GavinMcG

How much is FakeBold doing there, though? Easy to say it’s “just” TNR, but if the features of TNR that make it characterless have been supplanted with something soulful, then haven’t you just found a soulful typeface that you like?

That mistake might induce human error—which is absolutely a source of danger—but it undoubtedly had a clear path to pull around the “stopped” vehicle, and as you said, you can generally trust Wayno not to plow into pedestrians. So what made it “lucky” that no one was hurt?

Have you read enough history to know what life was like before we got rid of child labor, established weekends as a norm, regulated food products, etc.? Or do you assume that the free market provides those things because you’ve only lived in an age where you can take them for granted?

If you think someone is obviously wrong, it might be worth pausing for a second and considering where you might just be referring to different things. Here, you seem to understand “this” to mean “a serious bug.” Since it’s obvious that a serious bug could happen, it seems likely that the author meant “this” to mean “the kind of bug that led to the breach we’re presently discussing.”

Making horns non-mandatory at crossings wouldn’t prevent the engineer from using it when appropriate.

Why does it only count if the cells themselves freeze? Also, am I still allowed to play freeze tag, or do we need to rename that?

Something like this, perhaps? https://digitalculture.uchicago.edu/platforms/ochre-overview...

I think what you’re saying supports the view that language is structured and actively used—which excludes pheromones. But I don’t see how you get to the next step, of characterizing unspoken acts as carrying linguistic meaning. That is, sign language and not answering a call aren’t obviously in the same category, precisely because not answering a call fails to communicate any particular concept, and because people don’t use various modes of non-answering to communicate various things.

Just as a data point, my guess is that a very small minority of English-language speakers would define the term as broadly as you do, at least in a context relating the concept to analytical thought processes. At the very least, I think most people expect that language is used actively, such that pheromones wouldn’t fall within the definition. (And actually, that’s reflected when you say language is a means “you can use”.) Likewise, a slap in the face certainly can be interpreted, but slapping doesn’t seem like a means of communicating in general—because a slap only communicates one thing.

Why can’t you just start planting tomatoes?

Based on my experience, that statement is not only wrong, but obviously so. Because of that, I assumed it was not what you meant.

“That feature add” referred to auto-closure, I’d imagine.

You seem to be using “actual” in a way that suggests proportion to population is a key part of the definition. But although a company that served a market for 20 million might well have failed as the market shrank, it also had the opportunity to survive and continue serving an actual market with an actual demand for 7 million actual horses.

Very disturbing to have civil servants who were once children with underdeveloped sensibilities.

Isn’t that what the article specifically says lacks scientific support? Thus why the comment is hoping for primary sources.

They’re also voting for the policies that enable safe wealth accumulation and preservation, so “steal” seems like the wrong word—though there may well be some wealthy people who feel stolen from inasmuchas they’d rather live in a less secure society where they could try to be the winning warlord. Most capitalists see the value of a stable consumer class, though, backed up by a legal system and economic policy that injects money to prevent the collapse of their income-drivers.

I’d imagine you might be aware, but just in case, there’s a Wireshark networking software that’s been around since 1998: https://www.wireshark.org/

> You don’t get something for nothing

If that were true about the human condition in the same way that it’s true for conservation of mass, we wouldn't be living longer and healthier lives than our forebears. Yet here we are.

Of course we should be aware of side-effects. But there’s no law of nature that says there have to be any serious ones.

The conservatives tend to be literalists when interpreting statutes and regulations. There are judicial philosophy reasons for that, but also, statutes and regulations can be changed in response to court rulings. That said, the conservatives tend to be literalists from the perspective of the legislature or regulator at the time the law was enacted, though all the justices (conservative and liberal) recognize that it’s a fiction to say Congress has a single point of view.

When it comes to interpreting the constitution, conservatives likewise tend to be focused on the point of view at enactment. But it’s even more of a fiction to say that the states had a single point of view, and in any case, the text of the constitution often isn’t precise in the way contemporary statutes are. So the conservatives are guided more strongly by the historical evidence about what the sovereign states would have “understood” themselves to be giving up, in replacing the Articles of Confederation with a central federal government.

Given that, they interpret the Fourth Amendment by reference to the historical evidence of what phenomena it was responding to. And as a historical matter, the aim of the amendment was to require warrants, not to narrow the scope of what could be searched or seized. So where there’s probable cause that a crime has been committed, a warrant may issue, and it can be directed at the property that “committed” the crime, since that was a known practice in English law at the time.

The Supreme Court has said it isn’t unconstitutional as a general matter, so a lower court’s ruling won’t force that to change. And because the practice is a holdover from English law and isn’t understood (as a historical matter) to be something the constitution was meant to alter, there isn’t much basis for thinking the Supreme Court would reverse its earlier decisions.

> a rational mind can believe an unlimited amount of true things without needing to in-believe anything

Sure, if minds were logic engines pre-loaded with true axioms. But none of us believes only true things from the get-go, so the capability of a mythical “rational mind” doesn’t offer much guidance for humans who need to decide whether or not to discard an existing belief.

I think memorization can play a role in internalizing knowledge, but it isn’t a “fundamental” as in necessary. Internalized knowledge can also come from other sources.

To me, “memorization” implies an active process focused on learning a particular set of “matches” (to adopt the term you’re using here). But it seems to me that tacit knowledge (and other products of less concentrated/deliberate learning) often plays a substantial role in creativity.

That is, creativity fundamentally comes from internalized knowledge (as the article says) but internalized knowledge doesn’t necessarily come from memorization.

Do any of those reasons weigh against measuring the seriousness of financial crimes in terms of actuarial lives? No problem with the objection that lives are priceless, but couldn’t the inverse still be a useful lens?

Have you looked at the research regarding which of those two options leads to better patient outcomes?

Where no indefinite article is used, one tends to read the noun as definite. “Grounded a Fleet” would be more clear.

This has been an issue since well before the 2022 podcast. Here’s something from 2019, for example: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/data-how-reading-is...

The commment said serious productivity, though. Many people don’t need general purpose serious computation in order to be seriously productive—they need certain tools and a certain environment.

What’s that have to do with Vim keybindings in particular?

But copyright doesn’t deal with secrets. Just the opposite: it gives control over something that one has made public and attaches upon publication.