veridies

It is a problem of grammar and language! As others here have said, no one is claiming that the notion of math itself is racist, but that math education can be. The 'agenda' seems to be to make sure that marginalized groups are better able to learn math. Do you disagree?

As for the 'highly valued' bit; one could argue that mathematics built for problem solving creative issues (including in computer programming) is now valued more than it was then. That could lead to different curriculum than before.

That exact page specifies that while mathematical problems have right and wrong answers, word problems often have embedded assumptions, and that teachers should encourage students to identify those assumptions and pursue other possible answers. How is that wrong?

For anyone who's interested, I used the samples to make a playable soundfont (sfz format) in about fifteen minutes: https://musical-artifacts.com/artifacts/1471

The flip side of this is that if have excess capacity for medical treatment, that can be incredibly helpful in the case of a rare event such as a terrorist attack or a pandemic.

Cameras are used for multiple professional purposes, including videography and commercial photography. SD cards are also used in devices such as Zoom audio recorders, which I often use for recording music. Especially right now, I'll loan a Zoom and a nice mic to a musician so that they can record tracks for me remotely.

They're also the standard boot device for computers like the Raspberry Pi. Basically, they're a professional tool which one might expect in a professional laptop.

It's worth noting that this study focuses on two Danish parties. It's honestly not clear that the magnitude of these shifts is consistent — see, for example, https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/797kzj/comment/do..., which convincingly argues that the American parties have different willingnesses to shift in order to follow party orthodox.

I definitely agree. From a different perspective, I have a few free albums on Bandcamp under a Creative Commons BY-SA, just as a side project. Getting $5 or $20 here or there is really nice — it makes me feel like someone found my music worthwhile to them, which is a good feeling.

I'd never heard of this fight before, so I just looked it up. My interpretation is that he made that claim, Gebru responded by claiming that that was an overly reductionist view of things (given, presumably, the fact that biased assumptions could affect the coded assumptions as well as the training data), he maintained his opinion, and she felt frustrated that she didn't feel she was being listened to. I did not see her call him a racist, and I did not think either person was acting in bad faith; both seemed frustrated and unhappy that there was a disagreement.

Am I missing anything?

Related to this: I've tried to figure out what the oldest surviving organization in the world is (specifically something with some form of rules or decision-making process that has been formally kept and amended over time instead of being replaced by a new code of rules). Best I could do is the Roman Catholic Church, but I feel like my search terms might be missing something.

Right. It's fine for me since I use free software as much as possible anyway. The only applications I've sideloaded are WeChat, Teams, Discord, Target, Instagram, and WhatsApp, all of which work fine.

Edit: and Google Maps. The built-in mapping software doesn't have good enough traffic estimation.

I have been using it for I think over a year now as my only phone, on a Samsung Galaxy S9+. It's honestly not much different from Android (although a little out of date), and the only real issue I have is that installing software is a little inconvenient. (The built in app store doesn't work reliably.)

There are about 40 different barre chords you would commonly play, not including minors and thinking only of the two most common hand shapes. On the piano, there would be roughly 80, and you wouldn't be able to get some guidance based on shape like you could with those 44.

In that case, there is another benefit: more ambitious compositions. And while you may be right, there are still numerous older compositions to play.

Macron is trying to incorporate French Islam into French society. His tactics may be good or bad, I'm not qualified to say, but he certainly is not trying to eradicate a population or its culture, and he is not rounding up religious minorities into concentration camps. Whataboutism only works when the crimes are on vaguely the same scale; this is like comparing bank robbery to music piracy.

Note: this opinion is independent of the current president, and I'm not stating any opinion on President Trump's conduct.

This seems like a really bad standard to apply to the president. I'd argue that morally there are two relevant factors when it comes to finding someone guilty: the damage that would be done to others by failing to punish the perpetrator, and the damage that would be done to the alleged perpetrator by punishing them. We choose different standards depending on those two factors. For example, in civil cases, someone specific has lost something and someone else has gained at their expense. And you're not seeking to imprison someone, but to take away some of their wealth. So we pick a standard of evidence (preponderance of the evidence) that's lower than in criminal cases (with a very high injury to the perpetrator and typically lower injury to the community).

In contrast, an impeachment is not a prison sentence. It would injure a president only insofar as that president would no longer keep the most prestigious title and position of power in American society. And failing to impeach for serious corruption or crimes (say, if a president were conspiring with China to weaken America's standing overseas) could be catastrophic. So I think a much weaker presumption of innocence is in order.

(Understandable) naïvité, and a lack of awareness of the downsides. Articles like this on Hacker News help other people who might be thinking of making a similar mistake.

I mean, nursing home residents are typically older, meaning that they and everyone around them are more susceptible to the disease (meaning it's likely to spread faster and be more deadly). Black and brown people disproportionately work in service jobs where they get exposed to a lot more people; they're also less healthy on average than whites. It seems like there are other very likely causal factors than just vitamin D.

