tdb7893

My brother took Latin and I took French in high school and I found French to be much more actually useful in improving my vocabulary and understanding. I went to a Catholic high school and we learned some snippets of Koine Greek as part of studying the Bible. None of these were time effective at learning English at all and more English classes would've been much more effective (especially at the level most high schoolers are at).

My high school was more classical than most and it was not a better way to teach English.

Human land use is incredibly inefficient. As a simple example, in the US the vast majority of corn production is ethanol or animal feed (which is incredibly inneficient on a calorie basis). Then when you take into account low density residential and their endless lawns (turf grass has by far the most acres of any crop in the US) and a million other poor uses of land and there's a lot we can do, even at 8 billion people, without destroying every forest.

The issue isn't that the problem isn't solvable, there are tons of things that have huge environmental benefits. The problem is that these generally require some sacrifice (e.g. denser housing with much smaller lawns, eating more resource efficient foods like lentils, moving away from fossil fuels) but there's not sufficient collective will for actually doing these things.

Basic science is often cheap, I don't know where you're getting it's generally expensive. I've yet to meet someone whose equipment costs as much as any of the stuff my friends design for defense contractors. Even the head of the lab I'm in is making less than my friends are making as engineers and the lab equipment is pretty cheap compared to the stuff my friends are designing (we have a radar that cost maybe a couple hundred thousand but that's the majority of the equipment cost for the past decade).

Idk what your idea of budgets are for these sorts of labs but I think most engineers would be shocked at the shoestring budgets they run on (at least the ones I know are a fraction of the cost of a single engineering team).

What really puts all of this into perspective for me is I work in academia and one of my friends works for a defense contractor. He told me the maintenance cost per flight hour of F-35 was a bit more than $40k, which is significantly more than I make in a year as a grad student. It's crazy basic science is what's been the focus of so many cuts while it's so cheap.

For me, what really drove home how bad it is is that I know otherwise normal people in real life who think that many Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets. To even find that plausible there was a lot of racist misinformation they needed to have already internalized to the point that "don't live in the same reality" seems very accurate.

Though one bit of hope is that for me politics has never been that much different. My first foray into real political discussion was people in high school trying to convince me global warming wasn't real or that allowing gay marriage was a slippery slope to bestiality. Even back in 2008, before social media was what it is today, there was still tons of misinformation.

I know scientists who want to move back home but can't because where they are from doesn't have funding for the research they do. Even with the uncertain federal funding it's still more viable than many places around the world.

Apparently the word "henge" comes from the name Stonehenge but Stonehenge has the ditch on the wrong side of the bank to technically be a henge.

For any other curious people: https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/what-is...

"Iran could easily have garnered a lot of international sympathy and support"

What? I understand sympathy but I am not understanding what the path could've been to meaningful support against US aggression here.

Is Finland doing that badly? It seems like a good place to live

Yeah, in some way losing 3 billion birds in the US is painting a rosy picture. Raptors are one of the groups that has had an overall increase but that's partially because DDT was only banned in 1972. Passenger pigeons were also possibly the most numerous bird in the world (with population estimates around 4 billion) and were long extinct by 1970.

It sounds very doom and gloom but I should say that there's also tons and tons of people working very hard to make things better (like the woman in this article). I've met a lot of people working very hard at conservation, generally for little personal benefit since the pay is abysmal, and it's always very heartening.

It seems like most significant agriculture extension programs have advice for irrigating wheat, so presumably someone is doing it, even if it isn't common. If drought is reducing yields significantly I wonder if the amount is going to start growing.

E.g.

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/considerations_for_raising_irr...

https://extensionpubs.unl.edu/publication/ec731/2009/pdf/vie...

https://ucanr.edu/blog/uc-small-grains-blog/article/irrigati...

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/considerations_for_raising_irr...

https://waterquality.colostate.edu/documents/factsheets/0055...

In the US bird populations are down 30% since the 70s (with many species seeing much more significant declines) and you see similar trends in many other countries. You'll probably see a lot more of these sorts of conservation efforts as people start to realize how dire things are ecologically.

Source for decline number: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaw1313

I also know the numbers are similarly dire across the animal kingdom. At least birds aren't doing as poorly as amphibians where 40% of species are threatened (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10567568/)

Yeah, I'm very much not pro-shoplifting generally, I'm just anti the idea that corporations are upholding some social contract about stealing when they've literally stolen from many of my friends (tons of wage theft, illegal firing for reporting issues, etc). From the article, both the Twitch streamer and the writer sound insufferable and I don't agree with the points either makes.

I've known a lot of people who justify crimes like shoplifting by the fact that these corporations have stolen from them (and not in some abstract way, often literal wage theft) and felt like the social contract was already broken. And it's not like the leaders at the large corporations I've worked at generally seem to care about their employees or customers (I would describe most places I worked at as, at best, amoral. I've heard "well, if we didn't do it some other less ethical company would" too many times).

Edit: not that I'm pro-shoplifting, it's that the article talks about them breaking the "social contract" (though the article is more of a reality show-esque piece as it's a opinions writer beefing with Twitch streamers and doesn't talk to any people actually shoplifting).

