wickerman

I read this entire thing and don't understand what's the issue - is it that Epstein is trying to fund people who might give a scientific "excuse" for his criminal behaviour or it's just "scientist took money from bad man, bad scientist", because if it's the latter we might as well shut down NASA and the space program since it was funded by Nazis, etc etc.

Edit: I do think that Harvard, et al singing praises to him knowing he was a pedophile is wrong. But the article is really confusing as to what is trying to say (and it wouldn't be the first time science and human rights abuses or crimes are associated).

My biggest problem with challenges like this in interviews is that sometimes they give you a problem to solve through, say, pure OoP when the challenge itself can be better approached using other paradigms (i.e. functional, or if the problem is very data centric, plain old SQL!)

I don't think the word performance is key, but rather /user experience/.

Seconding the request for info about this.

She still can apply for pre-settled, and there would be no reason she couldn't get it if she has a national insurance number. I've been in the country only for 3 or 4 months and got pre-settled status within a day of applying.

You'll need to have applied for settled/pre-settled status, I'd imagine, unless an Irish citizen. And then ask the immigration officer to check gov.uk for you, because there's no actual legal paper or ID issued that you can carry with you.

Everyone in my facebook groups have been freaking about is how they're actually going to implement it. Anyone arriving the week of the 31st of October has no way of proving they did so. Even if you have applied as pre-settled or settled there's no physical paper or stamp or anything that you can show to an immigration officer. There's only a government page where you can check your status. I honestly don't know how they're going to control their borders.

   “The site’s now characteristic tone of performative erudition — hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative — often masks a deeper recklessness,”

I've been surprised to find many cases where it's the complete opposite. A lot of people here are surprisingly level-headed and progressive, and not as 'hyperrational' as other parts of the internet.

I started out my career as a 19 year old in business intelligence and old school data warehousing, and only in the last three years been able to properly apply my skills in the world of big data as a data engineer, and I've found that regardless of the fancy titles the kind of stuff I do is exactly the same. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that because "data engineering" is disassociated from the notion of traditional warehousing, you get lots of "experts" who have never heard of an ETL and think about software instead of data pipelines.

And with data scientists, I've found that it's a mix of a) people who did mathematics or physics degrees suddenly getting into computer science b) senior analysts learning how to power up their analysis and c) computer science graduates who went on to do phd in data science

Working with them my humble opinion is that a) you can't ignore the software aspect of your job, meaning that you need to understand basic database principles, parallel computing, SQL, etc. b) you also need to understand that it's not about how fancy your algorithm is, but also how it can be quantified, how you can manage the life cycle, how you maintain it, etc.

Just travel off-season. I went to Venezia, Firenze and Milano last year in October. Barely saw any more people than I would see anywhere else in the off peak of, say, Dublin. Smelt nice, had no problem with crowds, weather was gorgeous.

I can travel off season because I don't have children, and I can take time off at any point in time during the year. The problem of congestion really is for people with families or who don't can't take time off outside "summer" months.

Yep, fully aware of his pedophilia. But the thread is not about morally upstanding people, rather of people who chose to start something in their middle age.

You might also want to point out that by the time he became a full time painter sale of paintings was also super low so it wasn't that the decision was purely because stock brokering was a less desirable outcome. He knew he was choosing a life of poverty.

I always remind myself that Paul Gauguin started painting for the first time at 35, and almost at 40 decided to stop being a wealthy stock broker to live as a painter. Regardless of the ethics of that decision (he did leave everyone in his family behind, after all) I do think it's pretty impressive that he picked up a profession like that so late and developed it in such an impressive way (I love his artwork, I think it's incredibly beautiful).

I think it's also because of family. When you're young, you might be single or childless - fresh out of college. At 35 you might have a kid or two and you want to save enough money to put them into a good school and retire early.

I didn't know about this at all! Why is it not done anymore?

Oh man I'm the only data engineer I know who actually studied computer engineering. It's all right dude, it's just a title.

Data engineering is not data science. Data engineers deliver the data for data scientists, data scientists use the data in models.

The amount of harassment that citizens of any state that the US claims to hate at any given time endure on a daily basis is disgusting. Exiled iranians living outside of Iran for 20 years have got their bank accounts closed solely for being Iranian. I can't help but think that these internet services will be going that way in the future.

The fact that the "free software" community is not putting their foot down for this is disgusting. Especially when there's so much back-patting when it comes to "the value of the community". Where's the community for crimean or iranian developers?

US: actively developing weapons of mass destruction. Has committed several war crimes and illegally occupied territories in the middle east. Actively funded and continues to fund international terrorism. Israel: ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories in Palestine.

Yet Crimea, Syria and Iran are the bad guys (btw Iran was funded by the US - yes same regime that now the US cries against).

>That is a lazy excuse - literally the cheapest diets are vegan. Rice&dal will give you both calorie intake and protein at a cost of less than a dollar a day (which is why a lot of the world's poorest people subsist on it...).

The world's poorest people subsist on it but tell of how nutritiously healthy they are solely because they eat rice.

>Prosecuting? On what legal grounds?

