PakG1

Isn't that the problem? From what I am googling right now, the maximum tempreature of my stove is absolutely above the threshold where it stops being chemically inert. If we were talking about some usage that didn't involve heating, then I guess maybe I'd hear out a usage for it, but even then, not sure the benefits are worth having something that can't degrade and yet can potentially get ingested by my body.

Not a miracle if the math works out such that their margins cover the infrastructural fixed costs. Just simple economics.

I understand that I give them permission. That's partly why I'm not a producer of content on those platforms, though I'll consume now and then. But I'll rarely produce text (other than usually a happy birthday now and then), and I'll never produce photos.

But what about the people in my photographs, whether on purpose or not? Did they give permission? That's the part that Meta doesn't really want to address.

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/725/

Memes help things to become popular. I guess the question would be how popular would it have been without the meme name? We'll never know.

Because the US government has such a great track record on ensuring that this kind of stuff is only done legally with the utmost integrity. /s

Reminds me of people talking about Angry Birds and the Box2d physics engine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2273694

It's too bad that there are probably meant to be so many example comics in that article, judging from how it's written, and what's really there is just ads where the comics are probably supposed to be. Wonder what happened.

I suppose this means that Montessori is not a single movement, but multiple movements all claiming to be the proper one.

I'm not sure what to say to you. If left wing people comprised 90% of the earth's population, we wouldn't see right wing governments anywhere. It just wouldn't happen. Republicans are certainly not hiding their views in shame, especially right now. In fact, they're winning. They have no reason to hide in shame.

Here's a good example of what I mean by them mimicking each other. This issue of gun shootings in the US is really fascinating if you look at it from far far away with no emotional tie to the subject (which is hard to do for many people, including me).

When Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were assassinated by gunshots in their home a few months ago, many right wingers seemed indifferent and some right wingers were even condescending and insulting. Meanwhile, left wingers were correctly very upset. They accused the right wing of condoning and applauding gun violence and assassination instead of peaceful dialogue. At least, that's what I saw on social media.

Now we have the other side when social activist Charlie Kirk got assassinated by gunshot. It's a mirror image. Many left wingers seem indifferent and some left wingers are even condescending and insulting. Meanwhile, right wingers are correctly very upset. They accuse the left wing of condoning and applauding gun violence and assassination instead of peaceful dialogue. At least, that's what I saw on social media.

I see the right wing accusing Antifa and other groups of being domestic terrorists without acknowledging their own side's problems. I see the left wing accusing Proud Boys and other groups of being domestic terrorists without acknowledging their own side's problems. The two sides just like to point fingers at the other side over and over again. Just a ton of whataboutisms. This is probably the biggest symptom that makes overt their polarization. They don't share the same perceived reality.

If you can't agree with that, then we're just another example that don't share a perceived reality. People need to be able to ask themselves, "What if I'm wrong?" People don't do that anymore. I'm trying to though. I hope you do too.

If you can't acknowledge that the two sides both accuse each other of the exact same behaviour, you're in an echo chamber.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm/satire to make the point about the problem of today's information environment or not.

What you just said is completely compatible with what the parent comment said. I would say you're saying a 95% match to the parent while subtracting only the political undertones.

Perhaps the impressive thing is that it wasn't found for so long and finally was. Not that it was a student.

Well, performance issues, it's not uncommon...

Feels relevant to post this here. Guy called it in 2008. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/keep-control-of-your-computin...

Well, now I upvoted you because now I feel sorry for you for some reason!

Move fast and break the nuclear weapons arsenal.

edit: OK, so parent edited to match what I wrote and now I'm being downvoted because I look like I copied parent?

Some people are finding "story-based" thinking, as you phrase it, to be the case in general among many people. Here's a recent study that makes similar points.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/730763

When Truth Trumps Facts: Studies on Partisan Moral Flexibility in American Politics

This article presents results from a series of online surveys—conducted among American voters during and after the Trump administration that show how voters from both parties provide explicit moral justification for politicians’ statements that flagrantly violate the norm of fact-grounding. Such justification is inconsistent with prevailing theory, whereby partisan voters’ tendency to mistake misinformation for fact is what drives their positive response to misinformation purveyed by partisan standard-bearers. The studies presented here provide consistent evidence of such factual flexibility. Yet they also provide consistent evidence of moral flexibility, whereby voters justify demagogic fact-flouting as an effective way of proclaiming a deeply resonant political “truth.” A key implication is that political misinformation cannot be fully eliminated by getting voters to distinguish fact from fiction; voters’ moral orientations may be such that they prefer fact-flouting. More general lessons pertain to the role of democratic norms in liberal democracies and to how moral orientations relate to perceived interests.

