7sigma

What also amazes me about his music is that how even some obscure movies he scored for had really great soundtracks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqre0jAq724

I heard of a similar story from my history teacher, but with eastern block and the show Dallas. From what I remember authorities were hoping that it would show the decadence of the west, but I think people mainly saw the higher living standards.

As a bilingual, found that one really nice.

(minor nitpick: should be "la pub")

The posts on sparta are a joy to read as well

https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-p...

Took a lot of thinking

yeah sorry, first time i read the comment, i missed the nuance.

My partner actually researches prostate cancer and i asked her about it and basically her answer is that its complicated. In her research, she found that cancer cells in the prostate are able to find other sources of energy so cutting glucose might not help. From what I understood (not a biologist) it basically depends on tissue and mutations.

PHP and good programming practices are orthogonal. Nice try at hyperbole, though.

That's why I said you "can". As someone who's done c, c++, JavaScript, lisp, prolog, a bit of python, whenever I see people saying such and such language is bad (like trikko's comment), it just strikes me as immature. There are way bigger factors that determine the success or failure of a project yet somehow I keep hearing developers fixated with the idea that the language alone will make or break the project.

It's so bad that you can build multi billion dollar businesses with it

It's been debunked. See this post explaining why.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-an...

My rule of thumb is this: Does the solution solve more problems than it creates?

Taking the example of Vue.js, I found that it makes building UIs a lot easier. But I found that you do need to understand its caveats and its limitations (e.g. limitations in its reactivity system). On balance, it does solve more problems and those limitations are really minor and well documented.

But before I embraced it, I spent some time experimenting with it, assessing the documentation, the community, ecosystem, etc...

I think this is a skill onto itself that comes with experience. I remember jumping on the "cool" bandwagon many times, only to realise I was basically wasting a lot of time switching to cool new technology X.

Nowadays, if I can't understand the problem something is trying to solve, it probably means I don't have that problem.

Edit: added "limitations in" its reactivity system.

Part of the plot of the Count of Monte Cristo

Regarding eventual consistency, a CQRS\ES system can also be synchronous, or partially. You could have listeners for events that need to supply a strongly consistent model and others events that feed parts of the system that don't need strong consistency.

"However the events in a event store are immutable and can’t be deleted, to undo an action means sending the command with the opposite action"

Well they don't have to be immutable. I don't see why you can't update/migrate events.

Depends on the infrastructure and education. In the UK, I regularly see cyclists do stupid things. When I go to Holland, everybody respects the red lights, but I guess that's because they have amazing cycling infrastructure and also cycling is part of school curriculum

> No, the idea is to taint anti-GMO activists with the accusation that they're killing third world children so that other, more profitable GMOs can be fed to fat Americans.

Yes those evil corporations are trying to save children from blindness just to make anti science activists look bad. The bastards!!!

Sarcasm aside, did you know most of our crop varieties have been modified using radiation? Those types of mutations are still used today and require little testing, much less than what golden rice has been through.

> (Oh, and by the way it inherently has worse yields than the varieties it's based on, so that golden rice will be more expensive too.)

This is straight up FUD. The first version didn't have the same yield but the more recent ones do.

> it cannot be used for any kind of meaningful deployment of the tech

Why not? It clearly states they will provide the technology to the National Agricultural Research Centres and other public sector research institutions, in developing countries. Once the farmers have the crop they can replant as much as they like and they don't have to rely on capsules anymore.

> the GMO industry couldn't bear to actually give up the possibility that they could somehow make money from starving third world kids.

Except the GMO industry (whatever that means) is not involved in the development of Golden Rice (apart from some patents).

Whenever i come back from the Netherlands to the UK, i get slightly depressed as I cycle to work, on bumpy, dangerous pot holed roads

I think he might be referring to the fact that Organic Standards don't allow for transgenic modification of varieties, or what is commonly know as GMOs, due to safety concerns

On the other hand, they allow for varieties made by using radiation induced mutations, which is way less precise and much less tested.

Basically its an ideological position and not based on the scientific consensus.

> The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings

I would take whatever the OCA says with a huge mound of salt, given their antivax and anti fluoride in the water stance.

Its true that its taken a long time but its due to the fact that their first attempt didn't produce enough beta carotene. The second attempt worked and is still being tested in field trials in China, Bangladesh and the Philippines.

Its true that we can also combat VAD with supplements, but shouldn't we have multiple strategies to combat it?

Regarding the article, who is to decide when we should abandon an approach? You could apply the same argument to Organic Food. After 30 years, it still only accounts for more or less 1% of global food production, and there is evidence that its not necessarily more environmentally friendly than conventional agriculture. By that logic we should also abandon it.

http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/vitamin-rice-now-reali... https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for...

Which malfeasance are you talking about? Like I said earlier a lot of the claims against monsanto are either outright false, exaggerated and occasionaly warranted.

