"This doctrine is not actually an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to the Amendment's requirement for a warrant or probable cause. Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior,the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border.This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures"
> Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior ...
Begging the question, wouldn't you say? The only reason there is less expectation of privacy at the border is because of government policies, like this one, whose constitutionality is open to question.
Feynman did his Nobel work a long time ago and early in his long career. I suspect that achieving a science-Nobel-level breakthrough these days usually happens many years later in a career, because getting to the outer edge takes many more years of study than it used to. Breakthroughs requiring less study are more likely already to have been made, and each generation has to reach higher for the remaining fruit.
I also suspect that reaching a science-Nobel-worthy breakthrough requires not just more years but more-focused work. Feynman may simply have been an exception, but he might also represent something that was possible then but has become less possible with each passing year.
The biggest takeaway from this story is "The absence of a specific QA function may be hampering the company as well." QA is vital. A proper QA department sees the forest and the trees. Developers see the trees (or, in some cases, just the branches). Having proper QA means that John doesn't accidentally break something that Julie was working on, because they run regression tests. It's quite astonishing that QA isn't a separate team at Facebook for their iOS apps.
I found a "how do I report a campaign I feel is fraudulent" FAQ within about 30 seconds. You can also contact their support team, and they say they'll get back to you within five minutes.
It sounds like you might have tried this in the early days, it set an impression, and haven't checked since.
I found the FAQ, but my experience was that actually reporting something was a bit of a circular journey. You shouldn't have to contact support; abuse reporting should be a first class feature when the core business is people soliciting money.
The rebuttal seems pretty convincing if you only look at the graph between 2002 and 2008. You could lop everything off after 1985 and have the same rebuttal.
The rebuttal would be convincing if he went into detail as to why the government forecasts are wrong, but he doesn't. He just says "hey they're wrong" without delving into any of the history of the forecasts, how the forecasts are made (which would be interesting, because then he could really say why he thinks they're wrong), what his forecasts might be... But instead, he just says "hey they're wrong" without anything else.
If anything he's guilty of cherry-picking, which is something we rage against when climate change denialists do it. Why is this guy convincing while they're not?
The original article's premise was reflected by its title;
"Japan’s birth rate problem is way worse than anyone imagined"
But it's not worse than anyone imagined, at all. It's actually better than people 'imagined' (i.e. forecast) in 2002, 2008, and 2012. Japan's fertility rate might be a big issue still, but it's been beating the forecasts for 10 years now.
As for expounding on why the forecasts are wrong, or more substantive articles about fertility and gender issues in Japan, you'll have to read some of his previous posts. I'd suggest:
"Time for gaijin to take a second look at Abe's Womenomics" [1] Where he discusses how the landscape is changing for women to enter the Japanese workforce and how that might affect birth rates further.
"The Japanese tragedy, causes and consequences"[2] Where he discusses why forecasts for GDP and growth rates have been notoriously bad in Japan.
I didn't post his original article to serve as a complete and thorough treatment of the birth rate issue in Japan, but only to counter the original WaPo article that was pretty misleading.
> The first thing we noticed when we arrived in Whittier was the wind—we were barely out of the car when a powerful gust pushed us down the hill. People in Whittier get out of their cars carefully; the wind has been known to shatter windshields and bend car doors backwards. Because the weather can be so extreme, kids often walk to school via an underground tunnel. The town averages around 250 inches of snow annually, but some recent years have seen closer to 400 inches. Two winters ago the snowdrifts near Whittier School were piled so high that the principal let students go outside to take pictures of one another hanging from a street lamp.
Sure, it does. But what happens when it goes wrong and the anti-missile missiles are launched against a sub-orbital passenger jet whose transponder has gone wonky?
People will die. Just like when more people died when cars didn't have safety belts and windshield wipers. Things will go wrong. We will fix them (eventually).