It seems like there's room for compromise. You could simply assign a lower weight to reviews for a different size/format. Or you could split ratings entirely if (and only if) the review averages are significantly different.

> IANALC (I am not a literary critic)

Yeah, and neither am I, although I do have a BA in literature from a third-tier college, which probably doesn't give me much credibility here. Your opinion is pretty close to my own. The only thing I might disagree with you on is that I'm not as attached to the (mildly) archaic language. I think modern English can serve a mythic function; it just doesn't really work for me in Wilson's translation. By the way, if anyone wants to compare, here are three versions of that one line:

Pope

> Wandering from clime to clime, observant stray’d, Their manners noted, and their states survey’d.

Fagles

> Many cities of men he saw and learned their minds

Wilson

> and where he went, and who he met

(On this one, Pope is my favorite too.)

That being said: this is all literature! It's mostly a matter of taste and opinion. And if Wilson's writing helps anyone get something new out of the Odyssey, I'm all for it. I'm genuinely just curious what that is.

I've read a few translations, and while I appreciate Wilson's clarity, I honestly found it pretty boring. My wife and I read it aloud and, compared to Fagles (which is my favorite), the words she chose often seemed to lend no emotional energy to the story. I'm not trying to dismiss your opinion at all, but I'd really like to know what I'm missing.

That's part of the story, but I know a LOT of middle and upper class addicts.

> In case of taxing A and C, C's freedom as a group would be compromised.

True. That's why targeted taxes (eg carbon taxing) are often a good idea. However, if we as a society vote to do things that seriously harm a subset of society, then we as a society are partially responsible for that harm.

> In case of taxing only A, the cost would be prohibitive and could discourage A from wanting to do its thing in the first place.

I think it's entirely reasonable to price externalities into the cost of an action.

I realize the practical difficulties here, but the actual concept (identifying who's going to be impacted, and offering targeted solutions) sounds like a pretty good idea in theory. Calling it 'identity politics 2.0' is an easy way to dismiss it, but it doesn't respond to the actual argument.

I had the cheap FirefoxOS phone, which I thought was going to be a miserable dev phone experience. But it turns out it was actually a very solid phone that did everything I wanted. I'm still upset that that OS was discontinued.

Question (I'm not an expert): can unconfirmed transactions be withdrawn? If so, what's the timeline?

I think the anti-religious bias in a lot of technology and leftist spaces is a real problem, and I absolutely take your point on that.

> I've seen articles written to the effect of "if you are against rent control, you must hate the hard working people who benefit from it."

I have too. But I have hardly met anyone who will really be offended at me expressing that rent control can backfire (and I have, among extremely left-wing people). I think the people who are trying to make that a wedge issue are themselves extremists. They exist, but they don't represent a big enough group of people to matter most of the time.

> I think this is something that most people believe

I think it's about 50/50. The one good, recent poll I found on the issue seems to suggest that (I mentioned it at more length in the other subthread here). So I definitely don't think that there's an overwhelming consensus, but I do think that it's a pretty standard opinion.

As for the "material difference" thing, sure. I think almost everyone would agree with that. My problem is that I believe Rowling is using it as a dogwhistle to argue that (most) trans women are not meaningfully women.

I have read that article. She argues obliquely that trans women are not women[1], and she suggests that trans women are often dangerous predators[2]. Her statement that "trans rights are human rights" is an intentional dismissal of that opinion as a form of virtue signaling[3]. She may believe that some trans women are women, but in general she believes that there is a "material difference" between trans women and women.

As for the term "people who menstruate," I could see how that could be true. I could also see a term that's designed to specify a subset of women (pre-menopausal cis women who menstruate) as well as a subset of trans men. It is not being used as a general replacement for "women"; it is specifying the relevant people more precisely than the word "women" would. Isn't that specificity and accuracy what we want to see?

[1] "I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria."

[2] ", I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."

[3] "It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow."

That's an interesting example, but I think to some extent it contradicts the idea of orthodox privilege. When you offered that alternative, it doesn't seem like you were chastised or marginalized; instead, you were thanked for offering a useful perspective (one I agree with!).

There are definitely going to be examples of people going too far, and making wedge issues out of things that shouldn't be wedge issues. But I think it's worth noting that in general, the opinions that are heavily stigmatized are ones that are insulting or hurtful toward specific people or groups.

I'm sure I am!

Look, there are not a lot of great polls about people's opinion on whether sex and gender are different. PRRI has a poll on general support for trans people (https://www.prri.org/research/americas-growing-support-for-t...), which suggests that 62% of Americans support letting trans people serve in the military and a plurality oppose bathroom bills. It also shows that a majority of Americans believe that there are only two genders, but only 43% of Americans believe that "strongly," and of course you could believe that sex and gender are different while also believing in only two genders. I don't see clear proof one way or another, but this poll suggests that probably about half of Americans believe that gender can differ from sex. (I'll admit that for non-Americans, it's probably much lower.)