TheFiend7

The real killer is the extreme use of antibiotics in livestock en masse for disease prevention. Increasing the antibiotic pressure on bacteria in livestock and therefore accelerating the potential of a drug resistant bacteria.

We need to be concerned of another major zoonotic disease.

Agreed, the article is grossly inaccurate and sensationalized.

I'd argue it's a balance. While I agree it's logical for them to want to optimize a balance between watching and scrolling. They don't want you to scroll forever, otherwise you'll get bored and not watch anything, I can only tolerate searching for nothing for so long.

Do that enough times and you have a subscription cancellation fast approaching.

I'm unsure of if the American government is just extremely discreet in their development of cyber warfare technology or America just isn't investing in technology as much as other countries. But it seems like even Russia is beating us...

Just look at our voting count machines. You think something like that would be treated with extreme priority and would have a lot more security around it than it does.

I just spent 20 minutes typing out a massive response explaining how utterly terrible my experience was with school. But I realized no one cares about my life story and there is no way I can fully capture my experience in this discussion post. But in short, the structure and expected rigor involved with school often made me want to just quit and eat lead. It was by far the worst time in my life and I went to a very good college prep school.

The teachers and most of academia only car about the straight laced kids who do well naturally or because their parents are good about offering structure, or the kids who clearly have a troubled home life. But since I didn't have either of those things, I was a "problem" kid and no one gave a shit about how I was doing. I wasn't being beaten at home so I didn't have an excuse for my poor performance.

I was constantly exhausted because I was naturally a night owl and school requires kids to get up way too early. The way lectures and studying were structured never jived with me and I was so tired most times I'd stare at a wall all class, I could never get into the groove of things.

Yet even after all of this, I've been very successful in my career even though I never went to college, nearly all of my coworkers have masters or phd's. I taught myself everything I know when it comes to practical application of skills in my field, literally none of it was taught to me by anyone, and a lot of it I taught myself during my highschool years. I take pride in that, but I also hate myself for it. I wish I could of fit into the square peg society nurtures so much, and because of the way I've gone about things, everything I do is harder for me than anyone else around me (except for other people in my situation).

This post does a terrible job really capturing my experience, but it isn't worth my time spending a day writing a post on a forum to capture how much I truly loathe the modern education system for making my life so miserable for close to 20 years. I understand most systems are designed for the 90% case, but being an outlier in today's society is rough and I wish it upon no one.

EDIT: A big reason why I wanted to post, was mainly because most people try to rationalize about how school isn't "efficient" and is an "opportunity cost" etc etc. I have a completely different take on it, school was depressing and extremely emotional for me. It made me very unstable trying to cope with how different I was compared to other people and was very arduous on my soul so to speak and I have lasting impacts on my mental health because of it. It's less about efficiency to me and more about improving the system to help make people's lives better and more tolerable if they're struggling. Suicide is a big problem today and I strongly believe the way our schooling system is setup has a lot to do with that.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've been struggling to really nail down my development process of linux software on Windows, and based on my readings, a lot of articles state that applications perform far better on traditional hypervisors like VMWare and VirtualBox than WSL.

I mean it may be great that the WSL terminal feels good, but if my program takes 2-5x slower in WSL for testing, I'm still going to opt for a hypervisor.

Honestly I feel as though that's one of the most incredible aspects of theoretical physics I've seen. The fact that often times these underlying physics are danced around and even though they're unknown, we can tell something is not quite right.

I believe this guy even talks about it a bit in this video made by the Royal Institution (which I really enjoy watching), discussing the possibility of different fundamental building blocks of nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

I mean, I guess my question is could this be apart of the virus or bacteria's attack vector? Isn't it in the best interest of viruses and bacteria that the host becomes more sociable and therefore improves infection rate.

While I do agree with you, I've found often times a good ol blog post with an example connecting some dots can be very productive.

But I do agree with you that it's very from from being an alternative, and instead should be used to supplement healthy documentation.

Though I would argue they are different demographics somewhat. Mobile app and mac developers I would argue keep up with the times much more aggressively compared to c/c++ developers I know.

You literally contradicted yourself in your argument

> Have you considered how Chinese developers feel when they must not only browse English documentation, but learn English keywords present in every major programming language? How accessible do you think StackOverflow is to Mandarin speakers?

and then

> "I'm not a nice person, and I don't care about you. I care about the technology and the kernel — that's what's important to me." - Linus Torvalds

Based on those two quotes, it doesn't matter how the Chinese feel, what matters is the technology as you said yourself.

An established standard is in place. Why should it be changed to make Chinese devs feel better? What about middle eastern developers or south American developers?

Man I'm not sure I agree with that. Blowing up a bunch of your clients that rely on your services randomly because one account was compromised is not acceptable for really any professional business regardless of the number of clients.

While I agree that's somewhat ridiculous, just look at tesla and their integrated tablets. He had the right idea with integrating more technology into cars.

Yeah I'm saying that doesn't make any sense and is untrue.

So agree to disagree then.

So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example).

I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party?

Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.

I made assumptions about the kind of "social injustice" you were talking about. There are many different forms of social injustice (by definition) that captures both what I'm describing and what you're describing.

