allthenews

>Kennedy pointed out that the legal professional style to which students learn to assimilate is “overwhelmingly white, male, and middle class.”46 But the Socratic method’s encounter with gender, race, and class diversity might related- ly occasion worry about exclusion or oppression in a more tangible way. That is, if the Socratic method causes the kind of terror and disempowerment in students that some have observed, and is stylisti- cally white, male, and middle class, would it not also impose dispropor- tionate harm on students who are women, as well as on racial and class minorities?

Of course the article is much more expressive than what I wrote-it is a summary.

I didn't inject ideology into this discussion. If you want to be consistent this article shouldn't be allowed either. This is blatant racism, sexism, and classism.

There's a difference between having humans check IDs and storing facial [and other data] data in a database.

Your original comment partly reads thusly:

> it's ok to discuss violence in Black communities and cheating in Asia, but it would be racist to assert that because you are Black/Asian/White you are more predisposed to violence/cheating/racism

Your implication is that something cannot be true if it is racist. This is a non sequitor. Race should never have been brought up in the first place.

[flagged]

>racist to assert that because you are Black/Asian/White you are more predisposed to violence/cheating/racism

The fact that a conclusion is racist does not mean it is factually incorrect.

This isn't about what is "OK", this is about what is true.

Feel free to point out the irrationality of any part of my post.

You are resolving your cognitive dissonance by ignoring documented differences among cultures, which is fundamentally illogical. This seems to be an increasingly common pattern "in the modern workplace" and outside of it too.

What you should instead be doing is accepting that cultures are varied, but individuals must be given the benefit of the doubt in an ethical society.

>MDMA is risky, and you probably shouldn’t use it

I don't understand how the author can come to this conclusion after describing almost every mentioned paper as unreliable for one reason or another.

As far as I know there is still very little in the way of consistent and/or rigorous evidence that even moderate recreational doses are harmful.

I would argue that if it is this uncertain as to whether or not the drug is harmful, then it is unlikely to have significant detrimental effects. Subcultures tend to build stigma toward obviously dangerous substances - most drug users would caution you to stay away from heroin or meth, for example, because the damage is obvious. If harmful MDMA effects are so subtle as to be effectively undetectable in the collective anecdote of millions of recreational users, then at the very least occasional use must not be so risky.

How do we know that the universe isn't sitting on the back of a giant turtle?

Most of the math that we use is self-consistent, and our proof system is, as far as we can tell, relatively consistent with the known properties of the universe.

What I'm getting at is that no, we don't actually KNOW with 100% certainty that, for example, certain proven divergent series continue to diverge at infinity, if your standard for proof requires trial of an infinite span of numbers; but such speculation is so far out of the realm of what is known and "proven" according to our [mostly] self and externally consistent set of knowledge[1] that it is more or less in the realm of pseudoscience/metaphysics.

1. Excluding the Incompleteness Theorem

Perhaps I accept that there are more than 2-5 dimensions in the sphere of politics, and that occasionally one must compromise because no singular philosophy is perfect in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that an entire political ideology is at fault.

The modern political system would be far better off without this kind of (engineered?) rigid thinking.

As someone who leans libertarian, I tend to shy away from rigid legislative solutions to social problems and corporate overreach.

However, articles like this make me wonder if it isn't time for the government to step in and implement privacy regulations of some sort. I did not consent to have my movements tracked and ads sold to me by privately owned kiosks all over my city of residence.

OTOH, I don't know if I would trust the current government to implement such protections in a way that isn't self serving and possibly counterproductive. Shitshow all around.

>“It never made sense to me that it was possible to have a battery-powered car that could drive more than 300 miles but not have a battery-powered drone that could fly more than about 20 minutes,” he says.

I don't see why...drone flight requires substantial power output to counteract gravity, which increases in proportion to the battery mass. Unlike a rolling vehicle

This stinks of marketing gibberish.

The entire premise behind so called scientific experimentation is reproducibility. It is what allowed humans to move past superstitions, demonstration of consistent causes and effects.

This is why economics, psychology, etc. are called "soft" sciences. This absolutely is a crisis, because by definition ALL of these experiments are supposed to be replicatable and reproduced before they can scientifically be taken as truths of any certainty, and we're seeing that many modern fields, particularly medical, are operating based on potentially dangerously misleading experimental results.

And, since this is HN, possibly even maliciously misleading.

>AI is not good at subjective decisions of qualitative data

That's exactly the core strength of AI. It is what differentiates AI from hard coded solutions. Estimations(subjective decisions) based on correlations in fuzzy (qualitative) data.

