darwingr

It's an approved drug. Fully licensed and considered to have a wide safety profile.

Doctors don't need permission for off-label use. It's just not a thing. We're in strange territory where doctors (professionals) have been demoted to nurses and they can't profess.

The mechanism has now been published in Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00430-5

using drones

It worked too. Most folks don't mention or know about it.

>Arthur Andersen was charged with and found guilty of obstruction of justice for shredding the thousands of documents and deleting e-mails and company files that tied the firm to its audit of Enron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Arthur_Andersen

I'm open to accepting an apology going forward If the research ethics approval board no longer accepts any of their proposals going forward.

This kind of probing is more akin to an "operation" funded by government rather than research funded by government.

This really would have been harder for me to understand had I not taken linear and abstract algebra courses a few years ago. That area of maths reused common words like "rotation" but with more generalized definitions, which made it was jarring and confusing to hear and take in at the time. When someone said the word "rotate" my mind as if by reflex was already trying visualize a 3d or 2d rotation even when it made no sense for the problem at hand. Being an English speaker my whole life I thought I understood what a rotation was or could be but I didn't.

Same goes for what's being alleged here: Is there even a way to visualize this that makes mathematical sense? What will be the corollaries to this discovery simply as a result of what the mathematics of rotations will dictate?

Yes but only in aggregate, like how adding a column to a database table is also adding a "dimension" to said data.

I'm not convinced the author's analogy of cross-writing to fit more information on a page is actually going to be helpful to most people's understanding. It led me at least to try to imagine visually what's going on, to picture the input being physically rotated. This is more akin to the more abstract but inclusive concept of rotation from linear algebra, where more dimensions (of information, not space or time) makes sense.

Keep in mind that this is an article of pre-suasion by the CBC which justifies Canada's current approach of funding government approved journalists and media companies.

The argument is that if someone (government) doesn't fund and help maintain the old model of establishment media (with some left/right division) then the new economic forces will lead to its collapse. The framing being advanced here is that the collapse results in further left/right polarization as we move from objective news reporting towards self-rationalizing and subjective news analysis because that's what drives attention and clicks. This is a false framing in my opinion and only serves as a justification to protect establishment narratives using government money.

Instead I would suggest that: is that the collapse of current media leaves us with a polarization between establishment/non-establishment media narratives also. It's also possible to argue (but that's not my goal here) that non/establishment polarization is greater or more threatening (to who) then the left/right polarization.

The manifestation of this change is much more holistically represented in US politics by putting the typical voting blocs on a political compass map and plotting the line separating Rep/Dem for 2014 vs November 2020. Note that the shift is axial. I think this a more useful (productive) example than the proposed capitol riots (Jan6th) example or Antifa suggested by others. The axial shift is correlated with a different dimension of disagreement in the common zeitgeist.

So some questions worth asking are: - Is this ok? The days of yellow journalism DID have some of the highest literacy rates in the USA. - Are you ok with a system where the government gives out financing at will to journalists/media and you may have to take them to court to get a press pass? ...like Canada? - Were we ever really objective? Should we still strive to distinguish the objective from the subjective? - Not everyone learns these words in school. Some learn (incorrectly, in my opinion) that there's a moral connotation to it. How can we do better at this? - Is it worse to lose "objectivity" in reporting or to purport to to be when we really aren't?

Apparently there is hardware support for H.265 in the latest version of MacOS. I'm very eager to have it working/playing with the classic QuickLook shortcut from finder by simply hitting the space bar with a video file highlighted.

Dart's static analyzer & lint rules: https://dart-lang.github.io/linter/lints/

Each rule has its own url. Tool therefore easily gives you a link.

Huh, well that makes a lot of sense. Three years ago when I was in University practicing for competitive coding we came across a limit in the performance (ms) we could get on even simple problems. The professor leading the practice poked away at his own solution to some problem for days because he couldn't get a better time than the top score online. Eventually he implemented his own versions of cin and cout. Needless to say he was pretty frustrated but there's just some problems that are hard to let go of without a solution.

Skookum UX

All of them. Presumably all of them lived on earth.

It's not up to customers to assume the good intentions of a large organization. Apple has internal decisions and processes that result in them not communicating in a timely manner. Whatever fallout from that is on them.

While I'm glad they fixed it (upgrading past Catalina was not going to happen), It's going to take me a LONG time to trust them again.

The fact that they could rationalize their own thought process to think this was a good idea or even anywhere close to acceptable, at best leads me to doubt their judgement. At worst, well it's best to assume incompetence over malice but you can see what doors this would open in the future. Now we know they CAN do this without it being obvious to most users, which is a new dimension of risk regardless of intent.

The disparity between MacOS and Windows on this point is particularly wanting. No scope field. No comment field.

I found myself going back to this the other day. I learned these long left/right formulas before I learned to program. Rewriting them really made me miss regex.

My prediction of the next most obvious built-in function after lambda and let: `=register(name, reference_or_formula, [scope])` that registers a defined name for the spreadsheet with code rather than the "Define Name" box.

Finally! This is something I've been wanting for years. There's always been this midpoint of complexity when making spreadsheets that coworkers will use. Including macros scares them away but using long, un-named formulas does not even though it is much less clear what it's doing. The full power of a macro was not needed, only a label and some arguments to lower the cognitive load.

Yeah, that's the 3rd time today I've seen someone use that word wrong on here.

Ok sure, all for it but as a business executive, the president of Microsoft can really stay the hell out of the process of coming up with that.

Apple Silicon is not ARM.

Same architecture but this is all about the silicon and what extra hardware accelerated features can apple build into the OS by adding modules to their SoC. That will have little to do with the fact that it's using the ARM architecture in relation to getting those features to work on non Apple Silicon devices.

Obligatory post when this comes up of a presentation by Paul Vixie, who was responsible for BIND from 1989 to 1999 and very involved in forming dns protocols since then.

Paul Vixie talks about DNS over HTTPS (EuroBSDCon, Oct 27, 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTdEEuyxHU

The way he approaches this I think is fundamentally correct, it is both a technical and political subject.

Do we really want to give more control to google over DNS, not just on the internet but now your home network too? Google Home being a perfect example where they build a product assuming they have free reign over your home network, leaving it broken if you try and get in the way.

Just the other day, and many times before, there were articles and commenters on here complaining about Google's uncompetitive behaviours relating to established email procotols and the standards for blacklisting offending domains.

It seems the same disincentives to behave responsibly by default will be at play in the DNS/DoH situation as the self-hosted email situation except now they have free reign inside your network.

I guess that's good news for the Octave project.

Unless we're fully heading towards 2 internets from the American side as well, I don't know how you would stop that from being downloaded in China. I would say they'll just go around the fire-wall...that kind of argument has not been persuasive as of late.

Just dealt with this yesterday. It’s too bad because I really like the signatures I have saved under Preview.

So I sign all signatures on a lease with Preview except for the very last one, which I did using a digital signature under Adobe Reader. it was a self-signed one certificate but the goal is still to have the other person feel comfortable with doing a contract over email than in person anyways.

This is great. I totally want to emulate this.

I’d love an example if you have one. I’ve used assertions lots as guards or pre-condition checks on entering the function but never right before returning.

Or like “nuked from orbit”

Is this something you’ve actually seen? I’ve often wondered.