naberhausj

This is a fair point. To Wikipedia's credit, I think it's adequately addressed in the article I linked.

I think a more general statement could be made. It's nearly useless to make comparisons between countries. The United States cannot adopt Swedish policies and expect to achieve Swedish outcomes. I'd much prefer we discuss policies for our countries in our own contexts rather than introducing comparisons between them.

The parent comment introduced a comparison, though. So, I think it's only fair to introduce some form of statistics.

Thanks for providing a more founded empirical interpretation of the facts! It seems Sweden has some edge on the USA, but the original claim (that it's almost impossible to be homeless in Sweden) still seems as unfounded as I expected.

As another commentator noted, I think climate is something to consider. I expect that you'll find higher concentrations of shelter-less people in more temperate (or at least warm) places. Cultures will evolve to prevent people from needlessly dying, but we aren't inclined to give more than the bare minimum.

According to Wikipedia Sweden has a higher rate of homelessness per capita than the United States.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeles...

I agree with CharlesW here. That information box doesn't mention that a normal grid of pixels can also have a non 1-to-1 mapping between physical and logical pixels. Any discussion of pixels that doesn't specifically call out `window.devicePixelRatio` is not going to give people a complete understanding.

This is important. If you're rendering images/graphics with a pixel as your smallest unit then you're not going to look good on most modern devices.

I listened to this a few months ago. As a history podcast it's just ok. He has a habit of exaggerating the importance of the con in the grand scheme of the war. He also comes across as a little naive (for instance, stating unabashedly that Hitler is the most evil human to ever exist. He's definitely in the running for it, but it's certainly a race with competition). He is entertaining, though, and I have a lot of respect for his craft as a magician. That skill does shine through most of the time. It seemed to me that he was going for entertainment/showmanship first, and brutal accuracy second. I was ok with that, and if you're not too picky you will probably enjoy this as well.

Funny that this is brought up. As an undergraduate in a Data Scientist class we did analysis on the SO dataset (we processed the whole thing using RStudio running on a big EC2 instance). I found that about ~1,000 users that have made less than fifty posts have moderator privileges. In that report, I suggested that they should give users quality points (Upvotes / # Page Views) rather than straight reputation points.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment and have elected for the same thing on my website. The only difference is that I wrote a simple template based static site generator (https://github.com/JosephNaberhaus/naberhausj.com/tree/maste...) to keep my HTML sources in accordance with DRY.

What I don't understand is how the linked page is downloading 1 MB of resources which unpack to nearly 2 MB. This page shouldn't need more than 100 KB.

"Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'"

I would personally feel uncomfortable doing this as would a lot of the people I know.

Hah! I experienced the exact same thing just a month ago. It did build up goodwill between myself and the company that fast tracked me an offer. Thus, some good came out of it.

I don't see how an exploding offer is a good strategy. The kind of people you'll catch with that trick are not the unicorns. Until the exploding-offer, I was a big fan of that company.

I'm was not familiar with the exact definitions of "protected speech" and "campaign finance laws". Having looked both up, I still fail to see your point. How does our regulation of a candidate's fundraising indicate extreme/nonsensical regulation of protected speech?

Compared to Europe, we don't have any hate speech laws that risk make criminals out of people because of public whim. I will not scoff at that though, because hate speech is only a necessary evil. Do you real feel the range of opinions you can express here is less than what you could express in your average European country?

I think the original definition of protected speech, namely that is inalienable, is the only sane one. How flawed the implementation of that definition is (and truthfully it was flawed from the start) is definitely a problem of course. Any other guarantee would be worthless because very few people will suffer somebody spewing what they view as or want to be lies if they don't have to.