jakefromstatecs

If you want to look at "untreated mental illness" in the homeless, now you're above 50%.

But "untreated mental illness" isn't the same as "mental illness that requires institutionalization" which is what the OP is saying.

Additionally, a lot of mental illnesses can be reasonably managed with proper medication, and in my mind very, very few actually require institutionalization. But we as a country can't even get behind the idea of universal healthcare for non-homeless let alone homeless people. Somehow institutionalizing them seems more feasible or reasonable than just covering their medical care?.. I don't get it.

are there moral absolutes?

Even if there are, wouldn't the process of finding them effectively mirror moral relativism?..

Assuming that slavery was always immoral, we culturally discovered that fact at some point which appears the same as if it were a culturally relativistic value

I switched for the same reason.

Company insisted that I upgrade to Windows 11, I decided Linux was better.

We don't have 2d input, we have 3d input.

We have two eyes that gives us depth by default.

If they're easily solvable then why do you need planning?

Easily solvable problems still need coordination. Do you want to go to one store and have your change rounded up then go to another and have it rounded down?

Math is just symbol manipulation with a set of rules, no?

I'm yet to see any influencer or YouTuber call themselves a director or cinematographer

You must not be looking very hard. There are many youtubers or influencers making indie films or shows.

NigaHiga, Annoying Orange and Shane Dawson all made movies. Freddie Wong started out as a Youtuber and created Video Game High School.

The linked articles have no information in them, except a sob story told through one perspective.

Here, how about this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jasmine-mooney-canadian-detaine...

If this is not sufficient (It includes statements from an ICE spokesperson), then please do mention what type of evidence it is that you're looking for.

For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country.

The evidence that we have does not indicate that, and in fact, indicates that these Jasmine Mooney was unnecessarily held for 6 days across two different locations, then unnecessarily transferred to Arizona for an additional period of time.

It seems like a very faulty thought process to pretend that there exists evidence to contradict what the current evidence suggests, rather than to simply base your judgement on available evidence.

A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone

Jasmine Mooney - a Canadian citizen, was crossing the boarder, with the paperwork for a work visa, in order to turn them into the US consulate to apply for the visa. This isn't even required by the way under NAFTA: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary....

It specifically notes that Canadian citizens need not apply at the U.S. consulate, contrary to the information provided by the customs agent.

How reasonable is it to you, that a person would attempt to follow the correct procedure to apply for a work visa according to the U.S. government's own website, then be detained and transferred several times, one of them being literally to a detention facility 209 miles away simply because her visa was denied at the border of Mexico (Before she even entered the U.S. by the way)

Here's another source for this, which includes statements by an immigration lawyer noting how unusual the handling of this is: https://globalnews.ca/news/11080371/canadian-woman-detained-...

Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?

How is it a good ending to be detained and transferred hundreds of miles because paperwork at the boarder isn't correct? Isn't the whole point that they shouldn't be in the U.S. at all? So why is it then that we waste so many resources to send them all over the U.S. instead of just denying entry?.. How does this make any sense to you?

I don't think anyone understands how they work

Yes we do, we literally built them.

We understand how we brought them about via setting up an optimization problem in a specific way, that isn't the same at all as knowing how they work.

You're mistaking "knowing how they work" with "understanding all of the emergent behaviors of them"

If I build a physics simulation, then I know how it works. But that's a separate question from whether I can mentally model and explain the precise way that a ball will bounce given a set of initial conditions within the physics simulation which is what you seem to be talking about.

Was a favorite spot of mine. A shame that the NPR coverage burned it.

At least we still have plenty of forest areas to renegade in.

The consistency that they're referring to specifically is to do with consistency in the way that certain features or functionality is implemented.

To make your example match, it would be more so that there are two teams A and B, Team A already created a framework and integration for logging across the entire application. Team B comes along and doesn't realize that this framework exists, and also invents their own framework and integration for logging.

This is the type of consistency that the author points to, because Team B could have looked at other code already referencing and depending on the logging framework from Team A and they would have avoided the need to create their own.

I know plenty of people making $250K/yr or more who are living paycheck to paycheck.

How?..

"I struggle to think of time on Instagram being well spent. Perhaps less badly spent?"

There are a lot of people that use Instagram to follow artists for inspiration for art. This seems like a pretty good way to spend time.

More specifically, I have a log file that says I'm thinking, therefore I am. :-

More specifically than that: "My ability to read the log file proves my existence"

people are jumping at the opportunity to contradict you and actually adding some new data points that you're actually right.

This argument is called a double-bind.

Part of maturity/adulthood is coming to the realization that you don’t have the right to conscript other people into your sense of humor.

And yet, you aren't willing to accept that they have a different sense of humor without hating them. Ironic.

My main gripe with this article, is it mentions that their product was born as a result of a "painful expensive experience" of not creating a "Pricing Engine", but they don't at all elaborate on what that experience was.

I want to know what problems that they built this to solve specifically, so that I can foresee future problems that I may run into. But they don't elaborate at all, and instead just mention that their product solves those unmentioned problems.

ASL recognition is an insanely difficult problem to solve because it requires solving hand, finger, and arm pose estimation with occlusion, which hasn't even been properly solved in VR, let alone through webcams.

A team of Steven

I program in my head, and yes, I often do see the code in my head. In some sense, it's like a spatial experience, where each file is a different "room", and those rooms have contents of the code.

When I imagine programming something, I make mental plans of what code goes in specific rooms (Files, or directories), and what that code will roughly look like - At first a rough shape, of a class with particular methods, and over time that resolves into more and more detail such as what the methods will do and how they will interact with other parts.

My memory is really bad though, so if I try to come back to this a week later I will have forgotten the whole thing unless I make very detailed notes.