syrrim

They could pull it from wikidata pretty easily. This would cover all major bands and many more minor ones.

You plead guilty precisely because you didn't do anything. The probability distribution for you was: high chance of getting off, low chance of getting a large punishment. The probability distribution for SBF if he pleads not guilty will be inverted: high chance of incarceration, low chance of walking. But the odds will likely be preferable to whatever deal he ends up being offered. Modelling the cops that booked you, their goal is to throw things at the wall and see what sticks. Whichever cops are currently gathering evidence against SBF will be thinking the opposite: they need to be very careful in collecting evidence to minize the risk of SBF getting away.

I should point out that while this is unfortunate, this is all a relatively inevitable consequence of having a justice system. Since humans are deciding cases, there will always be a small chance that they screw it up (in one direction or another). You can't have arbitrary do-overs for people who feel their case was decided poorly, because everyone thinks that (or will say they do).

They made that. It's called xmr.

Apple is leveraging their success in the operating system space to control competition in other markets and to limit options available to consumers. This is classic anti competitive behaviour and has nothing to do with whether the OS is sold separately or is bundled with the phone. There are very few hardware advantages of iphones vs. equivalently priced (say) pixel phones, especially not ones that don't rely heavily on software support (eg cameras). So in practice we already are in the reality you imagine anyways.

They filed a lawsuit claiming they didn't know about a single stray sheet of paper in one of the photos of the shoot, which looks entirely innocent on first inspection, but happens to be a court document for a famous child pornography suit. The existence of this document has been claimed by some observers (shoe, for one), to be the "smoking gun" proving that this is all satan worship rather than strange art. So it is perfectly reasonable for balenciaga to assert that they didn't know about this document, and a great deal hinges on this seemingly minor question.

100 lbs in three months is ~1lb/day, thus a deficiency of 3500Cal/day. His maintenance intake would have been 4300Cals/day. That seems insanely high - what was his weight?

Interesting article. I sometimes wonder to what degree we moderns are simply recreating the (failed) systems of old. We are trying to move from twitter to "federated" systems, which are structurally quite similar to usenet. What lessons are we going to learn about why people broadly moved away from usenet to web forums?

"Property owner has not done enough to soundproof the unit against nearby train noise"

Can't believe this was in the new yorker. It reads like a typical internet shitpost. I swear it was just another copypasta.

> There's many sources arguing you give what you can afford while a utilitarian approach would be to give beyond that if you can save more lives

A misunderstanding of utilitarianism. If telling people to give everything makes them give nothing, then it is a bad approach. The utilitarian aims to maximize the amount given, which may entail telling them to give less. You treat utilitarianism as if we are philosophers considering it in theory, not practitioners who have accepted its logic.

>SBF would be championed as a hero, not a villain, for his ponzi scheme.

A terrible approach for similar reasons. Telling people you intend to scam them is a good way to get them to not give you money.

>No money would be going to animal welfare or modern healthcare worries because longtermism would have won the argument.

Treated similarly: EA is like a funnel. They draw you in by saying "you give to charity anyways, shouldn't you do so 'effectively'?" Then, instead of telling you which local homeless shelters are best, they tell you "effective" means curing diseases in africa. Once you accept that, then they have another style of charity to sell you. They carefully avoid pushing you too far, to avoid having you throw out the whole project.

> EA is very simply the idea that one should check the efficiency of charities and try get the best bang for their dollar.

"Effectiveness" is not defined, and any concrete definition is carefully buried. In practice, it usually means "maximizing human welfare" or something to that effect (ie utilitarianism), but they will carefully avoiding forcing that definition on anyone. "Oh, you want to donate to a local foodbank," they might say, "better make sure its an effective food bank" - this for reasons explained above. But every EA organization knows exactly what it means by effective, which is always some variant of utilitarianism. Importantly, they never refer to it as such, because utilitarianism is a ideology, and thus open to criticism. Instead, they always describe it in terms of platitudes that seems sufficiently obvious as to be impossible to question. In this way, they prevent anyone from falling off the ramp.

What am I looking at? It seems like they achieve plausible deniability by recommending you get the file by ripping it from a cartridge you own. Is that not good enough?

The previous president was impeached for taking aid from ukraine lest they investigate invented allegations of corruption.

That putin warned of something is meaningless. Are we expected to roll over whenever a foreign country makes a threat? Most of these threats are empty; even when they aren't, some things they have no right to threaten us about. A country arming itself to protect from a (demonstrably) belligerent neighbour is one such thing. I'm surprised people eat this ridiculous excuse from putin so easily.

Something like "which would have been won [if the reports are to believd]" perhaps.

Friends don't let friends make important decisions on the basis of internet bullshit.

I think many people would have argued beforehand that twitter in particular was overstaffed, and that you could safely cut large portions of their employees without much loss. In properly run companies, employees are already justified in terms of revenue or other value they bring to the company. If you fire them, you know concretely what the company will lose. Twitter was notoriously unprofitable, and the employees were instead justified in terms of the greenfield work they were doing to bring the company into profitability in the future. Except that clearly wasn't happening, and probably would never happen if they continued down the same trajectory. I don't think there are many lessons regarding that that generalize to other companies. We might carve out a category of company called a "post-startup", being a company that has gone through the startup phase of rapid growth in userbase, but that never moved onto the stage of "established company", owing to a difficulty finding their proper business model. Such a company might reasonably benefit from a large staff reduction. For other companies this is less clear.

