Roodgorf

Saying that the reason FB is being targeted for anti-trust is that they are simply too successful feels like a vast oversimplification of the situation.

I'm pretty sure they're just referring to the immediate feedback of being able to practice by reading with one hand and playing with the other. You generally wouldn't be able to play a whole piece that way, but in comparison to most other instruments you don't have to do as much memorization up front.

You're right though, there are definitely plenty of other instruments that would work for. Trumpet for example would be an even better candidate I imagine.

I assume the complaint is that it doesn't word wrap so most of the text is cut off.

It may not have had good enough information to tell that she was a cyclist at all, and instead interpreted her to be something static/non-human altogether (in parent's example, a bush). Of course, without seeing the data its sensors gathered, and what that data registered as, it's all speculation. The problem is with misidentification, not bad priorities.

I don't know that I would say contraceptives are the source of unhealthy attitudes towards sex in the US. Prudishness stemming from Western religious influences and the like seems more responsible.

implies anything that encompasses cars.

No, I believe that they're talking about the ubiquitous need of a car for any given task. It would be nice if areas were designed such that a vehicle wasn't required to do more or less anything, be it restaurants, entertainment, general shopping, etc.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "We shouldn't therefore apply some aspects of cars to the broad meaning of car culture." It sounds like simply semantics at this point, that is, you infer a different meaning of "car culture" than the OP presents, but I don't feel that detracts from the point about the constructed necessity of cars.

I think it's okay to have some amount of an echo chamber, they happen more or less naturally just because of who you select to be in your personal sphere of influence, but I think I disagree with the way you describe it.

I don't think people need to exist in an echo chamber so they can "be themselves" without social consequence, I think that's actually the biggest problem with echo chambers and why people argue that they should be avoided. Rather, what we need is a higher standard of discourse outside of those echo chambers. It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without shouting them down/trolling/removing them from the conversation, and from the other side, without reaching a point of disruption that someone might consider that a good resolution. The failure happens at both sides of the conversation, and interacting outside of echo chambers seems to me the only way to gain experience in interacting civilly.

Yeah, where did they get that number? As I understand it the FED hasn't met its target 2% inflation rate in years.

Edit: It seems I was somewhat mistaken: the FED set the 2% inflation goal in 2012[1] and hasn't met it since, but there are various ways to measure inflation, so it depends on who you talk to.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/us/politics/us-inflation-...

There were also plenty of reputable political science models that actually did predict a Trump win, so, it all depends on who you put your faith in.

I agree. Placing a greater burden on the side of the producers to deal with the trash they produce seems like the most logical approach to me. If X company wants to make something with a bunch of plastic packaging they will have to pay for the impact that will have. If they want that to eat into their profits, fine, but I think the more likely scenario is that that they will pass as much of that cost on to consumers as they can, ideally also driving down demand for those products.

That's what I was commenting on though; I very well may be wrong, but my understanding was that the weight of things like barbells is measured in pounds-force, not pounds-mass, so if you were going to follow that on the moon you'd need a much more massive set of weights.

Though, I suppose if you're saying "I'm taking these exact same weights to the moon to lift" then you're right. I was being unnecessarily pedantic.

Wouldn't trying to deadlift more than 400 pounds be the same amount of effort on the moon? Granted, it would have to be that much more massive, so it would certainly LOOK more impressive.

More than two months is quite a bit of time to 'figure things out', even by military standards, and I don't see any good reason to deny him access to a lawyer during that process anyway.

That doesn't really sound like an ethical argument so much as the impetus for it.

Doesn't that still end up being financial? If someone is banned from collecting data and is later found to have been doing so anyway, the most likely recourse is fines, right? Or are you suggesting this would imply criminal consequences (i.e. jail)?

If companies are duty-bound to act unethically (if legally) for the sake of share holder profits then I think that speaks to a flaw in the system driving these decisions.

