defaultname

> How do you know this?

How do I know that they haven't done an archeological dig to validate the accuracy of their scans? Because they explicitly have said so. Indeed, they've said they may never, and I would wager will never.

I said nothing about the "lack" of analysis, I'm just saying that you, like so many others, are incredibly accepting about information flowing through multiple parties, some of whom have a strong incentive to lean a certain way. The deficiencies of ground penetrating radar is very well known -- it's a very powerful tool, but read the words of the technicians who did it compared to the tribe spokespeople. They talk about anomalies, and how they have tried to be careful in the language they use (specifically noting that they can't say something is a grave, just that the patterns look similar to "a grave shaft").

How many grave locations do you think the team that did this survey have done? Have many tests of their claims? How has the rigor of their claims been validated?

Ground radar grave analysis has a significant degree of reading tea leaves.

https://www.sensoft.ca/blog/cemetery-data-grave-locator-find...

GPR is a great tool for law enforcement to find possible disturbed soil sites. Its use declines when you're doing mass surveys unless it is merely guiding a dig.

Do you understand how perilous counting "graves? with ground radar is? Note that the people who actually did the study are very careful with their language, noting that they found ground anomalies. The actual correlation with that and graves is incredibly loose.

And the catch 22 is that any actual anthropological analysis is going to be restricted by the very group publishing the exaggerated numbers. So expect at the next location for it to be...why not 10,000?

The methodology to derive these numbers borders on farcical.

However we know that loads of children died at these facilities. Tragically. It has never been secret. It never had to be secret, sadly because native children were considered effectively expendable. That is the pox. The current culture of, effectively, horseshit isn't making it better.

It is a grotesque period in history, and people should be angry, but a lot of people are effectively misleading people to try to anger. There is a huge amount of misinformation.

Here's one famous residential school death that has been heavily leaned into - https://c2cjournal.ca/2017/10/the-sad-truth-about-chanie-wen...

Right. Everyone knew. There have been a number of inquiries on this. The deaths at residential schools has never been a mystery. There is nothing new being unveiled.

This is an absolute tragedy, but there is a bit of a lie happening in the presentation of it, with each "discovery" being treated like it is unveiling some dark secret. No, it is a dark, but very well known, truth that has been in the open for the entirety of the program. And the truth is that mortality across the entire demographics of Canada was bad in that time period (3 out of 10 children under 5 died across the country), so it isn't entirely atypical.

"we need real change in Canadian society"

What does this even mean? Should the country abolish the residential school system, despite it being long abolished?

Do you think 2021 will end with less police in uniform than 2020? Do you think 2020 had less police in uniform than 2019?

Of course not. This is one of those "trend" stories that is basically inventing copy. Find isolated examples and propose a trend.

But if a police officer feels vilified or unfairly treated, blame the officers who grossly abuse the power society gave them, not the public. Blame unions and the knee-jerk circle-the-wagon attitude that defends these bad apples. If a group abides by and supports the bad apples, they are all bad apples.

What sort of NN would be used to warp two compositionally similar images to match each other in structure? In the example the copy painting had almost all of the same general components, laid out with fairly significant differences, and they warped it to match quite precisely.

I have no idea where that guy got the info but he's presumably in the area/industry there.

By the contemporary, common use of the word, drone fits. Someone made a large scale version if the story is accurate.

But SSRIs work for many people, and do seem to have an effect, so the theoretical is good enough for now.

I'd say it's much more accurate than the weird caricature you propped up.

> You think OP is guilty here, with no basis.

A bunch of people cited problem. Employer fired him. I don't assume he's guilty, but I have absolutely no reason to think him innocent, or somehow the victim in all of this.

Being a creep has consequences. His own confession admitted to being a creep (the largest red flag being the claim of doing "dumb things while drunk", which is a go to in every obnoxious behavior). Eh.

Sexual harassment is an enormous problem in every industry. People who just want to do good work and be a part and contribute become targets for predators who objectify, diminish and harass. Culturally it became not okay and people realized they were heard and that these people could have consequences.

A lot of people get riled up about such cases because they have faced similar situations themselves [see also how instances of racism/bigotry can become viral -- it taps into a latent anger]. It becomes cathartic and representative. A movement.

And the creeps of the world surely must have taken notice by now. The imagined Lothorios can stick to actual social events because it's pretty established that it's not a good idea at work, or anything remotely work related (including trade shows and conferences).