Money is not just dollars. I consider my bank account money, even though I know its backed by some fraction of its value in actual dollars. People take out loans that are backed by stocks, for example. If the stock market went to zero, they would default on the loan, and money would be destroyed.

We don't always have detailed evidence, so its useful to be able to make predictions with less evidence. When we have more evidence, we can verify the accuracy of our predictions in order to make better predictions in the future. Admitting "I was wrong this time" is the first step in being less wrong next time.

There is frequently a system where they sell an international version of the book for significantly lower cost. In order to prevent americans from simply purchasing the international version, it will often have substantial differences. So simply looking up the price of the same book may not show you what would typically be paid in another country.

There was a commentary somewhere that while someone in france had discovered the cure to smallpox in the form of variolation, the king of france was dying of it. The reason he died was not because no cure existed, but because his doctors weren't aware of it and thus didn't know to apply it. The spread of knowledge is not magical. It will happen over time, but in that time knowledge will be lost. Variations of variolation have been used for thousands of years, but smallpox was only eradicated after galbraith wrote his book. The application of capital to the spread of useful knowledge can still happen even when the knowledge ought to be obvious and important to everyone that encounters it.

They lost roughly $8B in customer deposits. The $16B cited in the article is the total amount of money they lost which includes a sizable profit that they were supposed to have made on their legitimate business activities.

Canada has a parliamentary system with winner-takes-all for each seat. We have three major national parties and a regional party which regularly has a significant minority. The system is not fundamentally different from the one used to select representatives in the US. Many other countries have similar systems, but not all of them have two party rule like the US.

A better link might the google doc explaining in detail:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kiW9qmNlJ9oQZM6r5o4_N54s...

>A major obstacle in getting financial support is most companies don't have an internal process to start funding an open-source project. If they need to buy a license, that's fine, that's part of their usual business. But supporting (or giving money away to) "free" software is almost impossible. It raises too many questions at every level of management. What is the accounting item it should be categorized to? Is there any legal implication? Who can approve it in the first place? And last but not least, why do they have to do it if it's available for free?

I would think you could work around many of these problems without going source-available. You could simply sell licenses to people despite already handing out an open source license for free (the sqlite approach iirc). Since the project is apparently otherwise AGPL licensed, I would think businesses would be quite open to receiving a normal commercial license instead. To sweeten the deal further, you could come up with some list of enterprise features that would be uniquely available in the commercial variant.

As a risk of using the BSL, I would cite the danger of the project becoming less popular among average developers, an effect that might compound in the long term ultimately killing the project. I don't personally use mold, so I don't know how strong this effect would be.

^D only does that in cooked input mode. In raw mode ^D send ^D, and it's up to the program to interpret that, or not. This is essential in, eg, telnet, since it wants to be able to open a session on a remote host that behaves exactly like a session on a local host, including its behaviour in response to ^D.

My personal take is that markdown is only good when you can customize it to your needs and situation. There are a million markdown flavours, because everyone who ever implements it decides to add their own extensions to it to suit their situation. There have been attempts at creating a single unified standard, but these miss the point: if we wanted a single shared syntax, we could use html directly; the advantage of markdown(s) is that it lets you create something that looks clean and simple as plain text, while turning into a nicely marked-up document. A "standard" markdown would need to have a "standard" extension mecahnism (or none at all...) which would inevitably look like ass for most use cases.

I nowadays usually just write html directly for my personal documents, because I spent long enough messing around with markdown parsers trying to get them to act how I want. But for a website commenting system (eg), it makes sense to spend some time making the formatting system nice to use, which involves customizing your flavour of markdown. I don't think web browsers can or should try to do a good job of this; it requires to many specialized demands for them to be able to create a generic solution. If you want to write in markdown, its easy enough nowadays to format it on the server, or client side with a small js snippet.

Both tweets from nov 3, talking about something going to happen yesterday which... didn't happen. Fair to say at least some of their information was bad.

The vibration of a bell (say) could be modelled by a matrix, with a state vector to represent position, velocity, and acceleration, and the matrix modelling the differential equations describing their evolution over time. The eigenvectors represent a basis of the system, so that we can describe any potential state vector as a sum of eigenvectors. If we do so, then each step of the system can be modelled by multiplying each of these eigenvectors by its corresponding eigenvalue. If an eigenvalue happens to be complex, then we can describe it in phasor form as the product of an amplitude and a angle. The amplitude tells us how it will decay (or amplify) over time. The angle tells us the frequency of oscillation, and thus the note that the bell will typically sound.

That article is strange. I was of the belief that most western "monospace" fonts were in fact "duospaced" under their definition. This distinction isn't apparent for normal writing, but such fonts usually make most emoji two chars wide. This is true at the very least for Adobe's "source code pro", which I typically use. It mentions the OP font as the only western example of such a font, but iA writer doesn't use integer multiples of the base width (necessary to qualify under their definition, as well as under common sense) for M and W.

> You might be thinking, “Okay, but now characters won’t line up neatly.” Thats true, but the upside of this sizing means you still retain the typewriter aesthetic with a bit more legibility. Notice the difference?

Does it? It feels like the "typewriter aesthetic" is pretty much gone. The comically wide thin characters (i, r, l, etc), and comically small wide chars (m, w) are the clearest difference of such a font; without that it looks like a normal proportional font (which it basically is).

At the very least, it maps a lot more closely than does the market value of a single stock.

Reads as exceedingly reasonable as written. If the network is congested, someone has to pay in a slower connection. It makes sense to place that burden on the heaviest users.