If that was the case, then why are the CEO's putting their personal names on the line?
It's trivially simple for an expendable PR person or lawyer to go on the blog and make an "official" statement ghostwritten by the NSA/etc.
But that's not what happened. Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg posted using their accounts, and if it wasn't them, it was ghost written and borrowing their name and reputation (ie, they own it).
So, the CEO's are intentionally lying and intentionally attaching their names what could be the biggest lie they tell in some time.
Seems very stupid, why would they do that? Why not sacrifice a scapegoat? PR departments are full of useful scapegoats.
The Government forced them to reply personally to bolster credibility? But now we're back into the laughable conspiracy area again.
Or of course, they're telling the truth. For all we know, these companies reached out to each other, not the government, on the response.
>It would be really cool to have a personal 23andMe api where people can test themselves without sending data to a 3rd party.
The point of 23andMe is that they're trying to figure out what all the data means, using the data itself.
You can go get your genome sequenced or a partial sequencing like 23andMe does and get the giant, raw output file.
And sit and stare at it. I know I've played with that data in bio lab before. It's not exactly easy to infer data out of it.
Which is why having a lot of different sets of data, and information about the person the data came from, can help us.
Without a third party aggregating genomic data for study, we're not going to be able to understand the genome, and certainly not going to be able to deliver private, accurate and useful analysis of personal data.
It's probably simple: "Is this hearing of the same security level as the information being requested? No? It's public with the press writing about it? Deny. Deny. Deny."
The fact that the article posts a VIDEO of the hearing further strengthens my idea that they'll never admit to CLASSIFIED projects during public hearings.
>Logical fallacies are only relevant in certain narrow rhetorical modes and contexts. Specifically, logical fallacies are only relevant in rational arguments.
The only quote that matters.
People who use logical fallacies generally consider themselves rational and try their hardest to maintain logical integrity with their positions.
When debating with theists, paranormalists, and others who have faith-based views that are inherently (and intentionally) irrational, you can't use rational arguments and expect anything to happen.
This is why I stopped having all of these arguments in general. You start with an evidence requirement and end at the exact same point, because for many "a voice/book told me so" is the highest form of evidence that can be offered, and such evidence is considered to "trump" all other sources, regardless of what they are.
Without a common foundation from which to communicate, nothing constructive is possible.
You've been brainwashed. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
All services cost.
Who will pay for your free service? Venture capital only lasts so long.
The best option for consumers is one that meets their needs for as long as they need it, not one that exceeds their needs for six months until the doors close...
Such absolutist, black and white descriptions of these situations are, quite frankly, terrible.
I mean, you take business and politics and compare it to a life or death struggle against cancer. Could you be any less fair to the interests of the other side?
You could, extremely easily, reverse the tables and let the massive automotive industry and the millions upon millions of people in it's employ describe Musk and his electric startups as a cancer on one of the backbones of American industry. That his "I won't come to the table" policies of "my way or the highway" are disease on a century old industry that has provided for multiple generations of American's livelihoods.
I don't see how your ridiculous demagoguery does anything but turn this into a "us vs them" false dichotomy.
I support Musk and Tesla but comments like this are just ridiculous. The guy is selling a few thousand $80000 ultra-luxury sportscars. Let's not decry the end of a century old industry _quite_ yet with such dramatic language, eh?
Why only Huffington Post publication? They're widely known for alt-medicine and anti-science, and anyone reading science/medicine should rightfully be wary of anything on HuffPo, which has often lent it's publicity and support to anti-scientific groups.
Also, don't you mean it's more than a two dimensional spectrum, as one dimensionality would be a single point, not a line.
And, even if you did mean two dimensional, I think you're being unfair to the DSM-IV/DSM-V which does not literally define Autism Spectrum Disorders as falling on a two dimensional spectrum, but just uses the word to figuratively explain the variety inherent in the diagnosis. They include multiple levels to the spectrum which alone make such a spectrum "3d" and thus more 'cloud-like' without ever having to resort to calling the APA and it's Diagnosis manual as wrong.
