dnbgfher

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem.

We do have a problem with nomenclature being fractured, even within fields, never mind between them. But that's not the problem.

The problem is that when you get deep enough into how things work, things just get really complex and they stop behaving in ways and patterns that humans experience the world. They end up being things that cannot be simplified down to a common human experience in any meaningful way. At best, you can take a portion of the concept and make an analogy to some limited portion of a common experience without lying too much. But they are fundamentally not the same, so you cannot use the analogy to discover anything new about the original concept.

There is also a problem of the time it takes to internalize new ideas and concepts. You can't quickly and easily give someone an intuitive understanding of anything - it takes work and experience and time on their part to get there. I don't see how going and reworking nomenclatures of entire fields is going to make people more willing or able to devote their time to this. Mostly you'll have to put in incredible amount of work, convince far too many people to do things a different way because you said so, and all you'll have really done is save some (significant) annoyance from students getting their feet wet in a new field.

I felt that the second season greatly improved from the first. I'd say the studio segments were still pretty subpar compared to the Top Gear days, but they seemed to get a better handle on the rest of it. I haven't watched the latest season yet, but hopefully they managed to improve again.

If you gave up after the first season, you might want to give the later ones a shot. Though I have to admit I never cared too much about the reviews, so that's worth keeping in mind.

I don't see much in there that is relevant to vaping in general being unsafe. The main concerns seem to be related to non-nicotine contents of the liquids being used. While that is certainly an issue to keep in mind when talking about current vape usage, it should be something that is addressable without getting rid of vaping altogether. The only concern specific to nicotine seems to be the possibility of spills leading to overdoses. I suspect this is minor enough to ignore entirely, but if not then better education and even product design can be used to address this.

Otherwise the section referenced said nicotine does not seem to be a carcinogen but some people suspect it may be a tumor promoter. If we're drawing the line at "suspected to be involved in cancer somehow but doesn't cause it" then we're going to have to rework most of society and then some.

The only other thing that stood out was the particulates issue, though they didn't mention any health effects of being exposed to the particulates and I don't have that knowledge off-hand.

I think you're ignoring some very basic aspects of the ISP business and taking entirely the wrong lessons away from Google Fiber.

There is no cheap way to enter many/most/all of these markets. This isn't a world of cheap VC cash, because there is no chance of winning a lottery. Google of all people couldn't make this make sense. Sure, they would have had a better pitch if they were competing with incumbants who did things like block Google Search. Except it's even more trivial to unblock Google Search than it is to offer better service. This gets worse when you consider the possibility of not outright blocking, but intentionally slowing services.

So yeah. If Google couldn't make Google Fiber work, there is no way any new competitor is going to spring out of nowhere. The reality of the competition hasn't changed - incumbants are at a massive advantage even compared to most incumbants. Infrastructure is a massive barrier to newcomers, and any competitive aspects that can be used to differentiate one offer from another can be trivially and immediately matched by the incumbants. And in practice most all of the offers are difficult or impossible to really compare to each other in pratice, so most consumers have to rely mainly on the marketing materials and subjective experiences.

And again I've left out a whole other side of the issue, namely the relationships between ISPs and services.

This is just an awful system to rely on tradional markets. It uses expensive infrastructure, and the products are indifferentiable in any meaningful way over any period of time.

You misunderstand me. I agree Cotton is almost certainly dead.

I was responding to the statement that questioning the doctor was essentially useless when looking into the possiblity that Cotton faked his death, as either he did indeed die or the doctor was part of the scheme. I was pointing out that there is value in talking to the doctor, as there are possiblities that don't require the doctor to be complicit.

If you've decided investigating the matter is worth your time, you may as well do it properly is all. Doesn't mean I think it's what likely happened.

I'm not sure why you think the only option here is that the doctor was in on it. He could have treated a man with fake papers identifying him as Mr. Cotten. By asking the doctor to compare with known-valid photos you can eliminate the possibility that the doctor was unintentionally mistaken about the identity of the man he treated.

While true, the upgrade situation for Android is way better than for most IoT devices, which is saying something. And this is the sort of thing you may well keep for a decade. While you may still have other Google microphones, I would be a lot more worried about this one specifically being vulnerable at some point.

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

I don't see how this tracks. Particularly in relation to many of the jobs going away, productivity isn't inversely related to hours worked. People working 6 hours instead of 8 will get three quarters as much done. How would their wages go up?

If you are proposing the government cover the difference, then you're effectively proposing a bastardized version of UBI with an employment requirement, and payout that is proportional to current economic advantage. I'm not even sure it wouldn't cost more than current UBI proposals given that proportionality.

I don't understand why you would be in favor of this, but think UBI was bad. Or how it could possibly work, if it wasn't the government paying for it.

I'm not sure what you mean. Ada hasn't ever undergone any breaking changes I'm aware of, so even Ada 83 would be valid Ada 2012. I'm not sure how a compiler could lose support of older versions.

The only difference I've ever run into was an AdaCore-defined (as in not part of the standard) aspect that was known but not fully implemented by GCC Ada, while the Community edition did have it. That's since been added to GCC as well.

