tchaffee

We all create tomorrow's society. Every individual is hugely dependent on other humans. And many of the people we are dependent on have quite mundane jobs. Devalue these folks enough and they will no longer do work and society will collapse. History shows us this and the result is the opposite of progress.

Indulging what behavior specifically? The use of new ingredients?

Folks with inherited diabetes do not have the option of moderation. You don't need to see this through such a narrow political lens. Some fermented nut-based vegan cheeses are healthier for the heart. Should we moan about that invention and insist on dairy based cheese, moderation, and less choice? No one is forcing you to use these new things.

Gotcha

He may have gotten this from real story from a distant relative or family friend as this is a real hobby and the humidity is a key factor. At almost $16 for a small bottle of XO sauce[1] with the main ingredient being dried scallops, it's a highly profitable home hobby.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XO_sauce

I know I'll likely get a biased answer here but what do you think the cons are of using types in this way? My current thinking is that types should should optimize for an easy learning curve so folks can just get on with writing code. This seems like it would require a deep knowledge of TS.

lodash does come to mind in fact. The last few shops where I've worked use a very small subset of lodash utilities and ignore most of the library. Their documentation is terse so it's often easier to just write your own code that is longer but more readable to the average engineer.

Please answer my questions first.

Just test scores and GPA have never been the only factor and never will be. For example universities aren't looking for robots who are just good test takers. I'm surprised you're speaking on this subject but seemingly haven't done the homework and aren't aware of what existing practice is and what the ruling still allows.

Going forward almost nothing will change in outcomes. The ruling said universities are allowed to use a student's life experience of racism as a factor. Harvard already highlighted this in their public response to the ruling. That's not race but it is a very strong proxy for race isn't it?

Legacy admissions can only maintain the status quo so there will be no increase in diversity if legacy admissions continue. To increase current diversity levels you would have to put some effort into it. The status quo rarely changes organically when it comes to gaining or losing power.

There are huge trees everywhere in São Paulo. Billboards would block the view of some of that gorgeous green. Nature doesn't exist just in national parks.

Much of the graffiti in São Paulo is with the consent of the building owners. Some even pay for it.

I don't mind the tags. It's just kids scribbling and it's neutral and ignorable to me. Neither ugly nor worth paying attention to.

I absolutely abhor advertising that pollutes outdoor spaces. So I guess it depends on your values.

One of his signature motifs is to put a checkerboard in everything. Do an image search for "kobra checkerboard" and you'll see. I find it a bit cliché and it doesn't appeal to my asthetics.

You've likely got cause and effect reversed.

I love SP street art but I think most of Kobra's stuff is terrible. I did see one recently that I liked. Is it art? Yeah. Is it fine art? Yeah probably. Just not my cup of tea.

You're uninformed about it all being the same. The graffiti in São Paulo has a vast range of styles. I have hundreds of photos I've taken myself. This fine art I can see outdoors is one of the most pleasurable things about living or visiting there.

I studied art in university, am an artist myself, and visit major exhibitions around the world on a regular basis. Much graffiti is indeed valid art.

Why are you putting diverse in quotes?

Do you have data supporting your claim that "plenty of legacy admits are diverse"? By definition the legacy admissions are very similar to previous attendees. You need to explain how that would increase diversity.

That does ignore a lot of the important factors but it's a useful analogy.

The point is not that it makes no difference if you stop going to work. The point is that you had no free will in making that decision.

> Making the best choices we can.

You are not making choices.

I'm choosing to not continue debating with a self-admitted bot.

NHS is not a combo of "hospitals, doctors, and insurance". It does not involve insurance at all. It is a comprehensive and integrated healthcare system that runs as a whole.

I'm writing this from the UK where I use the NHS. I've also used the US system extensively and the Italian healthcare system extensively.

You need to get basic facts right if you want to be a part of the debate.

Legacy admissions have a close to zero chance of increasing diversity. The entire point is that people who are just like former students get preference. By definition it's the opposite of a program to seek out those who have a different life experience than the status quo.

The NHS is non-profit. That's a healthcare system, not just a hospital or insurance company. I repeat that he said "system" and you continue to talk about things that are not a healthcare system.

I can acknowledge that it not just helps but that it is far more functional than the US system I've had to suffer through for many years. In addition to years of experience with the US and NHS, I also have many years of experience with Italian national healthcare which is also non-profit and better than the US system.

The US system is better for some diseases but only if you are rich. And an absolute failure if you aren't employed. Even if you can manage to stay employed with a serious illness you better have a healthy family member with a lot of energy who can fight the insurance company that really doesn't want the cost and burden of you and will make that clear in every action.

How far do you need this "for profit" thing to go before you acknowledge its very serious flaws and inadequacies?

So these schools have goals to increase diversity but they want to preserve their culture? Those are competing goals. Eliminating legacy admissions would be a lasting increase in diversity.

And also remember that if you have an unfair playing field you will have inequality.

Sounds like a good reason to eliminate legacy admissions if the claim is that these students can compete without the crutch.

He said a healthcare system. Not a hospital. They are related, but not the same thing.

Someone who has the right skills to be an air traffic controller doesn't have the right skills to be the only air traffic controller.

To be clearer, it's not that some form of punishment isn't effective. It's that more severe punishment is not more effective. And prevention is the most effective. There are plenty of studies. A search doesn't surface any for you? What search terms have you tried?

Sure but separation can be a harsh punishment or a caring and comfortable place. Some countries do the latter and have lower recidivism rates.

You can't try to give inputs that will lead to desired outputs if you have no free will. You can't try to do anything. You just do exactly what you're programed to do.

Correlation is not causation. If punishment is causing the recidivism then you'd expect an increase in punishment to increase recidivism. It doesn't. You also need to compare prevention with recidivism. Optimal approaches prevent the crime in the first place.