I have occasional issues mainly with graphics drivers or anti-cheat. Otherwise thought it's remarkably stable. I've also gotten a lot of non-Steam games to work fine.

With a similar amount of experience with both languages I found Go much easier to read. I've always been a bit miffed why Python is seen as easy to read for experienced developers. I get the syntax is good for short code or people with little experience but my experience is those readability benefits went away quickly with time or complexity.

Like most things in tech, it's targeted at upper middle class or rich people since they have way way more disposable income. It's a "premium Chromebook" which, as much as I like Chromebooks, seems like you would need a lot of disposable income before considering since most actually resource intensive stuff (video games, video editing, etc) you wouldn't get a Chromebook for.

I just want to be clear that these are not the only two ways to do diversity. Even if you're just focused on hiring (which is a myopic way to view diversity, even at the most simplistic level you need to think about retention) hiring is complicated and I've seen people try a variety of things to get a wider pool of qualified candidates in the pipeline (offering remote work, better paternity/maternity leaves, outreach with local women in engineering groups, etc). This isn't at all my area of expertise and I've seen a lot of things outside of the dichotomy you described.

Also, idk why people view quotas as all of "diversity". I've literally never worked at a place that considered this but I see people mention them all the time on the internet.

Places I've worked that actually seem to have inclusion as a core value are great places to work and seem to have high functioning teams. My impression mostly though is more that it was never really a value for management but they wasted a bunch of time talking about it. In general any mismatch between stated values and actual values has been awful to deal with and is a red flag for places to work.

The first commentators are talking mostly about gen-z and gen-alpha nowadays while the second group of commentators wants gen-x or millennials to have power finally. These aren't really opposite takes at all (and if you're talking about test scores and conspiratorial thinking boomers seem to be worse than gen-x and millennials in my experience so in many ways these commentaries are not only not oppositional but actually compatible).

If those hedge funds are doing something that stops the market from functioning then of course there should be intervention but it doesn't seem clear to me at all that hedge funds trying to get an edge (especially in a way that's replicable by other funds) has the same effect as rampant insider trading in regards to destroying the market.

Large companies obviously are happy to screw their customers in various ways but I've had pretty good luck with smaller and especially more local businesses. I once had a jeweler gift me an ultrasonic cleaner when I asked them how best to clean a difficult to clean ring (presumably they had recently bought a new one).

Caring about the products they make and their customers seems like sorta the default for most people but large companies learn apathy eventually (or maybe it's mostly the companies that prioritize growth this way that become big). I wonder if less top down control at companies (especially by finance investors) would have them be better to consumers.

It's not about the warrant (which was mentioned just to reinforce the lack of oversight law enforcement has when it invades people's privacy) but the massive assymmetry here and the person I'm responding to compared this situation to the rights Americans have.

Normal citizens can't get full no fly zones and are subject to even more invasive tactics. The comparison to normal citizens highlights that what was done here was far in excess of what is done for normal citizens and seems counter to their overall argument.

This is pretty ironic given that the government can and absolutely does track American citizens everywhere without a warrant. I've known people who were harassed by police because they were near a crime that happened and the police used it's surveillance tools to find likely people in the area.

Especially concerning with the how creative the executive branch can be when it comes to what laws mean. With little oversight, it seems guaranteed that it will be used for unlawful activities (despite whatever tortured argument some lawyer will have put into a memo somewhere).

I don't think there's good data on exactly why but the experts view habitat loss, artificial lights at night, and pesticide use as the top three concerns (the North Americans surveyed put pesticides above light pollution but globally it was the opposite).

This is the survey of experts but is probably behind a paywall. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/2/157/5715071

There's also been a 30% decline in US birds in the last ~50 years. I think people underestimate how bad it is and it's not a good sign that research funding into wildlife has been cut a lot in the US recently.

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaw1313

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never met anyone like you describe at all (certainly none of the vegans I've met). What you describe is obviously a dumb way to think about ethics but I'm also skeptical any significant amount of people think that way

This comment section is actually pretty good and it's generally well intentioned so I'm not mad but it's the same stuff every time. It's like how a tall person I know hears the same "how's the weather up there" joke over and over and got tired of it.

The only thing people will say that annoys me is the "but animals eat other animals" argument from otherwise intelligent people (no worries if children say it). I've yet to meet someone who sincerely thinks that what happens in nature is ethically okay (as a simple point, many animals will eat their own family when stressed and sexually assault each other constantly, which are very natural but obviously unethical for humans to do. I've seen animals torture and eat each other alive) so the whole argument is a waste of time. It's weird that the "it's natural" argument is probably the most common when many people will walk it back even before I point out the flaws.

I started a master's in ecology with the hope of doinh a PhD after. Academia honestly sucks and has pretty bad culture issues (and like 10% of the pay) but I genuinely really like animals and it feels good to have my job be helping them.

Personally I don't think I would recommend it. Not that it's necessarily a bad choice but I think that the people for who this is the right choice will feel compelled to make a change regardless of what I say (I know I had people trying to convince me to stay in tech). Fully changing careers like this and living the poor and overworked grad student life in my 30s has taken more commitment and stubbornness than I had expected but some fights are worth doing.