What the words means in common usage doesn't have to track what immunity actually is. Colloquially, immunity means sterilizing immunity. Actually, immunity doesn't have to be sterilizing.

Google will display videos from other sources both at the top of the web search and in the videos search.

I don't think the OC implied that musicians (or their agents) shouldn't have pricing authority, just that the market won't bear the prices they seem to want.

The moment a digital file exists, your competing price point is free. People can still pirate, and don't because of youtube and streaming sites. You don't have to think that's right or fair (I don't), but it's absolutely the reality.

Piracy doesn’t that viable anymore, it’s a lot more in convinient, especially for spontanious listing on a mobile device. Sure the price still need to be low enough, but not zero anymore.

Interestingly enough Youtube Music is the most expensive streaming service, that least in Denmark.

It's inconvenient because no one has needed to make it convenient. Why would you, when YouTube is doing it for free?

If all music were wiped off of YouTube, you can bet it would become convenient. I believe there's already an app somewhere that lets you stream music using BitTorrent, throw in some onion networking for privacy, a better means of content discovery, and get more people uploading music, and you'll be off to the races.

We all remember the time before Youtube, and how 15 years before Youtube Napster was vastly more convenient than anything that was offered. Not very convenient compared to Youtube, but still.

Neither Napster nor their end resulted in decent streaming options. Why would Youtube changes be any different ?

I find it very inconvenient to purchase a song from Google on my Android device. Google prefers to push me towards buying their subscription service. I have to go through a few awkward menus to find and purchase a song.

>But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime.

More likely to be convicted of a crime. That's a subtle but very important distinction.

Yes, but we only have evidence to believe that black people do on average commit more crime because they are convicted of more crime. The theory is that blacks commit the same or less crime but only convicted of it because of some type of predatory policing, but that is only a theory and there is no widespread studies or statistics to support this theory. It may well be true, but until there is proof we cannot assume that it is not the case.

I do appreciate the correction and it is an important distinction.

I honestly can't. And in any case, the real test is the individual characters in isolation.

That all seems very reasonable. Apps downloaded from other sources are much more dangerous than apps downloaded from Google Play.

Ok, sure. But the claim was that Google is absolved from "behaving monopolistically" because they permit ex-Play Store distribution. In practice, it's so onerous that not even a brand as strong as Fortnite can make it work.

Whether you prevent ex-app-store distribution through fiat or through engineering, the result is the same. So I don't think the distinction is important.

I don't know why you would think that, there's no additional guarantee on the Play Store.

I don't think most users would appreciate having a site spike their CPU for a few seconds when they visit...at least I wouldn't.

Assemble carrying weapons and with half the crowd claiming that the entire disease is fake, though?

Does what someone is carrying - but not using - make their assembly invalid?

Does what someone think make their assembly invalid?

>Does what someone think make their assembly invalid?

Point out above where GP said those assemblies were invalid. Pro tip: they did not.

Their right to assembly is not fundamentally invalidated, but the protesters are certainly open to a variety of critiques.

You're right. That comment didn't actually say or contribute anything at all. Consider my comment withdrawn.

You didn't claim they weren't, but I just want to point out how each of those points is very, very subjective. For me:

- I'd much rather be in-person, where I can better gauge what others are communicating and more readily have two-way communication about the material.

- I'm way less focused when on my own computer, on my own time.

- I find I communicate way less purely online than I would in-person.

- Automatic grading sucks, especially for programming, as it can only really test inputs and outputs, and misses a ton of nuance. I want to also know if my code sucks, regardless of it producing the correct output or not.

The main thing MOOCs do well is a solved problem with or without MOOCs--namely lecture videos.

Discussion boards are mostly a tire fire; they're mostly useful for dealing with platform problems. They can probably be better when you restrict access to a qualified class but they don't really scale.

>Automatic grading sucks, especially for programming

I'd probably say automatic grading sucks, "even for programming." At least automatic grading can evaluate outputs of non-trivial programs. Programming is one of the few areas where autograding works for non-trivial, not multiple choice, questions.

I concur with boards being useless in general. It's too slow, not predictable. That's why I liked the moocs IRC channels. It was a live place where we could discuss things and resolves issues quickly.

Those hospitalized tend to be elderly. How many frequent smokers live to be elderly?

In the linked study[1] the effect is still there after controlling for age and sex.

[1] https://doi.org/10.32388/WPP19W.3

You can check the French distribution of smokers by age group here (could only find data from 2010, there has to be an updated dataset somewhere): https://www.statista.com/statistics/785664/consumption-daily...