You might want to read the rest of the studies - or at least try to no misrepresent before commenting. There are elementary differences in the studies.
Study 1: "What to Eat", Specific Demographics, Primary Clinical Trial, Mechanistic/Physiological Outcome, Conclusion: High-Protein breakfast is superior for suppressing appetite and maintaining satiety, while a High-Fiber breakfast promotes better weight loss and a healthier gut microbiome,
Study 2: Whether to Eat, Broad Demographics, Systematic Review (meta analysis), Broad Clinical Outcomes, Conclusion: eating breakfast increases total daily energy intake compared to skipping it, and that skipping breakfast resulted in slightly greater weight loss.
Recently, I've researched browser battery consumption for laptops. Every test I've seen rates Firefox the worst out of the big 3 or 4. Are there any settings/extensions that may have been overlooked for these reviews that can be used to help Firefox be more energy efficient?
That the word challange is overly dramatic plus technically incorrect (adding a deduction that the government could not possibly know of is not a challenge). In actuality you just add any missing deductions, double check the numbers and then submit. His proposed system is just busy work.
The problem is that I am not a tax expert and but it rings a lot of alarm bells of expansion of government power.
We're effectively bandwagoning behind Netherland's system while ignoring the massive differences between levels of government, size of population and scale, and the overall law making process.
All for a stupendous reason = Ease of filing. Filing taxes on a bus while on vacation is such a outrageously insignificant 'feature'.
Probably? I don't really agree with gp, but up-voted, as it reads like a reasonable argument. Normally I'd probably neither up or down vote, but I generally browse with "show dead" - and it's sad to see comments down voted to oblivion when users offer an opinion that's just slightly against the consensus. Without dissenting opinions there's not much debate left. /meta
Yup. I have come to realize that not seeing any dissenting opinions is scary and terrifying. So thanks for being charitable in this pursuit. There are a lot of ideas on HN that get no pushback and mob mentality that I want to challenge and contest. I don't think tax filing process is that bad but it is magnetizing to say "I filed my taxes while on a bus on a vacation" than to dig into the deeper implications of what that means.
To be honest, I objectively like Dutch system for simple taxes similar to 1040EZ form in USA. I philosophically and ideologically oppose it. And, furthermore, I have no faith in our government and its ability to run efficiently.
A municipality's decision to implement common locally-owned internet as a public utility IS the free market. The State should not get to decide what's a "waste of resources" for me and my neighbors.
Further in this direction. The neighbor that doesn't use this internet will still benefit from the value of new jobs and opportunity that it will bring.
> The criticism should instead be directed towards Microsoft,
Totally agree that MS deserves criticism as you correctly point out. However, criticism towards the script and similar is equally valid (and important).
Yes you’re right of course, I should’ve phrased it differently. I didn’t see any criticism geared towards MS, so it kind of felt like shooting the messenger.
> examples been provided that explain why the specific settings are problematic.
I've seen some opinions, but none could be objectively evaluated as really pointing out problematic settings. They were more in the area of subjective preferences.
> They were more in the area of subjective preferences
But this is exactly the point behind the criticism. The script is presented as “run this to make Windows better/safer”. If you did that without evaluating and understanding these subjective preferences, you might end up in a worse state than you started in, because maybe some of those preferences don’t really match your needs.
I imagine that it's speculation but it's reasonable speculation, since maximizing profits is pretty much the sole goal of a publicly traded corporation at the end of the day.
The over $1 million crowd is 98% of their revenue. So in this case they're reducing revenue by about 1%... because they know if they don't, government regulations will take the other 98%.
It's still about maximizing profit, even when they appear to be reducing it.
It is exactly what you’d do if you maximise profits. The general argument against the Apple/Google tax is “think of the small businesses!” They use this argument because no politician wants to be against the small business owner.
Google and Apple understand this well. Since small businesses account for a small % of their revenue, they simply offer a better deal to those small businesses. Now Spotify/Epic Games/Candycrush people will have to argue “but think of the large businesses!” That doesn’t have the same ring to it somehow.
