My first thought was that he was arrested because he was Canadian. I'm not sure that I trust the FBI to be honest. OTOH, it's reasonable that no real evidence was presented yet.

My second thought was "who planted the evidence framing him?". This again is lack of trust in the FBI, but here it's their competence I'm doubting.

My third thought was "maybe the evidence actually points to him". It's really sad that the government lies so much that that didn't show up until the third thought...but it DOES lie that much.

??? What does it do? The link says how to install it, but is curiously silent on what it's for.

Nitrogen in the air is inaccessible to anything except a few bacteria. What's needed in the soil is nitrates. (For legumes this isn't exactly correct, because they can host bacteria to do the job on their roots.)

Expensive health-care doesn't keep that from happening.

Unfortunately, too many people say seriously the things that I used to interpret as sarcasm.

you're an old and bitter man, and you've only yourself to blame

and I'm old too and a loooong time c++ professional dev (and still am) and somehow the idea of change or the word 'Rust' doesn't make me shit my pants

I feel bad for you

OK.

But that's not the actual reason I don't use rust or go. The actual reason is that I don't trust downloading stuff off the net from sites that I don't feel are sufficiently monitored. I prefer stuff that resides in, e.g., a debian repository. (Also programming in rust feels like programming with one arm tied behind my back. Safety measures that only make sense when one is doing multi-threading being applied everywhere.)

C is pretty good at that, but I haven't seen statistics for Rust. I suppose all the complex stuff could be optimized away during compilation, but I don't know that it is.

Well, it's not measuring dates, but it's measuring steady intervals. And IIRC correctly, the scale if femtoseconds. (Nope, that was a laser-comb clock. Perhaps attoseconds.)

Kinda like a /. post.

Good point, but probably not (directly) related to this study.

Yeah, it's not a good study. If nothing else (and there is much else) the sample size is too small.

OTOH, I find it difficult to understand why so many people seem to think it's "obviously wrong", when I would have predicted that result from a good study. People tend to be unreasonably biased, and not just about sex. There've been studies where two groups of people were divided at random. Those who ended up in each group tended to prefer their group over the other, even though the group didn't exist outside of the study. (I say that, but I don't know for sure that the folks didn't maintain their groups after the study was over...but it was a pretty short study.)

Lots of people anthropomorphize their car or motorcycle. It's one of the things people do.

That's a difference, it's just not a significant difference. It might well justify a larger study with more careful controls. But the result they produced is what I would have guessed, so I'm a bit biased.

Still, look at any sports team match. People tend to favor one side over the other for reasons that have nothing to do with skill.

I'm sure that's happening. I'm also sure it's only a part of the story. Some of the other posts have raised other contributory issues, like image quality. And actually I think your point is a valid example of a more general trend, i.e. people tend to favor those who are more socially approved. The reasons for the social approval are nearly irrelevant, but different groups within society will use different measures. (E.g. Catholics will tend to approve of different people than Unitarians, even if they adopt the same proposals.) Think of how some people rate their favorites sports team vs. the way they rate the other side.