jonbronson

And why is down-voting disabled?

you just sent shivers down my spine

You do realize military and intelligence leaders are the ones that made the recommendation not to shoot it down immediately, right? It's a bit of a political cheap shot to try and lay the blame on the sitting President. Unless he were to say, ignore the advice of those leaders, which the article makes clear he didn't.

When people withhold answers to reasonable questions in order to probe for some hidden or more "real" intent of the asker. This is a ubiquitous problem polluting sites like Stack Overflow, but can also happen within an org. Always start with the simple answer first, and go from there.

> But I ultimately think of mathematics as a just an invented tool whose only reason for existence is to solve concrete problems.

This might be the source of disconnect. I frequently encounter this perspective and worry there's a fundamental problem with how mathematics is taught if so many people walk away believing this. Whether or not humans ever mastered mathematics, what is and isn't mathematically true would not change. Humans can create notation and formalisms, but they do not invent the truths those mathematics represent.

That's self-evidently untrue. The properties that make a circle would be true regardless of whether a human ever set eyes on a perfect circle. Us identifying those properties is an act of discovery via research. Codifying those mathematical truths into a written notation is the only component of the process that could really be called invention.

That's a really good observation to note. The prior embedded in their image data is their own bias of what is a "good" representation of themselves.

I worked at a productive computing research institute for a number of a years. I cannot count the number of times I found research teams duplicating critical algorithms. Research Scientists not only pay the price of the spaghetti nature of the code, they pay it over and over again by not sharing and improving on what has already been built by previous research groups.

The software industry has its own share of problems, but from what I've seen the research community is still largely operating on an outdated software model that shuns open collaboration out of fear of being "scooped".

Oh thanks for the clarification! That was not immediately obvious to me, though in hindsight it does say Part 1. I agree, that is quite the time investment. Like any mini-series, the first segment really needs to nail it to keep the viewer coming back. I share some of your sentiments.

It's an hour and fourteen minutes. What do you suppose you'll be doing with the extra six hours?

That's pretty presumptive. There are any number of factors that might make a synchronous conversation desirable or even necessary. Merely seeking that out implies nothing about how someone values other people's time.

"You can't censor us, we censor you!" - In all seriousness, this only hurts the ISP's customers. Interesting business tactic. We'll have to see how that plays out.

The facts aligning in the Senator's favor does not make the request partisan. Nor are they the only political figures to reference the widely acknowledged facts that there was no spread widespread voter fraud. Prominent Republican politicians in positions of oversight have agreed with this outcome.

Lucidchart Cloud Insights is another player in this space. Full disclosure, I'm part of the team that created it: https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/lucidchart-cloud-insights

How long do these probes last before oxidization destroy them?

Unfortunately, `Good First Issue` and `help wanted` sections are currently empty for the macOS fork.

It's step one. Step two is to utilize applicatonis/companies that have your privacy in mind. The fact that you own/control the data empowers you to choose rather become stuck.

"Installation of Qt binaries will require a Qt Account"

Farewell, Qt.

There is no reason we cannot treat ethics like we do medicine, where prevailing wisdom is arrived at by a methodical and judicious process that is standardized. Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape" is an excellent start for building intuition on how to do this. (https://samharris.org/books/the-moral-landscape/)

"...mindless production of mathematical fiction..."

This derisive comment betrays the authors own hypocritical stance, claiming physicists are too close-minded, while simultaneously ridiculing the role of advanced mathematics in formulating new physics hypotheses, arbitrarily declaring them mindless fiction.

"The solution is as follows:

Make all fields in a message required. This makes messages product types."

Except it also breaks backwards compatibility, one of the most powerful and sought-after features of protobufs.

The Helm team did a great job addressing community concerns. I love to see this type of engagement and commitment to users.

It's surprisingly difficult to navigate to a clear example of this project in action.

It's not about changing that persons mind. It's about maximizing the value of the event for the rest of attendees.

And no, on politics. Differences of opinion on how to run a country, where to put resources, what policy makes sense. All fair game. Whether or not a gender or minority has access to the same rights as everyone else? Not political. That's a matter of human decency. The very bare minimum to begin to enter professional ethics.

That right there is precisely why the organizers had to take action. They want to cultivate a conference where diverse attendees don't feel like they have to make a choice between participating in an important professional and staying away from hostile actors. It ruins the atmosphere of the event.

On the contrary, that's the exact issue at the heart of what happened here.

No, I'm quite certain that people deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, or disability. Perhaps in the past this masqueraded as a political question, but it's too late to put that cat back in the bag. If we're sophisticated enough to hold a conference on the future of open source service orchestration, surely we have it in us to call a spade a spade and keep our conferences safe from bad actors.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that devaluing women, minorities, and foreigners is merely a difference in political views. It's an outright abandonment of human decency that is central to the professional ethics of western society and more.

In ordinary times, this would make sense. But we're living in extraordinary times, where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians around the world than he does with the traditionally conservative ideals of the Republican party. This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.

As for the problem this poses to conferences, it's not merely academic. We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment. When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.

"Our events should and will be a safe space."

Seems like a pretty clear reason. He demonstrated that he promotes a hostile attitude toward marginalized individuals who they want to attend the conference.