Although, I bet calling the APA wrong garners more page views...
Yeah, to each their own. You still sound extremely anti-science to me, so it's very clear we're going to have diametrically opposed opinions. Thanks for sharing!
>Look into the history of health advice and you'll find the same pattern: something is said to be healthy and people are told to do it. Later it is found to be unhealthy, often dramatically so. Cigarettes and margarine / trans-fat are probably the clearest examples, but there are many others and many outside the realm of food.
Bad cherry picking used only to promote your own point. What about the enormous amount of good advice that has changed our lifestyles over the past century? Do you even know how people lived 100 years ago, how they ate?
What you should say is "some health experts have a habit of not always promoting scientifically sound advice, and many times promoting ideas that fly contrary to evidence. Fortunately as more evidence is gathered, those 'experts' are discredited and a better understanding of nutrition is the result".
When you don't cherry pick, you can find sources like:
Can you take issue with these health experts providing advice? Anything they recommend that you think is grossly wrong? Because this is scientifically validated nutrition advice from health experts, the very thing you're trying to discredit by screaming "trans fats and cigarettes" as if those complex cases invalidate an entire scientific field of study.
Honestly, you're trying to smear the name of "experts" in general, without separating "health experts" (medical doctors, nutritionists, idiot laypeople who label themselves naturopaths, etc) from scientists. I feel like you're trying to find a way to ignore the entire science of nutrition because you got burned listening to a fad or because big tobacco ran roughshod over science six decades ago.
Hey, just jumping in, I have a BS in Biology and api's post here is full of non-scientific and pseudoscientific garbage.
I believe he suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect and his completely unsourced post should create a huge red flag in any readers mind.
I'm not going to go point by point as the average HNer should be able to research for themselves, but I will respond to this gem that generated the largest facepalm:
> Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy ... The only beneficial modification to the food system from a nutritional perspective has been fortification with certain key nutrients,
This is such a shockingly misguided statement that it hurts to read it. This is why I believe he suffers from illusory superiority, because I think his utter inexperience with agrology is leading him to think that he actually understands this field and can speak with expertise on it.
For a counter-point that "all innovation has been bad", one should only have to look at Norman Borlaug, known colloquially as "the man who saved a billion lives" and "the father of the green revolution". Norman Borlaug was Nobel laureate and agrologist whose research changed agriculture around the world and is credited with preventing billions from starvation.
The innovations of the past century directly allowed nations to increase wheat and rice yields by 2-10X, saving more than one nation from mass famine. I certainly would not label that "unbeneficial" or "unhealthy".
And this is just the elephant in the room in terms of examples, believe me when I say you could write books on the subject of the benefits of agricultural development of the past century. Entire schools are devoted to this study.
I agree. I love OAuth idea and the single-sign on flow. I love having one source where I can go and see all of the sites that have my info, and I love being able to rescind my account from that central location.
However, I hate that Facebook/Twitter take it a step further with all of their social integration features to the point where many apps assume, by default, that you want to share share share everything you do all over your social network.
As I've found a number of apps/websites that do not allow you to continue without giving them permission to post on your wall, I've been forced to mark every single app/OAuth site on my Facebook as available to "only me". Post all you want, no one will ever see it.
Curating what gets posted under your name shouldn't be this much work. I shouldn't have to strive for a clean digital presence with content that adds something to my readers life.
I'd love an OAuth provider that HAS NO SOCIAL NETWORK!
And Google is out on this too, sorry, but Google Plus is obviously the only web property that Google cares about anymore and trusting them not to socialify everything is a fools game.
Yep, I love Netflix and loved every second of House of Cards! Although I have the opposite issue with Netflix. Lack of constantly added content makes their library feel stale at times, while every time I hit hulu.com it pops up with a list of shows with a "NEW EPISODE!" badge. Keeps you going back!
Sarcasm remains, as it always has, difficult to pull in written language.
Always funny to see bad writers blame their readers though.