andrewzah

You can get notified of replies via email: https://www.hnreplies.com/

I initially had this same belief, but I realized I had such a limited understanding of race after reading the wikipedia article on it [0]. That we divide not based on actual genetics but visible markers makes it a social construct. And the way we've chosen to look at race politically has changed over time.

"Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 1930s and 1950s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races.[93] Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people."

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

"That doesn't mean race doesn't exist"

Exactly, although not in the traditional sense. There are many many overlapping genetic aspects in humans; We subdivide for political or social reasons, not strictly biological ones. To make the height comparison more fair, it would be as if we divided people into "bigs" or "littles" arbitrarily and formed political parties around it, etc. Height is one biological aspect and even then what is "tall" is subjective.

For example, the US viewpoint of white or black(~=african) is a relatively recent way of looking at race. People don't slot neatly into X or Y buckets.

I recommend reading the wikipedia article on Race [0].

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

And it’s somehow not in places other than the West…? The temples I visited in South Korea were pretty tactile to me.

Depends on who you ask.

If we clone A, then from A's perspective we now have A-Prime. A-Prime is unaware and believes they are A, who now presumably has been killed. If anyone didn't observe this happen, then A-Prime essentially -is- A. If they did observe it, then they know that it's technically A-Prime.

So I guess the difference is being able to observe the gradual changes. It's more tricky when discussing an inanimate object like a ship that doesn't care either way.

Then you need to quantify your statement.

-> _For the ultra-rich_, trains and other public transportation are inferior options.

This is completely different from saying that public transportation is an inferior good overall. It's not that simple.

I don't really understand why you're fixated on this one particular viewpoint. That statement does not look at -context-.

Cities are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. Transportation systems are not designed around the rich or the ultra-rich. If all of us had infinite money we would just use private jets or something, but that doesn't mean that jets are strictly superior to cars... this is an apples to oranges comparison.

As someone who's lived in Chicago, Seoul, and South Carolina, I can say that our public transportation systems are wholly inferior to Korea and Japan's public transportation systems. It's not strictly a matter of money or not, it's a multifaceted cultural topic.

The whole idea of ranking transportation systems by what rich people do or don't do makes absolutely zero sense.

Also, the US explicitly designed new development around the idea of people owning cars. Public transportation is kind of a moot point when you just have tracts of housing completely separate from commercial areas.

All you have to do is visit Seoul or Tokyo to see how valuable and useful public transportation is, when it's done correctly and city planning takes it into account. Even if one is rich, actually driving and parking is a complete hassle most of the time in cities. It's so much more convenient to take a bus or train.

Really excellent work. Is this going to be open-sourced at some point?

It’s a manufactured issue designed to get people to squabble with each other on racial lines instead of uniting.

There are zero legitimate reason why a country with the resources of the US can’t accomplish something basic like this. It’s intentional.

"I had no opinion before now, but clearly these machines are unusable anywhere."

All politics aside, it's fairly obvious that electronic voting machines can be very dangerous unless they're handled very, very, very carefully. The contracts for these machines aren't going to the best of the best, they're going to the lowest bidders. As a software engineer, the idea of going from manual, verifiable tabulation to opaque software is completely horrifying.

It is significantly harder to forge thousands of paper ballots. Not impossible, but not nearly as easy as manipulating opaque software or simply gaining access to these machines.

People can actually observe and confirm the tabulation process currently. All machines should be open-source and easily audited if we want to inspire any sort of confidence in them to the average voter.

I study Korean, which also has a similar institution, and it's not really that helpful.

Real language usage is completely different than what's taught in classroom or academic environments. They are always out of date, and don't teach casual/slang usage (aka real usage by real people, not textbook language). Regular dictionaries have been invaluable.

Really, it's for the better. Languages change naturally over time and institutions like for French or Korean have little bearing on that. It's better to have style -guides- than to try and enforce usages of a language that differ from how it's actually used in real life.

The entire raison d'être of hospitals is to treat unhealthy people when they get sick and lessen or prevent healthy individuals from getting sick. So that statement is tautological.

Unvaccinated/maskless people [by choice] who then get sick with COVID and go to the hospital anyways are unnecessarily draining hospitals of their limited resources. Hospitals were already understaffed before COVID, and now unvaccinated/maskless people want the workers at hospitals to risk their lives and work around the clock to benefit people who basically flipped them (and science) off until they got sick and changed their tune. It's so hypocritical.

The highly infectious aspect of the disease makes it different from e.g. poor lifestyle habits or one off decisions. Every single COVID patient is taking up a bed/resources that could have gone to people who are unhealthy for reasons outside of their control, and there are hospitals completely at capacity due to COVID.

And not making a choice to be pro or anti-vax is a choice in itself. Choosing to not have an opinion means implicitly supporting the status quo, which where I am would mean implicitly supporting a bunch of unvaccinated, maskless people by choice draining our resources and having a flagrant disregard for their fellow citizens. That statement makes about as much sense as saying "I'm not pro or anti -science-".

There needs to be a very good reason(s) why one would be "neutral" about vaccines or science. Internet conspiracies don't count as good reasons, and the other side has has actual research and facts backing it up. Saying that one is just "neutral" about science or vaccines is semantically exactly the same as saying that one is anti-science or vaccines.

