native_samples

They do not have time. Only realistic alternative is nukes (takes many years to build) or an LNG import terminal (started already, takes years to build). All the alternatives to depending on Russian imports require enormously complex construction projects.

Almost certainly they'd searched for that doctor to get directions?

And that's why I said "nobody thinks that", indeed.

Nonetheless, you seem to be fluent. Lots of people around the world speak some English but aren't fluent, don't get dubbing or subtitles into their own language for every film (or do but way late and they don't want to wait), and some of those people could in fact struggle to follow complex dialogue or might misunderstand idioms.

The current situation is not in any way desperate. All claims that a desperate crisis exists are based on the assumption of feedback loops that do not yet show up in any actual data and in fact many temperature datasets e.g. from satellites, weather balloons or the USA's own state of the art surface temperature network show virtually no warming at all for decades. To see warming you have to look at heavily modified composite datasets that are constantly being revised using methodologies so extreme that they literally create entirely new trends where the raw data doesn't contain any.

In an environment with as much epistemic uncertainty as climatology has, it is madness to allow bureaucrats to control anything at all. They are in no way fit to make important decisions on scientific topics.

You originally claimed "Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm". A direct causal assertion. Now you've switched to "various organizations claim it will cause harm" which is a very different thing.

"you lament that EU commissioners are voted in by party blocs in the EU parliament"

Where did I say that? I said the opposite, right? That in theory they are appointed directly by national governments without EU parliament or Commission involvement (in theory, but apparently not in practice). EU Parliament can only fire the entire Commission at once, it doesn't select Commissioners and never has.

"you say that people vote for parties in the UK (they don't they vote for MPs, regardless of their party affiliation is written on the ballot), and that this is good"

No, because I didn't express any view on whether it's good or not, I described how the system works. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth like that?

"even the Bank of England says that the UK will suffer more than other G7 and EU nations due to the current supply side inflation"

Bank of England, IMF etc said a lot of stuff that turned out to be flat wrong about Brexit in the past. None of these institutions has any credibility. Every single one wanted Brexit not to happen for ideological reasons and created "expert" forecasts on that basis. A former BoE chief even said the entire profession of economics was in crisis, their prediction misses were so bad, and he's right.

At any rate, the more important point is that, again, trying to tease apart inflation due to fighting COVID from inflation due to Brexit is now hopeless. I'm not happy about that. I feel like COVID was a massive distraction and has largely prevented the government capitalizing on Brexit, and it also means we'll never be able to resolve this economic impact debate. The cost of lockdowns, mass testing, travel restrictions etc is so massive that Brexit is a mosquito in comparison.

"Sticking your fingers in your ears so that you don't need to listen to people telling you otherwise doesn't mean a doughnut is a stick of celery"

The people in question aren't neutral bystanders, they very much want certain outcomes (for ideological reasons). Brexit is neither a donut nor celery, it's merely a continuation of the long term trend towards decentralized governance - look at a graph of how many countries exist over time to see this. In such a way it can work out better or worse depending very much on your perspective and values.

Used Jira at the last company. Use YouTrack now. YouTrack is better, hands down. Much faster UI, more keyboardable, better integrated into the IDE, integrating it with CI and mailboxes is easy.

Caveats: new job is small so it's a small instance. JetBrain's own YT instance is pretty fast though, so I guess it can scale well. Also, we don't use the new KB/wiki feature so can't comment on that. It's probably got less features than Confluence. We don't use the scrum features.

Biggest caveat - I speak as a developer. One of the biggest problems with Jira was the culture that surrounds it. Clueless PMs who had never written software in their life kept creating fixed workflows in which you couldn't transition tickets to arbitrary states (for no apparent reason, there seemed to be no benefit to these rules). So we were constantly being slowed down by the need to get the handful of people with Jira access to edit the workflows and add more transitions, which was pure makework, especially as even figuring out who the admins were was remarkably complicated. PMs also had a weird Jira fetish, they were like, if it's not in Jira it doesn't exist. So they forced the project to change from a more normal SW dev project early on to mandating that every commit had a ticket associated, and that ticket had to be scheduled into a sprint etc. It was just rank stupidity. Want to do a quick refactoring, as part of your current task? Roll it all into one giant commit because otherwise you'll need to file a ticket. New place doesn't work like that. YouTrack is used more simply, like a todo list. Git logs are the source of truth.

