The slashdot summary just mentions how a shorter workweek leads to less stress. That's sort of obvious. The only way it would lead to more stress would be if the boss acts in a way to induce stress.

The productivity per week or per hour is a less obvious result. I wonder if how productivity is affected depends on the specific job. For example, assembly line workers who already are moving as fast as they can likely will see less productivity with fewer hours worked.

One more interesting question would be how stress and productivity vary across a wider range of work hours. If four days or 32 hours is good, would three days or 24 hours be better? My guess is that stress reduction would be a monotonic function (absent the disapproving boss, of course). However, productivity even for amenable jobs would eventually decrease as the number of hours approaches zero.

So how does sensing work? I'm assuming that the Wi-Fi signals need to pass between an access point and some type of sensor. This means that the sensing only works at a limited number of locations because there are a limited number of sensors, but this is still okay if the number of entrances and exits is small.

More importantly, I wonder if the positioning and orientation of a person between the Wi-Fi antenna and the sensor matter. If the person walks sideways or upside down or jumps off the ground, are the signals recognized as the same, or would the system need the person to cross the location in a similar manner?

Trump has competed in three presidential general elections in 2016, 2020, and 2024 and received 46.2%, 46.9%, and 49.8% of the votes cast, respectively. Trump didn't even get a plurality of the popular vote in 2016, trailing 46.2% to Clinton's 48.2%. Of course, Trump also didn't get a plurality in 2020, when he lost 46.9% to Biden's 51.3%. 2024 was the only election where Trump achieved a plurality, 49.8% to Harris' 48.3%.

It's harder to count popular votes in primaries because the elections don't happen on the same days, and the latter elections are heavily influenced by the earlier ones.

I guess MAGA folks have a problem with math. Somehow 49.8% is a majority in MAGA math. ... talking about alternative virtual universes ...

Yes and no. The main reason to think that China might invade Taiwan is that they have always had that desire over since 1949. The only reason preventing that invasion in the past was a combination of the limitations of the PRC military, particularly the navy and air force, and the intervention of the US, both in terms of direct military presence and arms supply. Furthermore, the hoped for Soviet military support never materialized due to a Soviet preference to avoid a hot war with the US. China did try to invade the coastal islands in the 1950s and were unsuccessful due to PRC military limitations, and furthermore, the US navy patrolled the Taiwan Strait with the outbreak of the Korean War. Times are different now. The Chinese military is far larger and more capable, the Taiwanese military capability has atrophied, the US military presence is gone, and US arms supplies are minimal.

There are a few things holding back an invasion of Taiwan. First, the disruption to the global and by extension the Chinese economy would be significant, and the conquest of Taiwan would likely not be worth the devastation to the Chinese economy and the potential mass unrest. Second, the US response is uncertain, and a confrontation with the US (and potentially NATO plus Japan/Korea) may not be worthwhile. Third, the Orwellian value of a perpetual war enemy disappears with the conquest of Taiwan, and it's arguable that Taiwan as the perpetual propaganda enemy is far more valuable than a destroyed Taiwan that would have to be economically propped up by China.

Until the US government accuses the airlines of collusion, like in the 1994 ATPCO case.

Whereas previous schemes tried to collude among airlines to set higher prices, this current Delta scheme is trying raise prices by making price comparison more challenging. If every query for a specific ticket returns a different price, then comparing prices among different airlines is futile.

Another option is cutting back on $20-30 billion in share buybacks every year. Even cutting 15,000 employees saves just a small portion of the cost of the share buybacks. And the share buybacks constitute less than 1% of the total market capitalization, so they don't really have much of an effect on the share price. What's more baffling is that if the buyback money were instead spent on increased dividends, the current dividends could be doubled, and that potentially would increase the share price more than the buybacks.

The real problem is that the executives don't have common sense. Investing gobs of money in a future technology like AI. That's a risky bet, but at least one that is understandable. Buybacks are just throwing someone else's money at something that is known to not make a difference. Executives do the buybacks because it's not their money. Getting rid of employees does decrease operating expenses and increase efficiency, but that assumes that the executives know who to cut, which, of course, is unlikely given that the same executives hired these people in the first place.

This is true. This is suppressing mere questions, let alone actual thinking or communication of thoughts.

Lucent unraveled almost immediately. The first rumors of accounting impropriety appeared in early 2000. Within 18 months, Lucent stock had lost more than 90% of its value. In less than 3 years from the first rumors, Lucent stock had lost 99%(!!!!) of its value. Of course, that was due to financial cheating. Intel hasn't done that. However, companies can come undone super fast.

And cats. Cats are the biggest killer of birds by far. Then buildings and windows. If we were really worried about bird deaths, we'd get rid of cats as well as buildings and windows.

Or maybe it will appear as an opt-out subscription charge after the 12 months. At $20/month, if 10% of the 360 million forget to cancel, that's $720 million in that first month.

It's both. Sharply decreased smoking and increased prevention like the HPV vaccine are significant.

However, it's mostly prevention. For example, NIH researchers recently published a paper on modeling with results that "between 1975 and 2020 ... prevention and screening interventions accounted for 4.75 million, or 80%, of the averted deaths."

I would also disagree with your assertion. Innovative ideas tend to come from individuals, and those individuals comes from many different situations, such as lone investors, startups, or part of a multinational conglomerate.

"The malware must be planted on an unlocked device"

So, is some special malware needed when the police get an unlocked phone? Isn't the problem simply that the police have an unlocked phone?

These stats from statcounter are based on analysis of hits to the set of websites that they have instrumented. Their FAQ mentions that they have instrumented 1.5 million websites. The estimate of global websites is over 1 billion, with somewhere around 200 million active websites. So, it's clear that statcounter's instrumentation is a sampling of the total websites.

However, the more important question is how representative that sampling is. We get a hint from the distribution of website hit across countries:

It's clear that China is heavily underrepresented. This is not a surprise that Chinese websites tend to not be in the list of statcounter instrumented websites. Japan and Korea aren't in the top 10, but somehow Taiwan is. Many large European countries aren't in the top 10, but Turkey is.

statcounter's numbers are still interesting, but should be viewed as a vague estimate.