austinjp

It comes across as obnoxious because it means "I feel uncomfortable around people I consider unintelligent compared to me". The discomfort may be true but it demonstrates an absence of self-reflection.

There are many varieties of intelligence in many domains. If you find yourself in the company of someone you feel is less intelligent than you, try finding what they know about or care about. What have they experienced that you haven't? Or perhaps try finding a shared area of ignorance. Who knows, you might find they consider you dumb or naive in some way.

It is indeed very hard for some people to feel comfortable in social situations that are outside their prior experience or interests. But I'm inclined to agree with grandparent comment that this has little to do with 'intelligence'.

For anyone else who doesn't know what an L3C is, Google says it's L3C a low-profit limited liability company.

Huh. I just noticed this reply. Very odd. I certainly wouldn't equate Brevik with the Taliban. I've no idea what your point is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Taliban

Yeah similar, magit has never felt intuitive to me. FWIW, I have Emacs open in one terminal and lazygit open in another, with lazygit using Delta.

In other universes the more fortunate versions of yourself are eagerly collapsing waves because things just keep getting better :)

Perhaps there's a typo. I interpreted it as "brain being carried around _in_ a meat sack".

I'm not following your point, or are you 'just asking questions'?

Pakistan is certainly a place some people would want to flee from, Malala Yousafzai being the most obvious example of the terrors that have happened there.

> anyone that seeks a better future to avoid problems in their own country is a refugee, which could be a point of view but not one I (or dictionaries) agree with.

Um that's literally the definition of a refugee. Or perhaps your definition of "problems" needs clarifying?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/refugee

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/

For anyone else who gets a message about the content not being available in your region, it looks like this is the same story:

https://thehill.com/homenews/4021669-group-accused-in-225k-d...

Yes that's the one, thanks.

I don't have personal experience of working with the WHO, but what you describe reminds me strongly of health academia. Lots of very clever people, all with minimal/zero awareness of how to make data available in a computer-friendly way.

I suspect the data is available as a bunch of CSV files because that's exactly the raw data that has been produced. By hand. Then emailed to someone to dump onto a WordPress site, probably.

It makes me wince. But hey -- the data is online, the funder is probably happy, some overworked and underpaid staff muddled through the way they've done for a decade or more. Why change?

I'm pretty sure I've seen a SaaS that does this, but I can't remember the name.

Although surely it invites "yes, I can".

Many, many times :)

My point is that it's never described. Even in the detailed options for those cookie banners that permit you to tweak things. Sure, there are (some) details about "our partners" and advertising etc, but exactly how the service will be improved is never explained.

The reason is simple and obvious: nobody knows. Companies collect data in the belief it will be useful in improving the service, but generally chuck it into a data-swamp and occasionally rake it over to extract basic info like navigation routes.

I'm also rarely convinced that improvements can't be better determined by focus groups and other similar methods.

"Improving our service" is a glib catch-all that rarely stands up to scrutiny.

There may be specific examples where a cookie is genuinely the best method to improve a feature -- in which case: name the feature, list the metrics, declare success/fail criteria, and stop collecting the cookie after the decision has been made.

Edit: typos.

Yep, for Firefox, Chrome and Edge:

https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies

This is the generic reason that is always given, but I don't think I've ever seen exactly how the service will be improved and why cookies (or any uniquely-identifying data) are the only way to achieve the desired outcomes.

Very nice. Although perhaps you could do well to remove some sites from your intake. For example, while the following link is mild compared to its source material, it's hardly devoid of sensationalism:

https://www.boringreport.org/app/all/645a8edbcdaefdcdfe3806b...

Strange set of comments in this thread.

Personally, I'd not heard of k or kdb before so this was an interesting read.

The code is from 9 years ago, and looks to me like a proof of concept. It's a kinda stepping stone between the 90s approaches * mentioned in sibling comments and the bloat of the modern web.