Nah, mostly it's just (IMO) the result of AdaCore being needlessly confusing. AdaCore also maintains the GNU compiler, which is what their Pro offering is based on. I'm not really sure why the Community edition exists, as it's basically at most a slightly different version than the GNU offering.

AdaCore maintains the GNU compiler as well. As a result, the GNU and AdaCore compiler (Community and Commercial) are essentially the same. The Ada community in fact just calls them all GNAT and then specifies further if it's relevant. The main difference is that GNU can lag behind a bit historically, but recently there has been some initiative from inside AdaCore to tackle that issue and they've done a great job.

Grab whichever is easiest for you to get started with. It's a weird and ultimately meaningless situation license-wise. If and when licenses matter, grab the GNU version. Unless you're doing something that requires a support contract anyway, then you'll end up with Pro.

I really wish AdaCore would do something about that Community edition. I have no idea what purpose it is supposed to have. In my opinion, right now it's mostly a thorn in the communities side. All it does is create a bunch of hesitation and confusion about the licenses and compiler capabilities for newcomers. As a result, before people even start with Ada they're getting deep into license discussions which is just a wonderful first impression. And worst of all, it's all basically for nothing because they're at most slightly different versions of the same software with a different license.

I don't see how it's a call to humanity. "Think if it was your kid vs two strangers" isn't calling on humanity. It's calling on familial tribalism and selfishness if anything.

And obviously, in the real world, a ML-given estimate with a 1% variance is probably entirely useless. In these sorts of hypotheticals,I'm not sure why that really matters. You can play with the numbers as you want, or even move the whole question out far enough into the future that the margin of error can be considered very low. The question remains the same.

The answer to "what" is implied above. Evolution.

And what about the family of those two people?

I don't understand the insistence of bringing everything back to "what if it was your child." Pretty much everybody has family, and friends, and all that. I'm not sure how somebody being a child of somebody is supposed to be a rational argument for adjusting any of our thinking. As far as I can tell, it's basically the ultimate appeal to emotion.

Outside of Netflix? Netflix is absolutely included in having those problems. They are actually the worst in some ways.

Their UI is pretty awful and only ever gets worse. They even have plenty of ads - granted just for their own content, but still. It's ads. And extremely intrusive ones - big autoplay videos that default to sound on (it does at least remember when you mute them) and other large banners inserted right into the middle of the selection page.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I don't expect companies to be able to stand up to dedicated attention from a nation-state.

What I was trying to say was that that doesn't relieve them of their responsibilities to minimize the damage afterwards.

Just because they can't be expected to win doesn't mean they should be able to wash their hands of the whole affair without trying to help.

Mm. Perhaps I should have been a little more explicit. I never meant to imply any business should be able to handle a nation-state attack. That's not feasible.

It doesn't mean they get to clean their hands of the whole thing either. They failed, and that's fine as long as they weren't being negligent. But they are still responsible for doing what they can to minimize the damage. That means, for one, informing those impacted about what is known.

So, just to be super explicit. I don't expect a business to withstand a nation-state attack. I do however expect them to do what they can to minimize the damage afterwards.

Sure, maybe this was something beyond what could be reasonably prevented by a non-state. I don't think we know yet.

But they have a duty after the fact as well, to ensure the damage is minimized. That includes actually telling those potentially impacted what is known, etc.

This is an absurd appeal to the whole victim-blaming awareness trend. That's about an individual going about their life and having a crime perpetrated on them, which primarily negatively affects them. This meanwhile is about a corporation entrusted with valuable information/access with the understanding the corporation would take appropriate measures to secure it.

The victims here had an obligation to those they worked with to take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate this sort of thing. Just because something bad happened to them doesn't relieve them of this obligation.

It's possible for more than one party involved to be in the wrong. Just because the victims screwed up doesn't mean the perpetrator is somehow morally cleared. Nor does the perpetrator clear the victims of their carelessness.

Edit: Since apparently people are taking this to mean I think companies should withstand a dedicated attack by China, I've gone wrong somewhere. I don't mean that. I was talking about responsibility. They can both be responsible and not be negligent. What I expect is them to help clean up afterwards. Just because they failed in an understandable way doesn't mean they get to avoid taking actions to ensure the damage is minimized.

If you are an adult and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "OOOOH I AM NOW OPPRESSED"

That... is not at all what I said. At all. I am confused how you got that from what I said. I said that women have the problem of not seeing women in science, while men have the problem of seeing public interest and support for only women in science. Nowhere did I suggest seeing women in science would be detrimental to men. The reason I bring them up together is because one is a result of attempting to fix the other.

So, to try again. Remember I am not talking about end results, or ideals or where the world should be, or any of that. I'm talking about how things make people feel. You accept that not seeing women in science makes women feel they are unwelcome. Meanwhile we have people repeatedly stressing the importance of women in science, and seeing many groups formed explicitly to promote women in science. Men are not seeing any of this directed towards them. The parallel here is pretty trivial. Men can see this and feel unimportant and like they are not welcome.

Is that an acceptable or even necessary consequence to achieve a more egalitarian society? Maybe? I don't know. But either way it's rather callous to brush off these feelings as merely a result of people being "broken" and "wrong."

Nobody is... nobody is or ever will be right?

Basically? I don't even know how to define "right" in a meaningful way here without the ability to run world simulations or predict the future. Your motivating principles are all great and I agree with them. The differences emerge in the details of how to act on them. For example, some people view the goal as exact equal representation in all fields, presumably with respect to population demographics though I don't hear that often said explicitly. Other people think the goal should be for each person to have equal opportunities without requiring exact proportional representation. Some people think the time limit on reaching the goal, whatever that goal is, is immediate, while others are fine seeing this take a more natural (and lengthy) course. Some people are more okay with the ends justifying the means than others.

These are all significant details that people can argue about at length while all wanting to see the exact same outcome. I want the outcome you do. That does not mean I need to agree with you about how to get there.

In passing, I will also note that your comment and grandparent weight a hypothetical bad equally with a demonstrable bad. I reject this weighting.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion one is hypothetical while the other is demonstrable. We're seeing men react poorly to the current actions, and not always in appropriate ways. Considering I'm arguing largely about how people are justified in feeling a certain way, I'm not sure what else you need here before you consider their feelings to be sufficiently demonstrated.

Seems like pretty dichotomous positions to me.

Hopefully by now you see how they are not. You are largely saying that certain actions are good things because they solve problem X. Grandparent is saying those actions are also causing another problem Y. Actions need not be purely positive or negative.

The grandparent should absolutely fix their heart.

You're really getting needlessly personal and as I keep trying to show, are basically telling them their feelings are wrong because there are other problems in the world. It's really rather condescending and makes it harder to take your argument in good faith.

When this topic does come up -- and it does -- it's done specifically with the notion of normalizing the idea that people of all backgrounds can, should and will be scientists and mathematicians.

This line of thought always confuses me a bit. Unfortunately the image of those that question such things is so poor it's rather discouraging to even bring up. I should really try to stress that I'm not trying to say how things should be. I think these issues are more complex than most anybody gives them credit for, and everybody has their own desired outcomes, timelines, and acceptable consequences. All I'm trying to do is explain perceptions, really.

The main line of thought that tends to result in all the focus on women in science and programs to help women succeed in science seems to include the idea that the societal conception that scientists are male pushes females away from science. There are of course other issues like you brought up that impact retention of female scientists, but much of the science-specific efforts aren't focused on retention but rather initial interest. That's fine, and a decent enough issue to go after.

However, what many people seem to have trouble seeing is how these programs can reasonably provoke reactions like the one you responded to using the very same logic that promoted the creation of those programs in the first place. If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science? The pressures aren't exactly the same, what with one being sort of a general thing while the other is more purposeful and focused. Who knows how they balance relative to each other, and people won't even agree on where that balance should be. However, I do understand how people can take the more purposeful one more personally. You have specifically putting out these influences that you can latch onto, while you can't really do that with a vague general feeling.

So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be. But I'd really like to see more thought put into how things effect everybody and some more understanding that people may have justifiable negative responses to things you personally consider to be positive. And neither of you has to be wrong. Or fix themselves.

You're jumping the gun here. A number of mental illnesses are highly correlated with heavy smoking. It's a legal coping mechanism that people can easily obtain entirely on their own.

The difference is some people are talking about DST year-round (again). Arizona is never on DST.

I think you've missed the point of most of the uproar. I haven't seen anybody claiming MongoDB doesn't have the right to use whatever license they like. I have however seen lots of people claim that it's a bad decision to use this latest license.

And people are free to criticize decisions all they want. It's really no different from the usual claims of bad technical decisions by MongoDB. Now people are just saying they're making bad business decisions too.

The rights discussion is largely irrelevant at this point.

I'm not sure why you think the only malicious response would be to send over too little. It's a common enough scene in TV shows and the like where a malicious actor attempts to hide incriminating information in a sea of irrelevant information.

I don't believe this was an attempt to find bias or noise from the physical sensors, but rather was looking at the method itself.

The method has some known biases that they were ensuring wouldn't explain the given pattern in the data. Depending on the depth of the simulation, it may have also been able to account for some unknown biases in the method.

Now even under your interpretation, I'm curious about which known object you'd suggest they use.

It is opt-in, but typically both opt-in and out-out in these sorts of contexts refer to what happens in the absence of user input.

In that context opt-in has a bit of an issue with people even knowing it exists, not to mention caring enough to go find the option to opt-in, and then doing so. This route will, for better or worse, produce a very self-selected group. The proposal above is a way to maintain the benefits of opt-in (namely, consent) while trying to improve the quality of the group.

Why couldn't Microsoft block URLs before they emerge as a dominant player?

All Microsoft would need to do is keep an eye out for potential competition and start blocking them. More than that, if Microsoft was going to that sort of extreme, they could start tracking URLs that their users go to. Anything that starts to get popular would be investigated and blocked if it was a threat.

Even if that is an option, and the results come back favorable to the defendant, they still don't have a great situation. Now there will be two experts coming in and saying different things to the jury. The details that might explain those differences are likely beyond what can be adequately explained to a jury during a trial.

But the defendant themselves paid one of the experts, so...