Latest versions of YouTrack come with a knowledge base and pretty flexible workflows support. I'm curious why YouTrack never seems to be listed as a Jira+Confluence competitor, given the similar target markets.

Yes. Google's first decade was notorious for their terrible products. That's why nobody used anything made by Google before 2016.

Ye gods. What has become of that once great organization when this is the best response you can come up with?

That supports my point, no? The paragraph you cited boils down to "there is an association between being less sick and not getting Alzheimer's (i.e. being less sick" + "there seems to be an association between literally any vaccine regardless of mechanism or target and less Alzheimers". These are not specific biological mechanisms of action, they're just correlations supported by an ultra-vague causal hypothesis of the form "maybe microbes cause Alzheimers". That's not actually a causal biological explanation.

In the UK people vote for parties and not individuals almost all of the time, so the whip system is there to ensure people get what they actually voted for. A good example of where this disastrously failed is just after Brexit where a lot of MPs campaigned on a platform of respecting the vote, then did a 180 degree turn and refused to do so once in power. They all lost the whip and were kicked out of the party but then refused to call by-elections to let the voters re-decide. Eventually, Boris was able to call an election and every single one of those MPs lost their seats.

"Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm to the UK, and this has caused support for it to drop"

Economic harm?! The impact of Brexit, if any exists at all, is unmeasurable because it's lost in the noise compared to lockdowns and trying to fight COVID.

What we can say for sure is that the people who claimed voting to leave would trigger an immediate recession were wrong. The economy grew in the years after the vote. Actual implementation was largely put on hold just months after leaving due to COVID and little has changed since.

The polls said the same for the British population before the referendum process started. The population changed its mind before the vote.

Actually, you have to be careful with polls. Polling showed a very clear and strong majority of the British population did not like the EU and were basically opposed to it, but a significant chunk of those people were scared of the threatened economic and tax consequences (which were in the end a lie - there was no emergency tax hike and no recession). If they had not been threatened with ruin then the Leave vote would have been much higher.

The EU has demonstrated it is willing to create essentially unlimited amounts of disruption in order to stop countries leaving. It won't play nice, or respect the wishes of the electorate. It will fight them. Inevitably that scares people, it did in the UK too. This does not mean that those people actually like their situation.

The problem with this argument is as follows:

1. National governments do not have control. That implies that for each government, they could ensure the outcome they wanted, which is impossible in a shared legal system. In the era of the veto, you could argue that they had at least the very minimal level of control over change (by stopping it), but the EU has been systematically removing national vetos.

2. Even when vetos did exist, they were hardly 'control' as a regular person would understand it. That would be akin to arguing that as long as a car has a working brake you're in control even if you can't move the steering wheel or stop the engine.

3. We don't actually know the national governments control who becomes EU Commission President. We believe this to be the case because in theory the treaties say that's how it works, but the EU routinely violates its own treaties. For example the treaties say that the Commission gets Commissioners allocated and the national governments control those assignments. In practice the former president (Juncker) boasted in public that he vetoed any commissioner he didn't like. This is not allowed under the treaties but, happens anyway.

4. The actual process by which vDL became President is entirely and completely opaque. The national leaders walked into a locked room and ... something happened. Then vDL was announced as leader. How was that decision arrived at? Which countries voted for her or against her, and why? Was there even a vote at all? Are leaders being threatened or bought? The question may sound absurd but actually the EU has quite bad problems with corruption, and effectively buying support via massive subsidies to poorer countries is a core tactic.

The point is, nobody can answer these questions because the EU is completely opaque. vDL refusing to release critical negotiations in direct violation of EU law is entirely expected from this system; the EU has lots of laws and regulations but they are always ignored the moment they become inconvenient. No system that claims to be democratic can tolerate such levels of opacity.