In your example, you could take a set of data containing the net worths and other characteristics, e.g. birth zip code, spending habits, affiliations, and if there are any trends related to net worth, a properly architected neural network trained on the appropriate data could easily estimate subjectively on what amounts to qualitative data.

Manipulating data to "hit you in the gut" amounts to propaganda, of which people can be (rightly) wary, regardless of the veracity of the ultimate message.

Amphetamines at therapeutic dosages.

I've always wondered if my various general practitioners had primarily bullshit jobs following the rise of the internet.

I don't know what is more absurd: that the president uses a private medium like twitter as a seemingly primary channel to communicate with the nation, or that a private entity is being forced to operate as a public, regulated forum.

This comment comes off as intensely smug, from someone who has little experience with difficulty in dating.

Things are not so simple. In fact, the very nature of social interaction is such that it cannot be preemptively, logically broken down and solved.

Many men have trouble getting past step 1 on the dating apps you list. The funnel of capture, so to speak, from message to response can be extremely wide, both on and offline.

Of course, I believe I am describing the perspective of a male.

Well, probably by training the net under such conditions. Actually I see no reason that, with a sufficiently large and accurate dataset, a neural net can't be trained to pick out a "safe[enough]" emergency landing spot. And, a well trained net should be able to fly in any condition, including limited avionics, better than a human.

You might ask where this data will be coming from. I suspect 3D physics simulations are accurate enough that they could be used to generate data. Particularly if optimized for the physics behind helicopter handling.

I've read that the culprit is not toilet paper, but the face that we sit when we shit, while we ostensibly evolved to squat. So the bowels don't straighten out as they should, and the excessive pushing leads to pressure which gradually causes blood vessels to bulge over time.

Also, baby wipes work for adults too.

>driven in part by the effects of the opioid epidemic on younger adults in the U.S. and the impact of a severe flu season on older adults in other nations, two new studies suggest.

More likely we need to fix the socioeconomic circumstances that drive people toward opioids. Personally, I believe there is a complex cultural problem in the first world. We have it too easy, can subsist without working, and now that people are increasingly less religious, with nothing to do all day and nothing to replace god or community but vapid, consumerist materialism. So poor people turn to drugs to numb the emptiness in their lives. M Though I'm sure there's more involved.

Probably because any even implicit support for trump is dangerous on the internet, hence the qualifier.

Considering the extreme rarity of shark attacks, I imagine those resources would be better spent elsewhere.

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/trends/frequ...

I disagree. A proper mathematical formulation can imply a final "smallest dividend," presuming it accounts for observable behaviors. For example, I don't believe we have experimental evidence of, say, the Plank Length, but we are aware of its supposed existence.

In other words, mathematically rigorous physics can imply results far more certainly than loose logical "guessing."

I have first hand experience with such engineers, but I doubt this is unique to engineering.

Breaking down complex concepts from your expertise to an industry outsider can be a difficult skill. Especially if you're not aware of the level of understanding of your audience.

Why? Couldn't you just format the drives if you were that paranoid? Are they worried about some kind of hardware bugging or sub OS exploits while the owner is not looking?

>Amazon historically (and still kinda does) have a problem with getting perishables logistically to last-mile delivery points, whereas Walmart and Sam's Club have already figured this out and done it for a very long time.

I don't think getting groceries to store shelves counts as "last mile." The entire problem with last mile is that instead of delivering a truckload singular location, one is many delivering tiny shipments to scattered, irregular locations, which is substantially more time, labor, and fuel expensive, not to mention logistically more difficult.

Those coccoliths also make for fantastic oil bearing reservoir rock, provided certain conditions are met, otherwise chalk tends to make a good seal. Some of the most prolific oil fields in the world, in the north sea, come from fractured chalk beds.

For example, massive salt diapirs (think of them as giant, mountain sized fingers) 5-15 miles beneath the earth's surface are gradually squeezed, like a fluid, moving upwards and fracturing rock (and chalk) above, creating porosity and permeability necessary for oil production.

What does it mean for a reanimated woman from 42000 years ago to live a "normal" life in modern times?

I am excited to see more positive coverage of psychedelics. But every time threads like these pop up, there are people who claim to know people who came away from a trip with some kind of psychosis/anxiety disorder. I haven't reviewed the literature in some years; can anyone recommend any modern sources which document rates of poor outcomes post trip? I feel like, while odds are in one's favor, these drugs can be a coin toss, I'd like a better feel for the odds.