Nimitz14

> This latest development should certainly call into question the haphazard rules and procedural tricks that allot Trump the power to decisively tip the scales of justice in his favor. Pressed further, one might also ask: Why should the Supreme Court, an unelected body that is richer, whiter, and more male than the United States is, continue to have such outsized power in the lives of ordinary people

I think the arguments (that go against yours) in this article are relevant: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-case-for-e...

Your narcissism is showing.

The primary role of leaders is communication, so I'm a bit confused by this idea that the leader is whoever "does" the most. You're not leading much of anything if you have time to do the work yourself I believe.

In no serious field does one do a PhD in 3 years in Germany.

Ever heard of pybind11? It's easy as fuck.

Uk is the outlier here.

> Nuclear also got much, much more expensive than it was in the previous century, making it economically completely unreasonable in the west.

Because we stopped building them. Of course costs are going to explode when every time you do it the people on the project are doing it for the first time.

I can totally understand why management is against this. German bureaucracy is a nightmare. I can't imagine anything good coming from a "workers council".

That's the point.

Oh so the internet and the endless distractions it brings with it existed in the 19th century as well? /s

You couldn't be more wrong. There is mountains of evidence that attention spans have shorted, and parent comment was a perfect example of that. Can't be arsed to deal with whatever you should be doing? Ctrl + pgdown to the twitch tab.

It should be obvious that it's more like 10 times smaller than Halifax, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten half the footage we are seeing right now, those people would be dead.

It was at night, of course you don't see the shockwave lol.

Tianjin was definitely bigger, Beirut has people surviving that were a couple hundred m away. That didn't happen in the former: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkDtMl5Ec7k

Great blogpost, thanks for sharing. I'm hoping the next 5 years will lead to enough improvement that accuracy levels will get high enough that users will feel more comfortable using voice interfaces. We'll see. It does seem to me like as long as it can only be used for commands it will never take off. But being able to do conversations consistently is a very hard problem.

The issue with defaulting to yes is that then you're going to be a hiring a lot of mediocre people who say just enough to appear "okay".

Absolutely terrible comparison, completely not relevant.

Seems to me like you made your mind up before even reading it.

> "Arbitrary" ways. It's spelled "arbitrary". There are a plethora of categorical little boxes that people can try to fit other people into, and some of those have value sometimes, but they often also cause people to see other people as only their boxes.

I'm sure PG would agree with your last sentence. But your point is irrelevant here.

> Imagine never having seen /r/PoliticalCompassMemes [2]. As gross as it is, this kind of quadrant-categorization isn't new.

Imagine assuming someone has never seen something just because they use an appropriate example to introduce a reader to a concept.

Also I don't see what's gross about the political compass.

> This is a setup for seeking minority status for free-thinkers. The problem with this is that "free" thought -- or "aggressively independent-minded" in PG parlance -- has no defined, characteristic ideas, by definition. A simple thought experiment here is the current political divide in the US. Are Trump voters the "aggressively independent-minded"? Are Democrats? Progressives? None of the above? If the definition of "aggressively independent-minded" contracts to, "me and a few people I like", then it's meaningless. Everyone with a strongly-held political belief in the US right now sees themselves as belonging to the rebel outgroup.

Whoever is loudly saying something that is unpopular is part of the "aggressively independent-minded" group. I think that should be pretty easy to understand. Note it does not mean they are right.

> This had to be the most astoundingly bad line in the whole essay. It rests upon a supernatural notion of some sense of "self" that is somehow independent of time and place; that the powerful formative forces of culture and society, especially throughout early childhood, would somehow not transform each and every one of us into utterly different people. There is no more polite way to say this than that that notion is, as far as I know, entirely unfounded in the field of human development.

Fair point, but I think one can assume that the probability of a person changing from one group to the other is symmetric, so in the end you'd get a similar distribution across the population regardless of where the individuals end up. The point he ultimately makes is still valid, most of them would have supported slavery.

> Okay, do yourself a favor, and read Joseph Yannielli's really excellent article, hosted on Princeton's site, on Princeton's role in opposing abolition: https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/princeton-and-abolitio....

> It's long, and it's historical, and it's forthright, and it's introspective. It also includes many quotes from educated opponents to abolition that, if you squint just a little bit, sound suspiciously similar to a lot of the "unacceptable" ideas that so many people right now are crying that they're no longer supposed to talk about outside the komfortable konfines of their klans.

The main similarity to today I spotted was young students being violent towards people with opposing views.

> Princeton themselves disagrees. At length.

One counterexample does not disprove the point. Do you really disagree with the idea that independent thinkers tend to go to university?

> This essay does not add to or resolve today's cultural conflicts in any amount.

I disagree and think it does add something.

Oh wow, I assumed mid twenties haha.

I feel conned.

Great read thanks for posting.

Great read thanks for posting.

Every single statement you made is wrong.

> “The Arrow was an extremely high-performance, hi-tech fighter,” says Coles. “Its designers had made very few compromises to keep its costs down, and it was very much the 'gold-plated' solution.”

Sounds like this is a cautionary tale of what happens when you do what some people here suggest; doing everything the 'right/best' way, instead of realising that being engineer means making compromises.

European society is based on capitalism. It is disingenuous to claim it is based on socialism. And regardless, income inequality is also a problem in Europe.

The person you are replying to was making the obvious point that noone knows a better system than the current one. Adding a bit more wealth distribution just means tweaking the system, rather than creating a new one, which is what the parent poster implied was needed.

Maybe you should try reading some of those hundreds of books, because you clearly haven't if you think "What happened is that the rich got richer and the poor have to work shittier and shittier jobs, work longer, retire later, &c."

Not really, usually what happens is the guy bringing in the investors overpromises and the feature isn't possible given the resources the startup has.

Notice I used the word "large".

England is the most modern of the large European countries and is obviously not what OP was talking about. He's right, both the regulations and the culture make Germany not a pleasant place to do business.

Yeah, these guys are going to get slapped back into reality so hard if this WFH thing really takes off.

> 80,000 deaths is more than double the current number of deaths in the UK, which is itself very high.

That is not relevant.

> This difference alone is the difference between deploying the army to build field hospitals and emergency seizures of industry to make it happen, or doing nothing. And it comes from floating point differences between AVX and non-AVX hardware.

No, 320k or 400k deaths will not make the difference to decide whether the army will be deployed.

If the 80k were the difference between 100 and 80100, then it obviously would impact policy.

What matters is the relative difference, not the absolute. How is this so hard for you to understand?

> It does make it invalid, when the difference between runs is as big as 80,000 estimated deaths which can lead to dramatically different government policies.

Wrong. Nobody decides policy based on whether there will be 320k or 400k deaths. What matters is the order of magnitude.

That's a huge intersection, and it sounds like you were crossing instead of just following Embarcadero, that's obviously a terrible idea.

> Homeschool kids are exposed to a much wider variety of social situations which develops a broad base of social skills and preparation for adult responsibility much more effectively than the stifling and artificial environment of public schools does.

You need to elaborate, it is not at all clear how homeschooling will lead to a kid being exposed to a much wider variety of social situations.