One last point. The assumption in your argument above is that if voters elect a politician they will actually represent the people who elected them. At the individual / leadership level it is fairly well known that the EU routinely corrupts politicians into going against voter's wishes by offering to hire them into the Commission temporarily after they lose elections. These jobs come with absolutely massive "pensions" that are well out of line with any normal pension, which require virtually no work to obtain, which can be claimed before reaching retirement age and which can be rescinded if the recipient is disloyal! In effect these so-called "pensions" are legal bribes.

The extent of the pension bribes problem can be seen in the scale of EU payments to UK politicians (who of course all became strong remain supporters):

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europe...

Only a small minority of people actually think continent sized governments are a good idea, especially in Europe. Most people think this is self-evidently a bad idea, which is why the EU leaderships are never willing to let people actually have a referendum on the question - the UK being the lone exception, and look at how nastily the various pro-EU minorities in power tried to stop it being implemented!

"Americans manage to do it, after all."

Americans fought a brutal civil war to ensure the federal government would continue to enjoy supremacy over the states. In the modern era, about half of Americans currently think their country is heading for a second civil war, according to opinion polls. In recent days you're seeing elected federal politicians directly state that people should disobey rulings of the Supreme Court and laws of state governments. You've had federal agencies spying on and directly attacking elected presidents, with no consequences.

So it is absolutely not clear that Americans manage to do this, in a timeless/stable sense. They've managed it in the 20th century but for most of that time they had serious external enemies to bind the country together. Historically speaking, very large and powerful governments tend to collapse from internal decay, splintering into small countries. The number of countries rapidly increased in the 20th century as empires fell apart and new countries formed in their wake. Very few/no people regret this process - you don't see many people hankering after the Ottoman Empire or USSR, do you? A lot of the instability in the Middle East is a legacy of this process, for example.

Having once been a heavy user of emacs and then switched to IDEA, I'm not sure emacs actually is more extensible. The IDEA API is enormous and very powerful. Plugins don't seem particularly limited in what they can do.

It could be reasonable but like I said, it's a massive stretch. Flu vaccines are not designed to stop Alzheimer's. There is no argued or known biological pathway through which that might happen. Alzheimer's experts have not previously identified flu vaccines as doing anything that might help. And it probably isn't flu itself causing Alzheimer's because, as I've noted elsewhere in this thread, flu vaccines don't appear to have actually reduced overall flu mortality and some studies show negative effectiveness.

https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200302/flu-vaccin...

I don't think there's a really killer argument here in the abstract: I personally find it unreasonable to imply causation from any medical intervention to any possible outcome based on just a correlation. Yes, it's more reasonable than Nick Cage being associated, but not reasonable enough. That's a judgement call however. I am guided in it by the massive costs and problems created when scientists claim vaccines are miracle cures without sufficiently robust data.

We're talking about epidemiology though. Their papers routinely contain major, grievous errors that anyone can spot in five minutes. There might well be subtle errors too but it doesn't matter when the field is overrun with papers that are quite obviously invalid on their face to any outsider, yet none of the insiders care.

The primary COVID model that triggered lockdowns was full of programming errors. It had never been peer reviewed, and its prediction of deaths varied by 80,000 depending on whether you engaged a data loading optimization or not. It gave totally different results depending on available CPU features! There were no tests and the results had never been validated against anything. Outsiders pointed out these problems, and the team didn't care, nor did anyone else in the field of epidemiology.

That's just one example of many. Epidemiology is kinda like the phrenology of our era (one of quite a few). It's not built on a firm scientific foundation.

It's not facetious. It's quite the stretch to say that if you assume literally any injection could cure any disease, it's OK to describe any found correlation as a "link".

This sort of intellectual looseness is not free. People are learning to treat claims by scientists as untrue, and it's partly because of this sort of press release/paper hacking.

Finding a correlation between two random medical data sets does not mean there is a "link" in any English that normal people would use it. It definitely does not mean there's an "effect" or that one thing "reduces" the other. It might mean there's something worth a followup investigation there, though given the prevalence of non-reproducible p-hacked results in science, also maybe not.