I agree that taking the whole channel down for the flag is not the right approach, and I would have thought the "three strikes rule", in any form, would have enough evidence against it by this point to kill it for good. But I think there's a bit of nuance missed by assuming that users are solely in charge of the videos they see. YouTube will autoplay related videos if you let it; I wouldn't exactly call that a positive action by the user. And recommended videos are a pretty large part of YouTube's model beyond that, so only removing the video for whoever flagged it doesn't seem like enough.

A better solution might be to unlist the video from these related lists and perhaps escalate things if a certain volume of flags are hit. I also don't see why reputation seems to have no bearing on this. How old and large is Cody's Lab's library, and how many strikes has it received (that were not later removed)? Seems like a good litmus test for false positives to me.

Dr. Wallingford's blog is one of the few that I make sure to never miss an entry of, it's definitely cool to see him get some recognition on here.

That's fair. Though I will say I don't think any single armed approach to sequestration will be anywhere close to reasonable, so exploring any avenue with decent margins, especially if there's any current practical value to it, seems like a smart idea.

What do you mean by "you can't burn it"? It would release some amount of CO2, but as another commenter points out, there would still be a non-zero amount of left over carbon, no?

As I understand it a push for more bamboo would be great for this. It's relatively quick growing and useful for a lot of various building materials. You could sequester a lot of CO2 in bamboo that would be fairly useful and take a lot less processing than other types of wood.

Some sort of carbon capture and storage situation seems more likely at this point, though I haven't yet seen any proposals that I think would get the backing they need to be effective.

Is this what you meant by terraforming, or something else entirely?

I stay completely out of the realm of Twitter and haven't heard of any of this sort of thing short of the little spat with Tomi Lahren. Do you have any more noteworthy examples?

I don't think it has as extreme an impact as the people posting images of a self-service menu imply it does. I will concede that a lot of my aversion to the argument is from the disdain for people with lower-class jobs that I read into it.

But while I agree there is an impact, I also don't think we should avoid automation simply to have someone doing a mindless job if it could effectively be automated. People don't necessarily need jobs, they need the resources that having a job allows them access to.

Given the previous reactions to any sort of move by fast food chains toward anything like automation, I can't imagine this won't be picked up as fodder for the "look what happens when you ask for a living wage" contingent.

Those seem to ignore a lot of important details in the story. No mention of the exaggerated and outright falsified accounts of the story? Nor the baseless conspiracy theories about the town and city council? All of which led to death threats to many involved?

In most cases I think SNS is closer to what I want: multiple producers feeding into a single pipeline that notifies its consumer as soon as possible. The main thing from SQS is the ability to retry a failed message.

If SQS were event based, you could potentially try to process a message as soon as it was received and then have a batch job to reprocess any messages that have been left in the queue however often you like. The closest to this we got was by using SNS and feeding it into SQS, or even a table somewhere, but that gets sort of messy pretty quickly and didn't seem worth the extra infrastructure.

Edit: I didn't really respond to the suggestion of Kinesis here. I haven't done much with Kinesis, but I get the sense it's overkill for the use cases I'm thinking about. I don't plan to have a large amount of producers and don't expect them to have a consistent or large stream of data. If I'm wrong in that being the main use case for Kinesis please correct me.

SQS is not an event source :(

I really don't understand why this is the case. Every time we need a queue for something we end up having to explain this again to whoever our newest developers are, which seems to me like a sign of how unintuitive it is.

I have yet to encounter a use case where we didn't want to grab items out of the queue relatively frequently or even as they were added, so why force us to mess with scheduled events and long polling to do so?

I think you just described 0 friction with 50% efficiency. With 100% efficiency the weight of the truck alone would be enough to recoup the energy on the way down.

Do you have the numbers on how many miles Tesla's level 2 cars have actually been driven while using the feature? I see this sort of argument a lot in regards to Google's self-driving tests, and while it seems convincing to me, it doesn't seem realistic to me that's there a big enough pool of data to make that claim definitively.

That strikes me as a very, very generous assumption. Even assuming this were the case, it still seems to me akin to perjury, that is, instead of being up front about what they are doing "I am recreating how and where I found these" rather than deliberately putting on an act.

I understand that you say you still believe the officer was wrong to do so, but I think this should be sufficient evidence to assume innocence here.