It isn't some universal right or something, and has zero bearing on this conversation.

I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent. But if someone says "he did nothing illegal because he hasn't been charged" [which the comment I replied to claimed], eh... By some estimates only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to police, so it's a sensitive topic.

But that's orthogonal anyways. My core point was that if someone was a creep and causing discomfort at trade events while associated with a brand, it doesn't need to be illegal to have negative consequences.

And FWIW, to use Animats' argument that lack of court proceedings is evidence, surely there's a lot of actionable libel in some of those twitter threads if they are invented. If there isn't such proceedings, is that proof that they're all true? I think we've hit a halting problem!

Yet what is cited as the origin of the torch mob -- a twitter thread -- has a lot of pretty clear accusations by long time Twitter users, some of whom are fairly well known figures.

Citing that no one officially lodged a criminal complaint isn't a counterpoint. Most sexual assault isn't pursued. Serial creeps are plying their trade right now.

But yeah, if he's associated with a brand and he's going to important trade events for that brand and being a despicable creep, in every dimension that is grounds for being fired.

Mob mentality and so-called cancel culture are deeply unfortunate, often doing more damage than the things they are angered about. However creeps have negative consequences when they come under scrutiny, especially when it encourages others to note other creepy incidents.

It's funny that you bring up editing, because the single thing I was replying to was your original claim that your airbag-less vehicle was the same model they sold "everywhere" (which you later edited because of course the vehicle was illegal in a number of nations). I never contested that you bought some bizarrely outdated vehicle in the UK in 2009. If I edited a comment, I made it more accurate immediately, and it's incredibly strange that you think you've caught me out.

I truly don't care about your strange retro vehicle. But in this conversation it is so hilariously irrelevant to the context.

So you are most certainly mistaken about the claim that it is sold "everywhere", although you have since edited that to be restricted to "where they sold them" which conveniently excludes all the places where it simply couldn't be sold.

This 2009 Land Rover model had front, side, and overhead airbags, ESC, ABS, etc.

Age is being used as a really sloppy proxy for safety features, when a lot of these things were completely standard 10 years ago. As mentioned in another post, a 2009 Range Rover came with every major safety feature.

Alas, don't want anyone perpetuating that mistake. Cheers!

Contriving a straw man to argue a position does no good.

I specifically took issue with claims that it's thoughtless. That in no way says it's right or wrong [1], but I'm extraordinarily certain that a lot of people thought long about every detail of this, they probably argued and different people had different takes, and we can see the results of that process. Trying to casually dismiss all of that as thoughtless is gross.

> Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience?

Unhappy users aren't proof of much at all but that people really dislike change, and that you can't please all of the people all of the time. The eventual net result is an entirely different thing.

And again, the net might be positive and it might be negative. I've made zero assessment of that. I happen to be a pretty malleable user and I just flow with whatever, adapting to whatever various platforms demand I use.

[1] Although notions of right and wrong depend upon the inputs to your assessment. e.g. often we'll some users feel that a certain function or trait is a first class, primary element, while it isn't to others. What is right for one can be wrong for another. Seldom is it universal. Every design of any complexity is wrong for some subset of users.

You can disagree with the changes. You can make arguments (understand that other people also have arguments -- for instance on the importance of the address bar, or how a browser should work with 35 tabs, which fwiw they all are trash at that level), but if you need to demand that anyone with a different opinion is "thoughtless", you have no position at all.

Run a study and then talk. Otherwise it's just subjective observations.

Further, we're talking about page theme spreading to the chrome of the browser. It makes the chrome less important than the page contents. It seems they're putting "readability" focus exactly where it should be.

For instance the address bar on here is a canonical truth and is the linchpin of the experience. See how every time a browser touches it (e.g. Chrome truncating the address) is met with mobs of the angry. Many users -- including even "power" users -- seldom interact with the address bar. Nor is it verification of anything much. It simply isn't that important anymore.

Another comment mentions that the reload button is two clicks away, which is a fair point but that everyone who actually uses reload (generally developers -- zero web apps should ever require the user to hit reload) use a keyboard shortcut.

Eh.

"Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed)"

True. At the same time, every UI change of anything ever has yielded a firestorm of criticism and pushback. And more times than not the new design was better and people acclimate to it and eventually prefer it. I judge nothing on initial reception.