Regardless, before doing press releases and going to the public with such a claim there is a large amount of work needing to be done to actually prove causality. Moreover you'd then want to ask why does such a thing happen when there is no prior reason to suspect such an impact.

If they're going to claim causality for vaccines->less Alzheimers then yes, they need pretty close to 100% confidence for that because this is the sort of thing that gets translated into mandatory government policies. What they have here is literally nothing, it's just a correlation. They don't have any evidence of a causal relation, and they don't have any suggested biological pathway either. It's malpractice to assert causality given such a total absence of evidence.

Moreover, as a killed comment elsewhere in this thread points out, it's very likely that they made a mistake somewhere. This claim is absurd on its face. A 40% effect size is enormous. Alzheimer's is tracked very closely and there has been no change in incidence over time:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-dementias

Flu vaccines on the other hand have become far more prevalent over the last 20 years especially amongst the age groups most at risk for Alzheimers. So, where's the impact? There isn't any. If flu vaccines really reduced the risk that much then we'd see it in the actual numbers, as a 40% reduction is hard to hide.

"The vaccine is known to be safe and with few side effects"

The COVID vaccines are also "known" to be safe and with few side effects, by the sort of public health people who like to make such claims. That doesn't mean anything.

Here's the problem with flu vaccines. They do not correlate with any reduction in mortality attributed to flu. Every trial indicates effectiveness, yet despite hugely increased number of flu vaccines over the years, deaths due to flu do not move. A rational person should wonder what this implies about the reliability of vaccine trials.

The quote isn't offhand, it's directly and explicitly making claims of causality, e.g. talking about the "effect" and saying the vaccination "reduces the risk".

Yes the paper says differently. So what? We're used to this from epidemiology by now. The claims they make to the government/media/public about disease frequently don't match their actual data. To discover this you have to not only read the paper but often dig through the most obscure parts of it. The fact that their claims are wrong will only emerge in, like, table 3 of Appendix 2 which is by the way only available on GitHub if at all. Here it emerges in literally the last paragraph. Then someone blogs about this and they get kicked off Twitter for spreading "misinformation".

The public's understanding of science being provisional is actually excellent and far better than the supposedly elite decision making classes. That's why the public increasingly doesn't trust claims made by scientists, and correctly so. Scientists will make bold claims of causation whilst actually having a sketchy P=0.049 regression at best and a fictional model built on circular logic at worst.

We need to hold scientists to higher standards, and especially epidemiologists. The amount of damage their sloppy "offhand" approach has caused is astronomical. Or, quicker, just accept that they aren't going to improve, have learned nothing from COVID and cut them out of society and the public conversation entirely.

That's a curious inversion of cause/effect. You're suggesting people have latched onto this movie specifically and are trying to "claim" it as non woke even though it's not? There are plenty of movies that do well at the box office yet get panned for being super woke, why this one specifically?

No no, that's all wrong. A typical Hollywood woke Top Gun Maverick would have looked very different. The movie would be oriented around a female hero who is constantly being harassed or undermined by jealous men, who then get told they're dinosaurs and a relic of a previous non-woke era. At some point a frustrated white man would attack one of the women who would inexplicably turn out to be a black belt in karate (never previously mentioned), and the much larger and stronger man would thus end up on his back within three seconds. The commanders would all have been black (instead of just one in a relatively minor supporting role), and Maverick himself would either have been Chief Dinosaur, relegated to a loser's watching position at the end for his white male crimes, or - just as likely these days - replaced by a black actor without comment.

Top Gun Maverick is being more or less universally described as a non woke film. The fact that it has women and black people in it doesn't change that, because - and this is really important - anti-woke people are not racist nor sexist. That's the core reason for the whole culture war! The racism and sexism comes from woke people who are really open that they hate "white men", yet who claim it's everyone else animated by racial/gender hatred. That's why you're struggling to understand why a film can be hailed as non-woke yet still feature a mixed cast.

