This works until someone asks you to produce identity documents matching the computer records.
I've seen people put a single period (".") instead of a last name.
790 karma · joined June 11, 2020
I've seen people put a single period (".") instead of a last name.
An extreme instance of this is in slave societies. Slaves don't pay taxes and therefore are a net negative fiscally. Yet the taxes slave owners pay are largely drawn from slave labour and in fact the economy is essentially reliant on the slaves' work.
Likewise, it is possible that immigrants take on low-skilled, low-paid jobs, which are essential to the economy despite not directly contributing fiscally. This then could free the natives to perform more lucrative jobs and thereby contribute more than if immigrants were not there.
The purpose of these laws is to make it illegal for adults to encourage those behaviours.
If you walk in very drunk asking to be euthanised, one would hope that they would have to wait until you are no longer drunk to confirm you really want to be euthanised. Then, who decides on the waiting period?
Likewise if a traumatic event clouds your judgement (as some events can do), it's not unreasonable to make you wait until your judgement is sound. Then someone has to decide on the waiting period.
Potentially this can be studied statistically. Just collect data regularly after an event (such as binge drinking event) to evaluate how quickly people's judgement stabilises. That way we may find that the death of a spouse doesn't cloud the judgement, in which case the waiting period is 0.
Users are not a monolithic group. Some users/students absolutely use AI blindly.
There are also many, many ways to use AI counterproductively. One of the most pernicious I have noticed is users who turn to AI for the initial idea without reflecting about the problem first. This removes a critical step from the creative process, and prevents practice of critical and analytical thinking. Struggling to come up with a solution first before seeing one (either from AI or another human) is essential for learning a skill.
The effect is that people end up lacking self confidence in their ability to solve problems on their own. They give up much too easily if they don't have a tool doing it for them.
Well politics is about making choices where consensus is unattainable. By nature of not being consensual, there will be some angles from which these choices are undesirable. So attracting allies "from all angles" is essentially the same as saying "whoever is not my ally comes from no (reasonable) angle", which is precisely what the democrats are being described as doing in the article. They are the utmost "centrist" party in a way.
The answer to the demonization issue is not to pretend everybody must be your ally, it is to acknowledge that one can reasonably disagree with you, and be willing to engage with your political opponents rather than treat them as enemies, to reach an agreement acceptable to most (though not all).
> Women in trades have reported encounters with customers who doubted their competence and who refused to deal with them, seeking a man instead.
There is plenty of low key sexism (and racism) like that among white collars too so it is not restricted to trades (as acknowledged by the article's author), but this goes beyond banter like just teasing someone because they have red hair.
Isn't "normie" a pejorative word (genuine question)?
Then we need to teach them. You are doing the right thing for being a "hard" teacher, and it doesn't prevent you from also being known as a caring one.
From experience, acknowledging the students' difficulties with it and emphasising that it is because they were not taught how to think (as opposed to some innate inability to do maths) can go a long way.
AI makes it impossible to rely on out-of-class assignments to evaluate the kids' knowledge. How we respond to that is unclear, but relying on cheating detectors is not going to work.
This is like saying that atheism is just another religion because it's the belief in nothing. In a a hairsplitting way it may arguably be true but atheism does not provide a consistent(-ish) narrative about the world like religions do and therefore is fundamentally different.
The mistake is to think that someone's world is more "real" than their neighbor's. That may be arguably true if we talk about farmers or fishermen, but it's much less clear that an entrepreneur's world is more "real" than a university professor's.
It is arguably as a consequence of this, that these rulers and capitalists supported more or less enthusiastically fascism as a way to contain the masses. Without that (implicit) support, it's hard to say whether fascism would have been anything more than a bizarre cult.
Is there a reason not to do that? I've always used wget and curl interchangeably, because both meet my moderate needs. Is there a reason I should avoid wget?
It would be still interesting that the intersection between the set of users who claim on this forum it's possible and the set of users who can code is empty.
In fairness to him, he offers the posters an opportunity to propose a technical solution and responds to all the posts that do it. It is interesting that nobody in the thread went to check in the code of mpv, smplayer, etc. to see how it's done there. Surely this would be the best response to his request for technical suggestions?
I'd love to see a citation here. Simone Weil referenced mathematics a lot in her philosophical writing, and, growing up in the shadow of her brother, had been exposed to mathematics all her life.
Physicists need some precise definitions of units, and this is hard. Harder than most people expect. You can't do physics properly using your current king's foot size. This, more than the actual computations, was Huygens' valuable insight.
So you need a universal constant to serve as a standard, and it turns out very few things are in our world. One of them is the ratio of the perimeter of a circle over its diameter. So it's no wonder that this ratio comes up under various forms in our standard units, more often than chance would predict.
This is interesting because students of physics need to understand the complexity and importance of coming up with a standard set of measurement units, based on universal constants.