My comments stand around the kind of social injustice I was describing, which was denying or accepting applicants for opportunities based on demographics vs performance.

What you're describing is a different kind of social injustice which is arguably racism in the police force or in the justice system. They're different manifestations of the same concept that is social injustice.

We aren't contradicting each other, I just didn't know what kind of social injustice you were talking about because you didn't specify in the original post.

This was just discussed in similar posts recently. But there are flaws with this idea of contemporary discrimination specifically when looking at statistics of people who get "approved" for a job, college, etc.

Often times people advocate that those numbers should be equalized to some extent to be "fair", regardless of the context around which those approvals are made. If applicants are given preferential treatment to "balance" these "unfair" results, well you are in fact the very problem you're trying to solve. Jobs or college acceptance should be based on performance or capability, and the root of the problem actually really lies in opportunity. Often times minorities don't have access to equal opportunity, which results in sub-average performance. But that does not mean we should necessarily just "lower the bar" for a demographic because that's their average. Rather we should work to balance opportunity, and continue to make actions on capability and performance because that's what's truly fair.

We should not compromise people's lives when they've worked hard (regardless of race etc) just because they aren't of a specific demographic and fit the majority even though they performed better and would theoretically contribute more than worse counterparts.

Morgan Freeman actually talks about this in relation to race, and the blame lies on both of the sides of the spectrum that actively bring attention to and try to base decisions on race.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through connections etc) than the opposing party? And therefore would imply that the party in power would be able to out-perform in both quantity and quality in ads generally speaking than opposing parties?

I'm just trying to understand how it actually helps the party in power by not allowing ads to run. Because I see the opposite situation. Honestly it seems to me both situations the sitting party has the most power, but simply due to the fact that they're the party in power.

Did it fall under a certain upvote/downvote threshold or something? It was the sane for me.

It sits on top of our own IP database which is 6 figures in lines and is written in C++. Java has fancy bells and whistles when it comes to IDE's, but that's all they are.

I just think it's foolish to think Java is the only language that can handle large codebases. I mean just look at the linux kernel.

EDIT: Removed comment about processing capabilities because it's irrelevant to the discussion. I left my original comments about lines and the IDE though.

I disagree with the idea that you can't maintain a robust system/codebase in python, mainly because nearly our entire distributed computing stack is written in python.

Granted it isn't 10s of thousands of lines, but it isn't small either. It does a lot of things ranging from webapis to data pipelining with ingestion and egestion of large datasets. One batch job can result in 10s of GBs in output files. It has to be performant too, 10s of millions of "operations" in one batch job is common.

Admittedly the process/threading model can be painful to work around at times, but totally doable, and is honestly somewhat friendly to distributed systems to an extent because it somewhat forces you into an actor model paradigm.

Even so why do diversity weights exist at all? Should it not be based on performance or results? I understand the notion that people can be biased resulting in biased hirings, but why does that insist we must twist the bias in the opposite direction? Both sides of this fight are equally guilty of not hiring on the right principles which is how well can a person do a job.

Bingo! You did a great job explaining this reverse-discrimination/preemptive excessive PCness that so many people advocate for yet are just apart of the problem (or close to it) as their corresponding counter-parts on the other end of the spectrum.

Maybe FP forces some degree of added conformity to the code. But I find code maintenance and readability has more to do with the person writing it than the tool they used IMHO.

FYI I am in fact an FP fan, and I use FP principles in a large amount of my code. But I've seen some seriously convoluted and confusing FP code just like I've seen behemoths of objects with twisted internal state manipulation balancing on blind assumptions and false guarantees of order.

But surely we can improve modern computing devices architecture by taking a look at the computing advantages the brain takes in order to achieve its desired tasks.

Don't forget humans are one of the most expensive resources and nothing can really replace them for even a vast majority of non-physical jobs. So if we could build computing devices that potentially solve some of these problems, needless to say, the productivity boosts would be plentiful.

Secondly, we aren't even close to being able to model anything relatively close to the computational capabilities of the human brain because we don't even understand the human brain. So your comments on highly parallel but slow and fast but no so parallel don't make a lot of sense.

For example take MapBox's new vision SDK. It's able to perform semi-decent feature extraction on the road while people drive via a camera. Well guess what I would absolute stomp the vision SDK on accuracy for every feature it thinks it identified, not only that, I am capable of identifying an order of magnitude more features than it can, not only that, but I'm able to identify new features on the fly and even guess with greater accuracy what they are.

So yeah, there are a plethora of functional yields that we have yet to achieve with some of the most powerful computers in the world that are achieved by the human brain every day. Which could be indicative of maybe both a resource, but also an architecture problem.

Brutal truth, that's also assuming 100% success rate. Lots of brains turn out to be shitty brains after 15+ years too...

I don't think you're wrong per se. But people aren't "claiming" the brain works this way. People are simply stating that maybe the brain functions like this and we could adopt similar designs based on our perceived impressions of how the brain may function.

We could totally botch it though and end up with an even worse computer and turns out it works nothing like the brain. Who knows. But right now many people "believe" the brain may function in the manner described.