password11

Sorry I deleted the original comment. Interesting take.

A simpler explanation is he's changed his mind. Or maybe he thinks that the hype for his original view has ended; he predicts that the opposition is gaining more support within the state government, the academic community, and the people; and he therefore is positioning himself closer to the opposition where there will be more future support.

I agree that even acknowledging that there's criticism of these initiatives (like mandatory DEI statements) is seen as an extreme reaction, especially in academia. Don't know anything about Bret in particular, but I liked his position, was pretty well rounded.

(FWIW, I wholeheartedly support the goals of DEI. But I think I just broke the taboo within DEI of acknowledging that it's taboo to acknowledge that some people have opposing viewpoints.)

There was a consequence -- we shot it down.

> That is the irreversible change it signifies, imo.

It's not irreversible. Additional consequences can be initiated at any time.

No, you're wrong. You just took his statement out of context. He did not say he supports it; he only acknowledged the existence of that view. Specifically, his full statement was:

> "Controversy there is likely to be more complex,

> with some seeing this as a political infringement on the traditional prerogative whereby departments chose their members and thus an infringement on academic freedom;

> alternately others will argue that this actually protects academic freedom since diversity statements can be little more than political litmus tests thinly disguised."

Acknowledging opposing views is one of the key things you learn in academic and argumentative writing. It is not the same thing as support.

I think it's pretty disingenuous that you decided to remove the word "alternatively" in this accusation.

Optimizing for growth is very risky and makes sense to VCs. VCs diversify into dozens of companies. The odds that one company will be a moonshot are pretty good. But as an individual founder you're 100% exposed to the growth/collapse of your one company.

Is there some recent study showing evidence or analysis of this? You're saying the main root cause of poor performance is the diff burning up CPUs?

I always assumed applications run slowly because people are overusing global (redux) state and every state change is subscribed to by like 10 different components. And people making 5 network calls before their component meaningfully renders.

It's in the article.

To train the AI system, Ma inserted simulated signals into actual data, allowing the autoencoder to learn what to look for. Then the researchers fed the AI more than 150 terabytes of data from 480 observing hours at the Green Bank Telescope.

The AI identified 20,515 signals of interest, which the researchers had to inspect manually. Of those, eight had the characteristics of technosignatures and couldn’t be attributed to radio interference.

The researchers then returned to the telescope to look at systems from which all eight signals originated but couldn’t re-detect them.

They have these in big tech company kitchenettes. They're great. I'm sure whoever made them made a killing from all that big tech b2b money.

> Help me out. I don't see the problem.

This is the problem: https://xkcd.com/1102/

boys 15-19 that died by suicide: 0.01% -> 0.016%. A 34% increase!

Relative increase percentages (i.e. exponentials) are misleading when they are measuring linear phenomena like suicide rate. You could just as easily say there was a 0.1% decrease in the percent of boys who didn't die by suicide.

It's misleading because the new 0.006% of male suicides are unrelated to the existing 0.01%.

Suicide rate is not a ROI or conversion rate. Use absolute percentages please. I get they're writing to accentuate big impact -- and suicide is a big deal -- but this is disingenuous.

This is the way to notify people of a layoff. Immediate binary yes/no.

Although there is no great way to do it, this layoff seems pretty respectful and well done.

But because conversion rates are typically low and because of how the math works out for a funnel product, there's a larger business impact depending on which 2.3% is cut out. (Ignoring the negative business impact of being non inclusive/a11y)

12% vs. 10% is a 20% decrease in performance.

100% vs. 98% is a 2% decrease in performance.

I'm not arguing against a11y. I'm just saying, that's why ADA exists. It's not in the business interest without the law. Also it's just good ethics to be accessible.

This study is mostly about << 20,000 IU/day.

Also, abstract doesn't say precisely how "long-term" they were supplemented for -- was it weeks or years?

Medium term (~1w) loading doses are probably fine given that U.S. president was treated with this for COVID. But we're talking about 20,000 IU/day, every day, for months and years, which is why the study's vagueness about "long-term" matters here.

Title is misleading given primacy of USD. They're not freezing all outgoing transfers to fiat currency, just to US banks in USD. Apparently you can still cash out.

> Doctors Are Idiots: Vitamin D Megadose. This Is Not Medical Advice, But I'm Correct

> You should be taking somewhere between 10,000-50,000 IU per day of vitamin D3. The optimal dose seems to be about 30,000 IUs as noted by a few people in my research but results will vary.

> Do not sue me if something goes wrong. I am poor and you will get nothing but my manga collection out of the lawsuit.

Lol.

That may be true in general, but is there any evidence that regularly taking 20,000 IU/day if vitamin D is optimal for health? I see a lot of articles making an affirmative recommendation not to take more than 4,000 IU/day.

Ex: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/too-much-vita...

[1]: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind-healthprofessiona...

Don't make teachers the punching bag for bad programmer code review. Programmers get paid 3-4x more, so if teachers can figure it out, then why can't programmers?

But in management you've spent years at the company building up to your current role, and you're just kinda stuck with people. Can't imagine how stressful it would be to be in that person's position.

Companies adopted Git. They'll adopt Gimp if it's better than Photoshop.

Reminds me of https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-11-16.

"Giant glass clad high rises" are not a fashion -- they're popular because most people in the U.S. and Europe like the way they look.

In some sense these pretty glass buildings are a symbol of American ideology. Free markets tipped the balance from the art elite, who wanted people to live in brutalist slaughterhouses, toward the common people, who like their optimistic, futurist buildings and are willing to pay for them.

However, this is a very serious matter. If found guilty, this person will have a criminal record.

Doing something illegal in the United States is very dangerous, and you should be very careful, as there are lots of known and unknown channels which you can unknowingly get yourself caught.

What I'm saying is, the article was actually about the fact that police are exploiting known insecure channels, not new ones. But the article title was suggesting the police were using new channels to surveil people. And I'm just surprised that many people don't know that phone calls, SMS, Google Searches, and Facebook Messenger can be obtained via subpoena.

What does?

I read the headline thinking they were using digital medical data, i.e., what insurance companies do. That would be legitimately frightening.

Nope, police are just exploiting bad opsec. Don't bring your phone to your robbery, don't talk about your alleged crimes on Facebook Messenger. Lots of people don't know that these channels are not secure.

(Edit: Abortion is currently illegal in some U.S. jurisdictions. There is debate about whether it should or shouldn't be.)

Google doesn't care about the narrative war. They care about getting sued by the EU.

They can put out a similar model whenever they want. The just don't want to, because the thing about AI research (vs., say, social media) is there's no first mover advantage. The best model wins and there's no network effect to bolster incumbents.