Depends on the income period – I’d do 25% of daily income for a first offence.

Interesting. Unlike most measures, bike lanes are also a positive on their own, climate change or not. I assume this analysis doesn’t include negative-cost solutions like carbon pricing.

That’s not how exploitation works, not really. The rich will exploit as much as they can. Prices are already set to maximize profit. The rich can’t pass higher prices along, because if they could charge more, they already would. Cutting taxes on big companies doesn’t create jobs or lower prices – and raising taxes won’t destroy jobs or raise prices.

They’re condemning microtransaction-based models, so it might not be bad… but I’ll believe it when I see it.

The teacher was selling prints of the art for hundreds of dollars. The article doesn’t say how much profit they made, but it could be substantial. There’s also the privacy violation, and split amongst ten kids it’s $160,000 per victim. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not nothing, but it seems reasonable for such a wilful and knowing violation of copyright, rights to one’s image, and privacy rights. (Assuming all alleged facts are true.)

That seems to be Tynan’s MO. I like it. No hype, no teasers, just quietly works until he has something worth selling.

Yes, but it is a problem. It’s a problem that has no partisan component, which can be fixed without political grandstanding. It’s also a problem which kills people: the 6% increase in car crashes it causes is a lot of easily preventable deaths.

Perfect! We’d have pretty low utilization on those 80 CPUs, though – if we made them smaller, the power draw would be lower and it would be cheaper. We could then get away with adding more CPUs. It would then make sense to put the array of simple CPUs on its own card, dedicated to graphics processing… wait a minute.

If you can’t come into work because your tires are slashed, you should not be fired.

…really? The post was clearly a joke, and if it had any stance at all it was the celebration of modern medicine.

With a name like that I hope it involves nuke-powered spaceships.

I need to wear glasses, and when I switched from square frames to round frames I swear people were less scared of me. Nobody wears glasses to a fight so you look less intimidating, and larger, rounder frames make your face look softer.

Wear slightly fancier clothes, I’m not saying wear a suit but buy some cheap button-down shirts, maybe tuck it in.

You seem focused on your face especially. Learn how to do makeup. I believe a little eyeliner can make you seem kinder. (I don’t use makeup myself, so you’ll have to find someone else to teach you / verify this.) Done properly, nobody will notice the makeup.

Voice and gait training might also help. I have a theatre background and I know that there are ways to look more intimidating without actually changing your appearance, so you could probably train yourself to do the opposite of that.

Temporary but very effective fix, look at your phone. I’m a big guy myself, and if I’m waiting for a bus in the middle of the night and there’s someone else there who seems nervous, I’ll just read (or pretend to read) something on my phone. Instantly reduces your threat profile to nothing.

Corporations serve society, not visa versa. If lighter measures do not work, nationalize 'em all. (Many lighter measures have not yet been tried.)

PP would be worse, though.

Vulnerable workers who need the job and don’t know that this sort of thing is usually illegal.

We can condemn stupid things that children do while still giving them a chance to smarten up.

Skimping on security seems really stupid right now. There are probably a fair few Canadians who would like to do certain MPs harm… not to mention India has been doing political assassinations.

I’m lucky, in a sense, that I don’t have to make this decision. The only viable candidates in my riding are the Conservatives and the NDP, so I can actually vote my conscience.

That’s not how statistics works. You can have a significant effect with a tiny effect size, or a large effect size that on analysis turns out to be insignificant.

How so? The study showed no consistent association between funding and crime rates. That is true verbatim.

If there’s no zero in the dataset, then we don’t have any zero about data. It could be, for instance, that some police have a large effect, but that you hit diminishing returns incredibly quickly.