This is also interesting because the reason we need standard units is that we need science to be reproducible. If all I care about is to understand the world on my own then using the size of my own foot will do just fine as a unit.
Accessorily it's also useful to address the nonsense belief that such coincidences prove the existence of god or the perfection of nature.
None of this will come as radically insightful to you, but there are a lot of people in this world for whom this is not the case.
I'm also not a fan of over the top language, but this seems to be the norm of our attention-seeking times.
The article explains that the coincidence comes from the fact that the meter, as a unit, was defined (by Huygens) based on g and π. It was later redefined several times and the link between the two values became anecdotal. In other words, on another planet the gravitational constant would still have had a value of (approximately) π², and what would have been different is our unit length.
And the original question of how the situation could have been handled better is the most interesting one. The rest is a game of he said/she said, which hn commenters tend to enjoy arguing about but is ultimately not very instructive.
With hindsight it is clear that the situation had been brewing for some time, and the conflict had been escalating slowly. Perhaps due to the pressure and stress (and time pressure) of organising an event like that nobody managed to have enough distance to deescalate it, which culminated in someone being escorted off stage by security, not a good experience for anyone.
Most likely once the invitation to talk had been rescinded the dice were thrown. It would have been hard for the speaker not to be offended, and unfair on him to expect him to take it quietly and move on without reacting. Someone should have been aware of that and worked with him to control the impact of this on his own reputation.
Which scientists say that???
The article features a scientist talking about a genetic mutation on the Y chromosome which affects the production of testosterone, and another scientist talking about another genetic mutation that prevents testosterone from being processed in the body. In both cases the individuals with these mutations have XY chromosome, yet female phenotypes. Individuals with the second mutation would have high testosterone without the performance enhancement. Those mutations are rare and would certainly not be picked up by comparing the racing time of men vs women.
No scientist in the article or any other that I've read makes the bold claim thar testosterone doesn't enhance performance in general.
Edit: in fact based on the estimate from the article of 1 in 300 people being affected by a DSD, you might expect that if a DSD enhances performance of women to the level of men (through increased testosterone for example) you might expect some women from your dataset to reach the middle of the pack of men performance. This is a hypothesis you can even test statistically, though that would be limited by the little we know of the many types of DSD.
Analogies are nice, but one should always be cautious that they don't oversimplify the issue.
On the other hand, the goal is to get away with fraud, not to convince an international community who will likely look for any confirmation of their suspicion. It would be interesting to look for patterns in a (presumably) fair election like the recent British one for comparison.
Disclaimer: I have never tried to rig elections myself so I don't really know how hard it is.
It's more subtle than that. Communist resistance certainly existed before 1941. Many of the veterans from the Spanish civil war for example engaged quite early, without waiting for Stalin's instructions. Repression against communists increased overnight when Hitler invaded the USSR, which led to more active resistance. But it's not like they just had been sitting quietly enjoying life under Pétain up to then.
After the war communist resistants, particularly those who came back from deportation, were seen with suspicion by the party's leadership, and the party ended up at the hands of people who hadn't been as active in the resistance, but were considered to be more loyal to Stalin. Which suited the Gaullists just fine and gave them the opportunity to push the narrative that only they had been the true resistants from the first hour.
If we are still talking about France, then this is a country that 10 years ago saw big groups loudly oppose same-sex marriage, and who now oppose assisted reproduction. The (black female) minister carrying the law was subject to vile racist and sexist caricatures and mockery. France is a country whose president characterised the denunciations of sexual abuse by a famous actor as a man hunt. More recently still, an "expert" was heard on a widely watched TV network blaming the victims of rape for the reduction of births in the west. The same TV network that had to apologise a few months ago for claiming that abortion is the leading cause of deaths in the world.
The common point between all of these? They were all people of long term French descent. Not recent immigrants. There is no accepted "country's values" to begin with. There are laws, which are enforced and which immigrants and natives alike are expected to obey.
Now since you are talking about America, there are plenty of Americans, descendants of Americans for generations, who oppose abortion, to the point where it's all but illegal in several states. The past and likely future president is a rapist who bragged about it. There are no universally shared values among the American people around the rights of women either, and that's true even if we don't count immigrants as "true" Americans, whatever that may mean. America is a country which until very recently had segregation laws, and the "values" these laws represented didn't suddenly disappear when these laws were repelled.
Before claiming that immigrants should be accepting a country's values there should be some clarity around what those values are. Then someone should decide what to do with the people in the country who don't share those values. Political regimes that implement such "values"-based systems have a name: fascism.
Many students will look only at examples in the textbook and happily ignore definitions, theorems, and proofs. They don't know whether the strategy they picked works, only that it worked on a similar looking problem.
Sure, when (good) teachers explain the example they do go through the effort of referring to the definitions and theorems, but that is not necessarily what the students remember.