The majority of App/Play Store revenue is protected from government intervention, and profits are maximised. Make sense?
I have used TurboTax pretty much my entire working life and never have been audited. The one time I decided to use a professional due to "complex" tax issues that year, I was audited, which became a huge pain in the ass.
I appreciate this comment but I have some questions/comments:
> I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science.
I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science. On the contrary, it seemed make a pretty clear distinction between them and highlighted some perils of falsely mixing the two.
"Often implicit empiricist assumptions in epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of language are relied upon as if they were self-evident, and without awareness of the threat that those very assumptions pose to the author’s own reasoning. We can call this phenomenon scientistic pseudophilosophy."
"While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education."
> If you don't like a particular philosopher's work, you generally don't read and support it, and that's it. Calling the work pseudophilosophy will only enrage people who disagree and not help with anything.
The article wasn't about disagreeing with opposing philosophers' work, it as a critique of those non-philosophers who "fail to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that they criticize"
"There are two kinds of pseudophilosophy, one mostly harmless and the other insidious. The first variety is usually found in popular scientific contexts. This is where writers, typically with a background in the natural sciences, walk self-confidently into philosophical territory without realising it, and without conscientious attention to relevant philosophical distinctions and arguments.
The insidious kind of pseudophilosophy, which I will focus on here, is an academic enterprise, pursued primarily within the humanities and social sciences." (e.g. phenomenon obscurantist pseudophilosophy)
Not OP but here,
> I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science.
How I understood it, is not as saying the article says the opposite but as an statement to introduce the idea that people disagree on what 80% is worth reading and that all fine because is not science.
> I read this twice just to make sure I didn't miss something, and I don't actually see a reason why. I don't actually see a reason why.
(Stated right in the sixth paragraph.)
I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a place to think about what’s next. It’s hard
to think about your future when you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been
fully present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges such as polarization,
inequality, and climate change, as well as opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a
Wikimedian, I lean toward optimism, and plan to head in that direction.
They want a break from their present situation so they can concentrate on planning for their future plans since it's hard to plan for the future when they are fully involved in the present. That's why. Not vague at all.
I know when I talk about someone I don't know I use "they". It isn't to do with not knowing preferred pronouns, more like a type of formal speech about an unknown person. Maybe it is a regional/dialect thing?
I would read an article about a person, and then still talk about them/they rather than he/her. I think it is tied to them being unfamiliar, as I wouldn't do that with a celebrity.
If i replace she in op's line "She wants a break" it feels like they are writing about someone more familiar to them. "They" implies distance between the observer and observed.
That may be what you think is going on, but isn't necessarily true. They might have been forced out, or quit because of stress or interpersonal conflict. There is no 'because' in the former CEO's statement.
You inferred this motive, from the former CEO's plan. The CEO did not explicitly state that they were quitting because they wanted time and space to plan their future.
Natural language tends to assume the receiver of the message shares sufficient context with the emmiter as to be able to infer their communicative intention even if it lacks some key word, or logical stepping stone.
A white balance sampler was already the next thing on my list, if that's what you mean by "white point selector".
For sliders, maybe I can have the scroll wheel adjust the sliders while you hold ctrl... I'll think about it. I'm probably not going to have keyboard focus for the controls, though.
Output settings... I'll probably replace the Save TIFF button with a Save As button that lets you select what and where to save. Not sure when I'll get to that, I have some other things I want to prioritize.
Study 1: "What to Eat", Specific Demographics, Primary Clinical Trial, Mechanistic/Physiological Outcome, Conclusion: High-Protein breakfast is superior for suppressing appetite and maintaining satiety, while a High-Fiber breakfast promotes better weight loss and a healthier gut microbiome,
Study 2: Whether to Eat, Broad Demographics, Systematic Review (meta analysis), Broad Clinical Outcomes, Conclusion: eating breakfast increases total daily energy intake compared to skipping it, and that skipping breakfast resulted in slightly greater weight loss.
reply