* A truly amazing and dreadful time. The commercial (and artistic/indie) web pushed developers to twist immature technologies and create perverse superpowers. Never-closing responses in hidden iframes. Constantly exploiting JS engine bugs as features. Disgusting fun.

I know precisely zero about X other than being a long-term user. How hard is it to "wrap" xterm in something that provides tabs?

For the lazy/confused:

https://danluu.com/term-latency/

:)

> thoughts are a sense

This is a wonderfully simple, profound insight. Thanks for sharing it :)

Can you define what you mean by a serving? If the percentage of sugars is lower in skimmed milk (or full, whichever) then that will most likely raise blood glucose least, no?

There's also the personal factor to consider. Everyone has a unique metabolism. The only way to be sure is to take your fasted blood glucose levels then monitor your response after consuming a serving of a single food item. That food may raise one person's blood glucose more/faster than someone else's. Fortunately it's relatively easy to do this today for many people, although price and availability are variable.

You're well aware of the game you're playing, your argumentation is disingenuous. You have reframed and obfuscated the issue of climate change to suit your preferred narrative, and misrepresented the science. You have indulged in ad hominem attack by saying someone here is less educated than you, thereby flouting the site's guidelines while at the same time invoking them to hide behind them.

Regarding the papers you cite, you seem to have misrepresented the views of the authors.

You cite author J Brown [1]. Another of his papers [2] says "increased energy demand and climate consequences of burning fossil fuels will continue to accompany a rapidly urbanizing planet posing major challenges for global sustainability."

You cite a NASA report of a study, saying it denies mass extinction, and suggesting that global warming supports increased life by making polar regions habitable. The report and study do not support your position. The paper itself [3] cites [4] which stresses the importance of minimising climate warming via "net negative emissions". The authors also acknowledge that "most models lack a representation of regionally important ecosystems (peatlands, wetlands)" the destruction of which they note as "negative".

Your citing of glaciation is frankly odd, and again the papers don't support your arguments. For example in [5] the authors say "it was the loss of habitat diversity [...] that triggered a drop in speciation rate, and subsequent loss of biodiversity." Further, they contradict your assertions by pointing out that biodiversity can increase in cooler zones: "cool-water niches were available to be filled, warm-tropical niches did not exist". However, to go further down this rabbit hole would be to indulge in your game of misdirection, and I've no intention of doing that.

In short, your posts in this thread appear entirely untrustworthy and you seem to be acting in bad faith. I notice you've posted climate change 'skeptical' content here previously. You suggest it is others who have been "programmed", but seem reluctant to examine the nature of your own susceptibility to misinformation, which frankly comes across as disdainful and superior.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Brown-37

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331075555_The_Centr...

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 and https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1038/nclimate3004.pdf

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1783

[5] https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1130/G32679.1.pdf

"Input into the creative process" is surely broader than simply "painted the portrait". Artists most certainly never consented to have their works used as training data. To this extent, they might be justifiably pissed off.

Artists and designers have furthered their careers (and gained notoriety) by 'ripping off' others since the dawn of time. This used to require technical artistic ability; now less so. The barrier to entry is.... not necessarily lower now, but different.

Your point is what, exactly? Because "please" show me how >0 coal is okay, and where the current UK Govt has met its pledges regarding coal.

> UK got rid of coal

Not quite

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56023895

> This was all just circular reasoning.

Nice :)

Congrats. Looks like it will be useful for plenty of folks. Can you outline how it compares with e.g. NocoDB [0] and others mentioned in another comment [1]?

As for "getting started" speed and general data tinkering, I find little beats Gnumeric -> CSV -> SQLite query [2] although I appreciate that solo developers aren't your target market :)

[0] https://github.com/nocodb/nocodb

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35381252

[2] https://til.simonwillison.net/sqlite/one-line-csv-operations

Bingo. And not only is it a probability distribution, it's a constantly changing one.

Dude. Come on. Maybe start with asking your reports how you can help them, rather than jumping straight to quit/fire. And if that's not in your (literal, written) job description, it should be.