where I live) or local cable provider monopoly that carries the main NBC affiliate.
• Regular league games against decent teams: Cable or streaming service that provides NBCSN and friends. About $40 a month.
• Regular league games against poor teams: Requires NBCGold+. $50 a year.
• Champions League games against top teams: Cable or streaming service that provides Turner channels. Streamers that do that and NBCSn are more like $60 a month
• Champions League games against other teams: FuboTV, or streaming service that provides Spanish-language channels
• League Cup games: ESPN+, $5 a month.

These games are all interspersed with each other, sometimes in the same week. Can't just binge and drop. US National Team fan too? In that case, you'll need ESPN channels, and beIn (which most streaming services don't provide). But wait, what if I'm a rounded individual and like other things too?

• Star Trek - CBS All Access - $6
• Critical Role - Amazon/Twitch Prime - $13 a month
• Game of Thrones - HBOGo - $15 a month
• American Gods - Starz - $9 a month
• Marvel or DC superhero dramas - Neflix - $8-15 a month
• Next year Marvel - Disney - $?
• ...

The "..." is of course the real problem here. The year after next, even more stuff will get yanked out of free YouTube and Netflix, and more the year after that. As soon as something gets a loyal audience, someone is going to use it to leverage more money from you with a new service. Endless fractal splintering.

That is just not true in any sense.

In the literal sense, languages are not physical things that can themselves have speeds. It only makes sense to talk about the code generated by specific compilers, and that depends on a lot of factors, language design only being one.

In the practical sense, Fortran compiler vendors care far more about optimization because of their target audience, their language is not hampered by C's aliasing issues, and most research into compiler optimization was done using Fortran compilers. I'm not a fan of the language myself, but its simply a fact that the code generated by it for the same purpose on the same platform with all helpful optimization options turned on will almost always be either as fast or faster than the C equivalent. There are several other languages (eg: Ada and a lot of the Wirth languages) that would be in this boat too if they had Fortran's first and third advantages.

C only looks "fast" if you compare its code to that produced by completely different types of languages. Compare rabbits to rabbits, and it doesn't do so well.

That's an odd comment. Very few native compiled system's programming languages include garbage collectors. Those are features of higher-level languages like Scheme, or VM languages like Java. Again, this comment, like the one I was responding to, seems to have originated out of ignorance of the other options.

For example: Both Ada and Modula-2 give system software developers the ability to specify to the bit how records are laid out. Given that this is pretty much required for low-level protocol-based communications (particularly with memory-mapped hardware), and that's supposedly C's niche, you'd think C would have this ability too, right? It doesn't. You have to either use pointer tricks or just bash on a struct until it does what you want, and pray no future compiler version scrambles the layout.

C's main advantages as a system programming language has always been the ease of creating the compilers, and its installed base. The language itself kind of sucks.

C's good for situations where your development machine or target for some reason can't handle a smarter compiler. Its actually *too* low level for best optimization, as it forces the user to specify too much detail and provides too much unnecessary aliasing capabilities.

It just looks blazingly fast if you only compare it to interpreted or VM-based languages.

This is why, for your own legal protection, you should always leave your WiFi open.

Meanwhile, outside Internet Research Agency HQ in St. Petersburg...

That's funny...I don't remember an asteroid field here. Its not on any of the charts..."

If you look at it even closer, its not at odds at all, because they didn't look at any of those things (eg: heart disease incidence) that those other studies looked at. They just looked at deaths attributable to alcohol.

The fact that deaths attributable to alcohol is at a minimum when you don't drink isn't exactly a result that should be making news. I could make a study finding the exact same thing about Kale.