Maverick is non-woke for a whole bunch of reasons. Firstly, the cast is realistic. The US military is primarily made up of American men, and most American men are white with a large minority of Latino and African-Americans. Maverick depicts this reality accurately, or at least, accurately enough for film goers to accept it as such. Most of the pilots and Navy staff are white men, with a minority who aren't. They are usually married and if they aren't, they'd quite like to be married. Likewise, although women are now allowed in historically that wasn't the case and so it seems realistic that there's only one. None of them are inexplicably better than the others for identity reasons.

Secondly, the script lacks ideology. The characters don't make speeches about how the world should be. They don't try to remake the own world in a 'better' image, mutiny for moral reasons or any other of the stock clichés of woke storytelling. The characters are just professionals who focus on training, and ultimately just soldiers, so they complete the assigned mission without asking too many questions.

This lack of ideology is not merely replacing woke ideology with another. It is a genuine lack. Although the military in question is without a doubt the American military, there is almost no USA! USA! rah-rah. Baseball talk is kept to an absolute minimum. It's not a woke leftist film, but it's also not a Republican dream movie either. The pilots just ... train and fight. It's thus very interesting that you picked the unnamed enemy as a woke script aspect because it didn't seem that way to me at all. Woke people are never shy about naming the groups they hate! It's a slightly jarring stylistic choice, at least at first, but I don't think the script could have worked any other way. For the story to make sense you have to believe they're (a) not in the middle of WW3 (b) they're fighting an enemy that doesn't have nuclear weapons and won't start WW3 if their airspace is violated and yet also (c) has more advanced fighter jet tech than the USA. There are no countries that match this set of criteria. The best match for the unnamed enemy is IMHO clearly Iran: the extreme tactics used to prevent uranium enrichment, the mountainous terrain etc. But it's unbelievable that they'd have military tech than the USA. Someone else I talked to who saw the movie thought it was clearly meant to be China. The enemy ends up being a blank slate because filling it with details would have reduced the movie's focus on the action and created irreconcilable plot holes, not because woke people are so caring and reluctant to pick a fight!

Wouldn't that be an oil company? I think his point is that with liquid fuels you have more decentralisation and buffering of energy.

Nobody thinks that, but:

1. English is an unusually compact language. If you watch dubbed movies you will notice that the characters often have to talk extremely fast compared to the original and much dialogue is rephrased to be simpler. They can't refilm the sequences so in languages that take more words, the dialogue must be simplified.

2. A lot of people won't get dubbed versions anyway, so they'll be watching it as a foreign language.

That's why the new Top Gun is such a monster at the box office. It's a "woke zero" movie in which you believe the characters are actually competent because you watch them train. They're believable and you want them to succeed. It's just a fantastic action movie and is even better than the original. A great reminder of what Hollywood can do when it's firing on all cylinders and isn't distracted by trying to do ideological brainwashing.

It's such an underrated movie. I watch it at least once a year. Watching it with your kids must bea lot of fun.

I remember many years ago, Google internally knew that one of the only signals obtainable from CVs was the negative signal from number of certs. I don't think this knowledge was actually used for anything, it was just a correlation, but yeah it's sort of an open secret in the business that the sort of people who get lots of certifications do very badly when asked to demonstrate actual technical skills.

"it’d be a career making move if you could prove something that juicy!"

That's absurd. We know the grant that funded the WIV lab work was signed off by Fauci during a time when GoF research was banned in the USA. If you proved the virus came from a lab funded by the guy who literally funds your colleagues you would never work in the field ever again.

If you've read Gates' own book on the pandemic, you'll see he would not be open to the contents of Viral.

"Nobody is helped if China leaves the WHO"

Are you sure? Is the goal of the WHO to generate accurate health advice, or to accumulate memberships?

COVID vaccines never affected other people because they don't reduce transmission, and even if they did, the point of a vaccine is individual protection. If you think it works then it didn't matter what other people choose. And this holds true for many vaccines.

Yet, again, odd silence from the pro-choice crowd. Clearly they don't believe in choice nor bodily autonomy.

Abortion on the other hand does always affect other people, if you believe the fetus is a person.

But most importantly, yes you do have to be consistent. If you can't be consistent because you feel it requires adopting extreme positions then you need to rethink your moral code, because clearly, you may find that your position isn't as morally clear as you thought.