learnstats2

Agree - there's nothing that stops you from asking for more. Even if you don't get it now, it sends a signal that you will expect more $ later.

But, if you are really satisfied with $30ph (if you don't have a better offer to fall back on), you probably won't get (much) more. Your weak negotiating position will inevitably shine through.

How would this prevent it from being a Ponzi scheme?

Ponzi schemes do keep paying out, for as long as they are growing.

The concept that one person impulsively changed their mind is not correct.

The board of Tesla will have agreed the plans.

I’d wager instead: the price of all crypto goes down.

Tesla buys into some unknown proof-of-stake coin.

The perfect cover for a pump-and-dump scheme.

I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.

The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.

This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.

[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]

I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(

The Hatetris code doesn’t appear to have an open source license, or any license, so it isn’t open source.

This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder.

(On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)

The messaging above is good because the animal suffering morality angle is implied without needing to be stated.

If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here.

It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.

Do you mean being a victim, or being helpless?

I am a victim of a crime - I need to take the required action to get legal retribution.

Saying “I am not a victim” does nothing to help me.

As an adult, any service provider can claim that you agreed, when you signed up to a service, to give away your personal data.

It’s presented as a contract mutually agreed between you and the service provider - you get the service; the provider gets the data. A legal contract.

But, in all systems of law that I’m aware of, you can’t make enforceable contracts with children.

This exists as a way of protecting children from making disadvantageous agreements that they don’t yet have competence to understand.

So, the service provider can’t use any contract as justification for handling personal data of children.

This leaves the service provider without legal justification and then calls their ethics into question.

> Chances are your quality of life will only get worse etc.

The quality of your end of life gets (on average) much worse if you smoke.

Not only do you die 5 minutes earlier, but you also spend more additional time with disease impacting your quality of life, such as COPD.

> According to this logic, anyone who works in the subway should be dying, what, 10 years earlier? Which is obviously not happening.

On the contrary, that sounds extremely credible.

If you divide life expectancy stats just by gender and race, you already see more than 10 years difference.

This grammatical structure in English is make + object + bare infinitive, e.g. “make it happen”.

https://www.englishgrammar.org/bare-infinitive-2/

This is a normal style guide that every publishing company has, not a “banned words list”.

> the complexity of a problem like this, algorithmically, legally and ethically.

I disagree with the framing of this as "complexity" when it's really "Facebook's profits would be reduced/Facebook's business model would be compromised".

The complexity comes from Facebook's goal of maximising profits within the permitted algorithmic and legal space.

My belief is simply that there is no such evidence.

Reasonably convincing evidence, to me, would be:

- genetic precursor virus particles which have died and no longer exist - they are extinct, or,

- dated blood samples with immunological evidence of infection, sufficient that it isn’t just tampered/false positives. There’s no reason to expect this would have been collected.

i.e. if you haven’t collected it by 2019, there is never going to be any evidence.

This also answers your sibling commenter: it’s not in China’s interest to publicise any such search, when the odds of discovering anything (even if there were earlier infections) are vanishingly low.

> a) should have been likely

Given that coronavirus would not be observable until there is a cluster of symptomatic cases in a city (and a doctor with relevant experience who can observe multiple cases - here 李文亮), I find it highly unlikely that we could observe earlier cases, if they spread less rapidly or outside a city - or even within another city with less institutional knowledge.

> b) China would be highly incentivized to root out

Even if so, this doesn't form part of any prior. China being incentivized to act in that situation, doesn't affect how likely or unlikely that situation was.

The article here also appears to significantly contradict itself.

The headline says "Food Got Wasted — Mostly at Home" but the article seems to say that this applies to "food available to consumers", i.e. it is only really measuring the quantity of waste as household vs catering/restaurants.

Since more food must surely be eaten at home than elsewhere, it's not surprising that food waste is produced at home is first out of two options.

The article later admits that a higher quantity of food is 'wasted' before it reaches stores.

The UK has already allowed open immigration from Hong Kong, specifically in response to the Chinese National Security Law, but I'm not sure that this is really any solution.

The genetic code itself is reasonably comparable to ASCII in complexity - every 6 bits is the code for one amino acid in a string, which will fold itself into the required protein.

I think it's substantially different.

Initial outbreaks of viruses occur geographically at random (with China having a >1/6 chance); the fact that there are significant UK, South African, and Brazilian variants has a much lower random component and a much higher deterministic component. It also illustrates where those variants are still primarily spreading.

If one of those variants become globally dominant, I doubt we will continue to name them after the location.

I agree with this - having watched the trailer and played the demo, Factorio looks to me like a game of managing logistics of transporting resources around, featuring a conveyor belt system that only works in 2D.

In another game, I'd consider that an annoying micromanagement feature.

> doesn't explain the complete suppression of influenza

Influenza isn’t infective enough to spread during the summer months anyway (i.e. it is completely suppressed), unlike rhinoviruses, so it’s easily most plausible that a few additional hygiene measures have suppressed influenza further.

I checked the paper to try and defend it, but I was unable to find a table with significance testing or standard errors for this regression - it is just stated without justification.

This seems an unusual style of reporting results, to me. (Happy to be corrected)

If you believe, as I do, that racism is a systemic problem, then there is no individual action that can fix racism.

Should we therefore take no individual actions? I think this doesn't logically follow.

> It's still integration

In my view integration is by definition part of calculus, and requires the concept of the infinitesimal. (This is maybe semantic, but Wikipedia agrees with me in this case).

The paper shares one of the many goals of integration, which is to find the area under the curve, but you literally cannot use integration as the tool to do this here.

So, it's not integration.

A comment below calls this "numerical integration" - which I also find dubious. Numerical integration is still using calculus - you have to know the whole function - but without getting to a closed form answer.

The author of this blog post is wrong to say this is 'integration'[0], and is also later wrong to say it's the 'trapezoidal rule'[1].

It seems to me that it's diagnostically useful to have a standardised method for estimating the area under the curve, rather than everyone inventing their own method.

[0](since you don't know the whole function, you only know point estimates at particular moments in time)

[1] (trapezoidal rule is normally defined by having equal intervals - here, measurements are often taken at irregular intervals)

I find it a bad principle which absolves responsibility. Stupidity is the same as malice, if the outcome is the same.

When I'm cycling, my voice is more useful than a bell (in an urgent situation) - more instantly responsive for me to use, easier for others to locate and interpret, etc.