I think anyone would take that deal for $100 million. Joe's the real winner while people argue in the comments about this or that about his podcast. Clearly, having controversial guests on is fantastic for his podcast's influence.

I don't think Spotify is good for podcasts in general. I much prefer to consume podcasts with my own clients and workflows. Even youtube is better since it actually works well unlike the spotify app in my experience.

"Specifically "the unvaccinated are screwing over the rest of us who are doing the right thing"."

They're disproportionately taking up resources in hospitals for example, which do not have unlimited resources. We could be having a much better response right now [here in the U.S.] with less load on hospitals, but we're not, because of selfish and/or gullible people.

They're also making the pandemic & related economic measures last longer than necessary. I can't wait for the next shutdown(s) as more variants evolve then spread and hospitals become even more inundated. Meanwhile I look at places like South Korea which have had life continue relatively normal because people actually wear masks there instead of politicizing them.

Unironically, linux isos. Mostly debian and raspbian based images.

It is free, but with conditions. I dislike EA doing this as a publicity stunt while they’re essentially keeping people at their mercy if they use these patents. I guess I would prefer it if they said “conditionally free”.

"It only has one exception: if someone files a lawsuit against EA for infringing a different patent, EA will refuse to share the accessibility patents with them."

How nice of EA.

Languages are not static, dictionaries are not made of stone. A word's primary usage can definitely change. Many words are like this: "[to] retard" is one such example where the original definition has been superseded by another definition in general usage. One can walk around with a dictionary and a prescriptivist mindset and tell people their language is "wrong", or one can acknowledge that definitions and usages change over time.

The only time I've ever encountered this usage of public intercourse is in older texts. Certainly no one my age would use that instead of "public discourse".

And that has nothing to do with levels of education or "childishness". One can be highly educated and have a diverse vocabulary while acknowledging the fact that certain usages are more popular than other usages, and they can change over time. Languages are illogical and beautiful in that way.

I figured it would be obvious by my selection of Standard American English, but I am a native speaker of American English.

Native speakers of Indian English or British English have different vernacular, colloquialisms, etc, which is why I specifically commented on Standard American English.

Freedom clearly does not work in a self-centered society. We wouldn't need such drastic actions if enough people voluntarily did the right things. But not enough do, so here we are.

I'm really beginning to get sick of seeing people use the word "freedom" when they clearly mean "no personal responsibility while living in a society among other people".

"If you think governments can't simply legislate away people's freedom to drive"

Less drunk, distracted, angry, and/or sleepy drivers on public roads, with overall significantly less crashes? Sign me up!

I am not denying the existence of this or any other definition. You're arguing with yourself on that front.

We're stating the fact that that specific usage/definition is not really used at all anymore, to the point that "intercourse" is generally used for the other definition of sexual activity. "Public intercourse" is significantly likely more to be read as "public sex", rather than the intended meaning of "public discourse".

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest a correction, because communication with people is about understanding... not being technically correct to win an argument.

You can check out the usage of these two bigrams via google ngram yourself: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=public+interco...

Just about no one uses “public intercourse” unless they’re referring to people having sex, in public.

Just because a definition -technically- exists doesn’t mean it’s actually used very much, or is the main definition the word is used for. “Public discourse” is correct, at least for Standard American English.

edit: I am not arguing that this definition doesn't exist. As a native speaker I'm saying that it is very rarely used, if ever. A correction to "public discourse", a statement that actually -is- used by native speakers with frequency, is perfectly reasonable. Communication isn't about being technically correct in order to win arguments.

Key statement there is 'used to be'. Now that phones are ubiquitous, it makes no sense to just go over someone's place or even call them, when you can just send a text that lets someone respond asynchronously. I also just have a policy of not picking up calls from unknown numbers except if they leave a voicemail or call several times.

Most people that I know only use calls for time sensitive/urgent needs. Most other things, aside from chatting with family etc, are really best handled with a text. For whatever reason the culture around phones has shifted to "don't force people to drop whatever they're doing and respond to a call unless it is actually necessary".

It's very simple. It behaves like users would expect something like Word to behave.

Editors like Vim have a learning curve because they introduce the concept of modal editing which takes some getting used to.

Those kinds of maps are already available for study outside of the game for DotA2, eg. here’s the analysis for a game I played. These are incredibly useful for learning and analysis after the match.

https://www.opendota.com/matches/5501229759/laning

At least when I played, dota2 wasn’t like this (and it’s a better game, anyways ;-))

Realistically speaking this kind of stuff doesn’t really matter at a lower level anyways- everyone’s bad and makes dumb mistakes. And it doesn’t help to know about data if you don’t know how to capitalize on it.

I can’t recommend getting into MOBAs/ARTSs solo, but if you have 2-3 friends they’re quite a blast.

Well, this is what I was referring to by an arms race if these kinds of tools are allowed. It’s a considerable disadvantage to not use them, so everyone is basically forced into using them.

In my opinion for non-professional play (casual and ranked), these kinds of tools should be outright banned. The game goes from “how can I improve myself and play better” to “let’s expend the minimum effort possible solely to win”. You’re not playing to your strengths but just to the opponent’s weaknesses from the get-go. That’s just incredibly boring. Just because one can have a shortcut to a win doesn’t make for better or more interesting gameplay.

Regarding professional play, the teams have the resources to do this given the limited player pool and they’re also at the pro level anyways.