Relevant quote, p. 227: Table 6 presents responses that attest to a range of distinct but overlapping themes in these qualitative data. In particular, some articulate to moral flexibility as a strategy in partisan politics, such that they weigh the “deeper truth” more than commitment to fact-grounding. One such example, expressed by a respondent who supported the DeSantis statement, was presented in the introduction of this article. “I believe that there are times when it is more important for a leader to send the right message, even if it is not entirely accurate” (respondent 216). Another respondent, who assessed the “the right message” as more important that objective evidence when evaluating Biden’s statement said: “In a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it was more important for President Biden to appeal to American values of patriotism and the willingness to step up for others. Most people are aware that while vaccinations greatly reduce the spread of disease, there is no vaccine that can completely, utterly stop it. However, Biden was using strong, emotional, positive language to encourage Americans to do what was morally correct and patriotic at that moment, and I feel that was entirely appropriate” (respondent 37).

You seem to be an example of what I'm saying. There are very few people that are able to separate the goals of DEI from the practice when doing their analysis. If we're able to do that, we'll be able to find better solutions. And the solutions can't be found by or within individual corporations IMHO. It's much more complicated than that.

It's also possible that you and I have a different idea of what the goals of DEI are and should be.

I'd argue if you're looking to achieve DEI goals in the short-term rather than over decades, you're going to fail because the backlash and other consequences will destroy any progress you think you made. And I think that's what we're seeing. You can work towards DEI goals without achieving them in the short-term and still look to make good changes over the long run. But it requires a systems view of everything, including helping kids from various backgrounds to get access to the education they need and then helping them to be in an environment where they can actually successfully learn stuff. That's a multi-generational multi-decade problem, not a corporate fiscal year problem.

I think he did her dirty. Don't think he is where he is today without her being by his side back then. She was and remains a fantastic operator.

People for some reason have an inability to separate the goals of DEI/EDI from the practice. It's possible that the goals are important and correct, but the implementation sucks. I am of this belief for many DEI programs I've seen. But I'm still pro-DEI. It just gets implemented often too simplistically and naively, enabling the creation of more controversy and also likely many poor outcomes in organizations. As for what percentage of DEI programs result in such poor outcomes, I dare not guess, I have too little data.

However, the comments that Zuckerberg is making makes me think he really thinks that the goals of DEI are themselves intrinsically bad. He seems to be leaning into the stereotypical type of thinking that causes the issues that DEI is trying to address in the first place.

I'm disappointed. I would have hoped that he'd be capable of diving into more nuance.

The top scholars in a field will know which papers to read and which papers to cite. They'll talk with each other via email, chat groups, and at conferences. If the top scholars are in agreement, it's pretty hard for a journal to maintain its status. Outside of a discipline, laypeople can't tell. But if you're a top scholar inside the discipline, you'll be part of these conversations and you'll know. And thereby so will your discipline colleagues and PhD students who are not yet top scholars.

From your own mouth or from cadavers? Cadavers sounds freaky to me, from my own mouth seems like I'm just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but maybe it's worth it.

I had all the habits, I just wasn't prioritizing them if I was tired or sleeping late due to school/work/stuff. I probably should have prioritized set times to do them each day irregardless of what I was doing. Plus, I didn't take seriously the habit to brush for several minutes instead of several seconds.

I've been waiting for stem cell therapy to regrow my recessed gums. Every option for taking care of my recessed gums seem horrible and my gums are so far gone. Wish I'd have developed better habits for taking care of them when I was younger but oh well.

The wording is awkward and suboptimal. If you don't know what AWS SES is, you'd easily get the wrong impression. In fact, I'd even say it's factually incorrect. It's not built on top of AWS SES. It's built to utilize AWS SES for its functionality. Slightly different, pedantic really.

Given there are thousands of papers written on this over the past half century due to the complexity of human behaviour, I'm not sure you'd be able to fit this into one paper. There are too many topics to discuss. Individual side, organizational side, and then it spiders from there. Cognition and psychology, culture, corporate governance, and much more, it's endless.

But to be simplistic, you could just count the co-authors on all those thousands of papers, take the average, and there's your answer. Draw up histograms along various independent variables if you want a bit more nuance.

Sure, but code has a level of complexity that boxes and lines abstract away. If you want to describe a certain level of complexity, you'll need code or something that achieves a similar level of capability. If you don't need that high level of complexity, often because you're abstracting complexity away, it's hard to find an alternative that isn't better than boxes and lines. If there's a better alternative, nobody's found it yet. Boxes and lines appear to be a final state to which all roads lead.