- Terminator seeds? myth, that technology was never commercialised [0] - Suing farmers for accidental contamination? Mostly false. For example in the case of the canadian farmer, he knowingly replanted GM seeds from plants that he sprayed with roundup and ending up with 95% GM canola, breaking patent law and hence getting sued - Indian Suicide caused by GM Cotton ? Myth. Indian farmers are committing suicide but not because of GM cotton. In fact, GM cotton got approved because Indian farmers where importing it on the black market. [2]

I'm not saying Monsanto is completely blameless in everything (as the dicamba story shows), but they do provide a very easy target to demonise and blame for a lot of issues. I used to be on the anti monsanto bandwagon as you, but after looking deeper, I realised a lot of it is BS. Those stories (especially the Indian suicide one), are very compelling so I understand why a lot of people believe them wholesale. Alas, the reality is a lot more complex.

[0]https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/gmos-and-patents-part-1... [1]https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-against-farmer... [2]http://issues.org/30-2/keith/

There was a court case brought by OSGATA against Monsanto. The lawyers for Osgata admitted that Monsanto never sued anyone for accidental contamination but their argument was that there was a chilling effect which discouraged their members from growing non conventional seed for fear of Monsanto suing them.

The case was thrown as it was ruled as Monsanto stated that they didn't intend to sue if you had trace amount of contamination.

https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-for-inadverten...

Whats also sad is that all GM technology is seen through the anti Monsanto filter. I was appalled when Greenpeace and other called Golden Rice a trojan horse conspiracy, despite the fact that its free, can help with Vitamin A deficiency and has proven to be safe.

The amount of FUD and science denying rhetoric that Greenpeace directed at Golden Rice or any public backed GM effort is basically reminded me of the press releases from climate change denying groups. Whats also hypocritical of Greenpeace is that they are fine with mutation based on radioactivity (that has been practiced since the early 20th century and where we get a lot of our varieties from today)

I see your point, but if you have someone that attacks vaccines or denies climate change, its really a sign that they put ideology before evidence

I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. I researched a lot of the claims against Monsanto or GM crops and I found many of them untrue, largely exaggerated, although I do agree most of the Dicamba debacle is mostly Monsanto's fault.

Ironically, there is a lot of propaganda pushed by the likes of USRTK and the OCA, calling anyone including university scientists that contradict them as Monsanto shills. These groups are also anti vaccine, against water fluoridation [1] etc...

I've largely stopped arguing online, because conversations become really super polarised and sometimes nasty. Its hard to have an intelligent discussion. A good place to find info on these issues is the Food and Farm Discussion Lab

https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/

[0] https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media... [1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-che...

Its one of the many debunked rumours about the cause of zika

http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/articles/rumours/e... http://www.snopes.com/zika-microcephaly-outbreak-pesticide/

"The days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public sector drying up."

I take issue with that statement, there is still a lot of basic research done that is publicly funded or funded via organisations like the Wellcome trust. My wife is in cancer research and there is no way anyone can influence her results. I also know her colleagues and two of them are also members of the Royal Society, and same thing goes for them.

With regards to privately funded research and applied science, yeah i do agree that there are serious issues but I think it also depends on the regulatory environment. As a counterexample, look at the recent study done in Europe that showed that neonics did have some harmful effects on bees in the wild. The research was paid for by Bayer and Syngenta and those results where published (Although Bayer and Syngenta disagreed with the conclusions, as one would expect).

Forgot to say: I also agree with you that funding situation is still not great but we're not yet at the point where there is NO public funded research

Just because i'm mainly interested in a certain issue doesn't mean i work for the agribusiness industry (see my other comment, I don't have any links).

While it looks like i'm defending the agribusiness industry to you, to me its more to do with countering bad science and propaganda about GM food.

What do you mean by "valid concern" though? And what do you mean by "this particular genetic modification"?

Sorry, i missed the TLDR part, the rest just jumped at me, because i've seen it so many times before.

I don't have any industry connections at all whatsoever (I'm a plain old software dev). I'm mainly interested in the whole anti GMO movement and related issues. As I see it there is a lot of misinformation out there, partly as a result anti GMO organisations pushing an anti science agenda and employing similar tactics to ones used by climate change denying groups.

So when I see those inaccurate claims repeated, I'm inclined to comment, always trying to cite reliable sources. So I do understand if my comment history looks like i'm some kind of industry shill (i've been called that on social media lots of times before).

No the World Health Organisation didn't say that. The IARC did, basing their decision on a hazard criteria, not a risk based one. The WHO and FAO's statement is that it is not carcinogenic [0]. Most regulatory agencies follow a risk based approach that takes into account real world exposure.

Also, the IARC apparently ignored data on farmer exposure to glyphosate [1]

[0] http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 [1] http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosat...