ggchappell

I must disagree with you about Wiktionary. It's great.

Nice name. I do something along these lines in my LaTeX source; never thought of it as a thing.

Generally agreed, although the huge number of bugs out there that are attributable to manual memory management suggests that other solutions are worth looking for. Perhaps Rust is heading in the right direction.

Sure, popular election of senators is at least a little problematic. But maybe what we really want is a return to the original model, where members of the House are elected by the people, while senators are chosen by state legislatures.

... I can't help but feel bitter towards the proponents of AA who insist on it being a monopoly... especially those in positions of power in the criminal justice or public health systems ....

Not an alcoholic, but I had extended discussions with a number of AA members some years ago. And I found that many of them also felt pretty negatively about the involvement of the justice system with AA. What happens (they said) is that people are forced to attend AA meetings as part of sentencing, but these people generally are not interested in recovery. The result is a lot of wasted time and the diversion of resources away from people who could be helped.

Here we go again: the latest in a long line of sites that I can't figure out, while lots of others comment "cool".

I click "Sort it". Nothing happens. <sigh>

For all those silent folks who are just like me: know that you are not alone.

"Do not stop to be thrifty" -- I imagine that should be "Do not stop being thrifty"?

"Master wedding-feasts" -- what does that mean?

"Grieve for no one" seems odd.

I realize that it costs money to publish journals and papers, ....

Does it?

The authors are not paid. The referees (who do peer review) are not paid. The editors are not paid. The authors submit LaTeX, so no professional typesetters are needed. Eliminate the hard-copy printed journal, which no one reads these days, and all you are left with are the costs of hosting and maintaining a website -- which doesn't need to be at all fancy. That's dirt cheap.

I have told the above story to different audiences. Programmers, as a rule, are delighted by it, and managers, invariably, get more and more annoyed as the story progresses; true mathematicians, however, fail to see the point.

I see the point. In fact I'd go so far as to call myself "delighted". But I thought I was a true mathematician.

'Scuse me while I go have a little existential crisis.

I agree with the point of the article.

Still, there is so much out there that is available only in one of the MS Office formats, and Gov.UK is apparently doing better than that. So there is actually some cause for celebration here, IMHO.

The article compares Rodin's drawings of the Cambodian dancers with those by Noël Dorville, but includes no images of the latter.

For the interested, I found this: https://www.ebay.fr/itm/Tableau-Litho-signee-mine-de-plomb-p...

Scroll down for larger images.

This is an interesting analysis, but I have a serious problem with the strong implication that high vividness = good.

At the rock bottom of the vividness scale, we find Jane Austen, Isaac Asimov, Agatha Christie, C.J. Cherryh, and Danielle Steel -- all extremely popular authors. And at the very top, we find George R.R. Martin, Roald Dahl, Poul Anderson, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Ray Bradbury, and Kim Stanley Robinson -- also popular, but generally not quite of the same stature as those on the first list.

Possibly the reading public is slightly biased toward low vividness. Meanwhile, I have at least two favorite authors on both lists.

The really tough barrier is getting enough people with the required expertise to do the annotation.

Annotation sites like to say, "Hey, we have this paper and we have this paper." Meanwhile, thousands of new scientific papers are published every day. Of course, the majority of those are not going to be of interest to any journalist. But even when we whittle the pile down to those that are, there is still a huge amount of work to do, and some qualified person has to do it.

And why would they do it? I'm an academic researcher. So I have the required expertise to do this kind of annotation for papers in my narrow specialty. But my life is full with my own research and publishing and teaching and advising and committees and paperwork .... And every October I have to write up a report on my achievements for the past year. Getting a paper published counts for a lot in that report. Annotating someone else's paper is not going to count for much at all. If I start substituting the latter for the former, then my career is going to go down the tubes pretty rapidly.

I think it would be great if this kind of thing could actually happen. But I don't see how to make it happen.

I don't think it's inappropriate either. But we should note that police do not have expertise regarding the administration of drugs.

Someone with no expertise in a field can suggest anything they want to. Those with expertise who are actually making the decisions need to be held to account for them.

How do you infer that the article concentrates on the misbehavior of police more than misbehavior by EMS workers?

Well, I guess it's not so much that the article concentrates on police misbehavior, but that the actual people involved did so. The article does not give us complete information, of course, but it appears that the police basically said, "We messed up, and we're fixing things," while the EMS people said, "There isn't any problem." And since the EMS people apparently are the problem, I find the response disturbing.

That's an interesting observation.

The problem -- if it is one -- is certainly not limited to the Win 8 Start menu. There are plenty of interfaces where pressing a button, or some similar action, pops up a new full-screen or nearly full-screen UI element that looks & works differently from what was there before.

I wonder whether any research has been done on whether this makes any significant number of users forget what they were doing. If not, I think such research would be worthwhile.

It seems to me that this article is concentrating on the wrong thing. The biggest problem in the incidents in question is not misbehavior by police; it is misbehavior by EMS workers.