You know that any country at any point in time can create any law they want, particularly when they want to preserve the environment. If there isn't legal grounds, one can be created. (My point here is not that this should be a law - there's better ways to go about getting companies to be a bit more eco friendly than just banning. What I try to say that we should be shifting the focus a lot more on companies rather than people, because they are the biggest contributors to this mess than poor Jose who works at the factory 9-6).

The rest of the stuff seems to be heavily localized, I don't see a point in addressing points that don't pertain to my culture. Most of my countrymen's generation knows a lot about food and cooking. I knew how to make 6hr dishes at 12. Most of my friends are very capable of cooking. We only eat fresh vegetables and beef/chicken because it's cheaper than anything else.

On the life choices, again, this is stuff that we all do in my country because we're poor. We all recycle, we don't have fast fashion chains, we don't constantly buy phones, etc. I grew up buying things from "dispensaries" i.e. you take a bottle to get refills, and you pay for the content because it's cheaper.

I'm not disagreeing that you can't do anything to be slightly more green. My point is that the reason vegans get mocked is because instead of trying to propose solutions that help other people they make assumptions about other people's (especially the poor) lifestyles instead of trying to work with them to find a good, sustainable solution.

That's why I started my post with "in my part of the world". Beef is not that expensive and it's an incredibly efficient source for both calories and protein, both which are essential for say, construction workers. Students don't need to be doing heavy lifting 9 hs a day.

Food access is not the same everywhere in the world. If she could buy organic food in her time in her place of the world then more power to her, but don't assume that access to fresh food is the same everywhere in the world.

It may be different in different parts of the world, but where I'm from vegans tend to be middle-class/upper-class people who are blissfully unaware of how class barriers dictate the way you eat. And instead of trying to engage with it meaningfully (i.e. understand and propose ways for poor people to live on a vegan lifestyle when $$$ is tight and calorie intake needs are bigger) they just believe that anyone can live the same way they can afford.

My personal pet peeves are that a) some of the arguments for veganism try to convince me that I should not eat animals because they're sentient beings and since the 70s we've started to see evidence that the concept of "sentience" is very very ephemeral and that plants also exhibit intelligent behaviour. I think this argument is incredibly homo-centric and I honestly find it a bit insulting to my own beliefs.

b) the concept of going vegan being environmentally friendly is fine to me, but it's not just about not eating cattle. It's also about reducing carbon footprints of industrialised food production (i.e. going back to eating seasonal veggies!). Most vegans just eat whatever has the "vegan" label (i.e. quinoa) regardless of the fact that for it to get to their hands it had to be transported in a non environmentally friendly way.

c) the biggest environmental offenders are companies. Instead of focusing on who's eating meat I'd rather start prosecuting companies with large carbon footprints.

Well I know that in places in China with similar issues the chinese are basically "importing" wives from Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. As for India, I'm not Indian but all of the indian women I've worked with were in arranged marriages or in "matches" that had been made by their parents. Obviously India is a big place but they were all from different areas (two punjabi, one from center-west India, one from Kerala in the south, one from north east). I was told that it's very widespread. I wouldn't know how this translates for men but it seems like it's not like in the west where men or women have to search for their partners themselves; families and match-making sites are a lot more prominent (any Indian around please feel free to correct me).

With leather I've found that price doesn't always match quality. I dance tango and am from Argentina and the cheapest leather shoes I could find, which were exquisitely crafted in my local neighbourhood were only about 200 pesos (at the time, roughly 20 USD), made of leather, still perfectly usable 5 years later. If you went to the "speciality" stores downtown you would see shoes at 10 times the price and noticeably worse quality.

(I say this because I used to side eye any cheap leather items, but I've found that depending where you're buying and who you're buying it from it can be an absolute bargain)

In all fairness the article details that the original owner was able to own the piece in the first instance on very shaky grounds, getting a nod from the right people in the Fish and Wildlife service:

"Even then, the government revisited the issue in 1998. Rauschenberg himself had to send a notarized statement attesting that the eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders long before the 1940 law went into effect. Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum. The piece is on a long-term loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which Mr. Lerner said insures it, but the policy details are confidential."

I appreciate the intent behind the law, but this is one of those situations where a sensible argument could be made that a stuffed bird from before the law was put into place is hurting no one.

I think this highlights why these discussions have shifted from "global warming" to "climate change", as stuff like this might give people the impression that global dimming will solve the issues caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Edit, was reading through it - I find it'd be interesting to note that in some cases the dimming effect actually amplifies warming:

>Brown clouds have been found to amplify global warming according to Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. "The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of global warming by greenhouse gases through so-called global dimming... While this is true globally, this study reveals that over southern and eastern Asia, the soot particles in the brown clouds are in fact amplifying the atmospheric warming trend caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50 percent."

I changed OS, had to reinstall, then forgot about it. I also don't browse as much as I used to? I'm mostly working on personal projects when I'm home, so I barely spend time outside of podcasts or youtube videos.

The more you know! I am ashamed to say I barely know anything about them despite them being persistent pests in my life.

I remember disabling Javascript for a couple of months in Chrome some time ago and it barely broke anything. Had a great browsing experience. This might be because of my own personal preferences when it comes to sites, but I don't think that JS is a necessary evil in today's modern web.