A classic source of white noise is to reverse-bias a diode or the base-emitter junction of a transistor[1]. This produces shot noise[2] though, which is independent of temperature, so I guess it's not what they are using.

[1] http://darrenyates.com.au/electronics/archives/40 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise

> You should never let your ideas become polluted by empirical evidence.

Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book and revise what socialism actually is, and how the USSR wasn't that.

No, it's not socialist, because the socialist nation is a utopia, and thus practically unreachable. The USSR (and DDR, Cuba, Zimbabwe, pre-Deng China and so on), however, is what you get when you make an attempt at reaching it.

There are two major branches of socialism: utopian and scientific, actually.

(I'm from Europe) Does the word "socialism" actually mean something different in the US, or is it just an abuse of notation? I see this all the time. I don't see what worker-owned means of production has to do with the efficacy of healthcare.

No, it's just that most people who rail against socialism don't actually know what it means, as you see above.

afaik it's been bastardized into meaning government-run or something like that. Or it's a mixup with socialized healthcare. Wikipedia has more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

I think that might have been intentional :)

You seem to be confusing a basic income with minimum wage, which is a completely different thing. The apple sellers are also receiving the basic income, so whilst you are free to raise your prices, others will not, and you will lose out.

Did people like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who were proponents of a basic income, overlook this basic point, or is it in fact you who "doesn't understand capitalism" and is "smoking crack" (your words).

(I don't mean to be hostile, but your tone really doesn't help your argument.)

Sadly they stopped tweeting in April. https://twitter.com/shit_hn_says

Chomsky said this:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

Argument from fallacy.

Is that supposed to be read as "phone me" or "phoneme"?

You realise there is a reason that there is no API, right? Nice job on violating Snapchat's terms.