odyssey7

If you are a young person, under no circumstances would I recommend that you acccept a job working with MUMPS.

You won’t be able to learn the industry best practices or the modern tools, because MUMPS predates them, and your career will suffer for it.

We don’t fully understand even some of the most obvious pathologies. If a disease isn’t glaringly obvious and coupled with profit incentive, God help you. The question of what microplastics do to us is simply beyond the capabilities of both modern medicine and academic research institutions.

I’m not sure this is clickbait in a literal sense, but given the factors you point out, it could promote misunderstandings among casual readers.

I appreciate this reply. Even as a technical reader, these concepts are somewhat tricky to follow. In my opinion, this is more of a foot-gun than a feature. A user cannot know whether the screen is closed or not while it is next to their ear—and it’s possible that related inconsistent detection isssues sometimes automatically close the screen when the phone is not against the ear.

Are there times when, during a call, pressing an iPhone’s screen-on/off button will end the call, but other times when it will just turn the screen off?

I still do not know the pattern, but I have on occasion inadvertently ended a call by using that button prior to placing my iPhone in my pocket.

This might reflect a misunderstanding of my comment.

If free speech is a drug, it’s a tonic against dictators and tyrants.

Terribly ironic that this is up for a vote at the time of the United State's 250th birthday.

Meta can figure out the information about users that helps it target ads. That’s one of their moats.

Giving advertisers demographic information outright would actually weaken Meta’s moat.

For the deep-pocked advertisers, this is a loss.

Because big players have systems to fill in those information gaps, they have a moat that protects their position in the market.

If the data were instead just handed over, that would weaken those moats.

Answering this point directly, not the full argument.

If Meta bans young people from their platforms, young people will just go to a different platform, and then Meta loses a generation of customers.

But if the age blocking affects all platforms, then the playing field is kept equal with respect to age blocking.

History rhymes.

They killed Socrates to protect the youth of Athens.

That’s a different debate, and imo, the lack of a severe curve makes it safer for students to resist temptations to cheat. Severe curves ratchet up structural pressures for students to cheat, due to a prisoners’ dilemma effect in a zero-sum competitive environment. When there is a severe curve and students are able to cheat, acting with integrity becomes a failing strategy.

The thing about the community of trust—of which all stewards—is that camaraderie, respect, identifying with the community, and integrity will keep the majority of students from cheating. And if that isn’t enough, the “single sanction” was historically a sufficient danger to raise the stakes immensely.

However, some students will cheat, and for that reason, I am very much against curves. If you learn the material and demonstrate that you have, you should get the A. But it’s more work for professors to calibrate their curriculums, and there seems to be no real accountability for the inverse of learning objectives—teaching objectives—so curves are likely here to stay.

So, formal methods produce runnable systems, but communication remains the challenge.

If a formal spec is messy, then it's a proof of ... what, exactly?

A formal specification that bridges tech and product, that lets non-technical contributors read and discuss all the logical nuances, directly as operational code, at product's level of abstraction of interest, would transform a lot.

It's no longer a challenge to create code, it's a challenge to create business requirements and translate them into systems.

The bargaining dynamics are stacked against biology researchers at every stage of their career, from needing years and years of unrelated performance to be admitted to terribly expensive programs before they can begin to do experiments, to requiring costly equipment and resources to work, to needing to work with a small number of very powerful companies.

As a result, life science researchers are more price-taking than proce-setting when it comes to their wages / salary. If money is the motivator, then the market as-is isn’t addressing this one.

Okay, fair. I was thinking mostly about the high-impact issue of preserving the security vulnerability and how an essential vendor was not being candid, but you are also right to note how AMD was avoiding its responsibilities to the individual researcher himself.

What hair is this splitting? The issue was that AMD allowed a known and serious security vulnerability to exist within their customers’ systems, for months, and acted with a lack of candor while doing so.

Maybe more so with fitness than with health. People generally think of Mediterranean diets as healthy but not as a looksmaxxing linchpin.

I’m watching to see what happens to big enterprise software contracts. Why pay some vendor $800k annually for something a couple mid-level devs can replace—-and tailor closely to your needs——by leveraging AI.

Open source software changed the world. AI that will cheaply write whatever you want in a few days will also change the world.

Haskell is more readable. It looks just like pseudocode. Change my mind.

It’s not as if institutions have been lavishing PhD students with money up until now.

As an afterthought budget item, those funds aren’t exactly attractive targets to raid for pursuing an expensive, different process.

Each turtle gives them another 9. How many 9s are they down due to incidents over the past year?

This is getting a lot of criticism but as a demo I think it sounds nice.

Maybe, but in 100 years, people looking back on the current era will easily understand the work. It symbolically communicates something about the spirit of the age.

It read okay to me?

Also, I encourage people not to change their writing style just to avoid patterns that AI likes to use. I'm going to continue my em dashes.

The question used to be: should we have online censorship?

Now, the question is: what should the implementation details of online censorship be?

How do you prove a negative, that something is vestigial?

An unfortunate habit of medical messaging is to assert that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you haven’t studied a phenomenon well enough, you simply assume that it doesn’t exist or is not important.

Some people will say that this is important, because the public needs simplified messages. That viewpoint is misguided and denies patients autonomy by denying them the information needed to weigh matters themselves. It rightly causes many to view the advice they receive with suspicion toward an untrustworthy salesman who is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

Part of this reads like a shortlist of things that doctors and scientists don’t know enough about yet. If you’re looking for a PhD topic, here are some ideas.

I think this is an interesting pattern, but I see your point. The network effects of ~people a degree removed from direct nuclear research~ gets big.

Given the fertility crisis, you would think that linking a devastating disease to a common and incurable STI would make the both of them top priorities.