Consider: a police officer and an EMS worker are dealing with someone who is difficult to subdue. The police officer -- who does not have the expertise to know whether it is a good idea -- requests that the person be injected with ketamine. The EMS worker -- who does have the expertise -- does so, knowing that it is a bad idea.

What most needs to change here is the EMS system.

-------------------

EDIT. I guess I mean to say that the people involved here (as opposed to the article) are concentrating on the wrong thing. The police are the ones that have changed their policies. But it seems to be the EMS system that has the more serious problem.

I think it means that the writer doesn't really know what he is talking about.

And, by the way, there are five regular solids. The other is the dodecahedron. I imagine the writer would say that corresponds somehow to the "quintessence" some philosophers used to go on about. But that still doesn't mean this idea has anything to do with physical reality.

EDIT. By the way, in spite of all the mystical silliness that seems to surround it, personally, I think that the Soul of the World sculpture is a really cool idea.

Bell knew there was a distinct possibility of a patent fight with Edison, so on three occasions he had papers and experimental products sealed in tin boxes and deposited at the Smithsonian Institution for safekeeping.

You can (or could) do that?

Cool.

Found a pic of the one in Nicaragua:

https://retirenicaragua.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/the-soul-of...

People know what they need.

There is another way to view this. We might think of these programs as encouraging people to do things that society needs, instead of what they need. Then the payment is there to offset the personal cost.

Note. I've thought about this for all of 10 seconds. I might be 'way off.

about 328 feet from the floating platform

Someone doesn't understand precision.

(That's 100 meters, so "about 300 feet".)

Basically, the Army blew the levee to save a town, Cairo, IL, at the expense of (a few) homes and (lots of) farmland on the MO side.

Are you sure about the "homes" part?

20 years ago, I was a professor at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau. As part of new faculty orientation, we took a bus tour of the area. During the trip, we passed through the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway. We were told that no one was allowed to live there, so that it could be flooded on short notice without endangering people or their homes.

Fantastic article -- and interesting comment. Thanks for posting.

Cool.

Also, figlet sighting, "large" font. :-)

if you dig you can eventually find it

You can? I looked all over the site, and I couldn't find it (other than going to GitHub and reading the source code).

Very partial, yes. But thanks.

Is there any documentation?

This looks like it might be good, but I don't know how to tell whether it is. The "Codemap" is just links to repo directories. The "Abseil Introduction" link leads to basically to another version of the README. It does have an "Abseil C++ Quickstart" link, which tells you how to get the package, but doesn't tell you what's in it.

I see things about design philosophy, compatibility, etc. But what about: what functions can I call, what do they do, and how do I call them?

Is there any way to find out what's in this thing, other than reading source files?

------------------

EDIT. Style guidelines, exceptions policy, leaking checking, platforms guide, linking your code, feature check macros, yadda yadda yadda ....

WHAT FUNCTIONS CAN I CALL, WHAT DO THEY DO, AND HOW DO I CALL THEM?

(Sorry. I'll go calm down now.)

Is this supposed to be doing something? Clicking the little up/down arrows changes the numbers, but that's all I see happening?

I never figured out what most of the administration did besides irritate the better teachers.

As a teacher who has experienced that irritation, I hear you. But I also know that multitudes of administrators are a necessity in the modern world. There are a number of reasons for this; one of the biggest is regulatory burden.

Pick your favorite downtrodden group. Some politician makes a speech about how Group X has gotten the shaft for too long; he says he wants to pass a law that says no federal money is going to go to a university that hires people from Group X at a lower rate than other groups. Everyone says, "Yay, politician." And the law is passed.

Now, I am not (repeat: NOT) arguing against such policies. If thoughtfully enacted they can be beneficial. But they also come at a cost. And much of that cost is administrative.

Basically, this politician has just invented a new form to fill out. Before receiving federal $$$, we have to fill out this form that describes our good-faith efforts to hire qualified people from Group X.

Now, someone has to fill out that form. They have to keep the necessary records. They have to tell their coworkers what they need to do to be in compliance. They have to get periodic training, because government requirements change. That person needs office space and equipment. They need a parking space, and their trash needs to be emptied, and their restroom needs to be cleaned and stocked, and their paycheck needs to be deposited, and someone needs to supervise them. And none of this is free.

The modern world comes with a huge number of policies like this. "Let's prevent hard-working Americans' money from being misspent. I'm going to require that any scientist who receives a government grant has to account for his time, so we know where the money is going." Fine. And every university hires someone for a new administrative position.

"Every new construction project must conform to stricter safety requirements." Great idea. Another hire.

And again, none of this is free.

Oh yea, and put a hiring freeze/salary cap on all administrative personnel for any school that accepts federal loans.

Ah, but the reason the administrative personnel are necessary in the first place is to ensure that the organization meets the qualifications to accept federal money. So the idea is, I'm afraid, completely impractical.