badcppdev

Why does America not have clear statistics on this?

Surely majority of opponents just point to school shootings as good reason to ban guns

That survey is almost the answer to my question so thank you for linking to it.

Guns were used in self defence in 0.9% of crimes where the victim of the crime was present. It doesn't state whether the gun was fired or not but given the low percentages of a gun being involved at all I guess there aren't many 'bad guys' being shot (or shot at).

Not from the US. What is a concealed carry law exactly and what does that mean with respect to robberies? Thieves will be able to see whether the person they are trying to rob is armed before they approach them?

Is the situation different in other states that do have concealed carry laws?

I'm just going to sound more callous and clarify that I didn't mean mass shootings just the kind of robberies shown in the article.

I'm sorry this sounds like a very simplistic and callous question but I'm not from the US. I know there are a lot of guns. Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis and it just doesn't make headline news? Or when a gun is being used in self defence against a robbery is it more likely that the potential thief sees the gun, runs away, and isn't shot (because most people don't actually want to shoot someone).

Healthcare statisticians would get upset with the careless use of that word. And they would call it out if used in a professional context.

Pedantry is about minor errors. I think it is careless to refer to millions of deaths like that.

But we might be coming with different expectations. This might be a serious discussion or it might be a casual internet discussion. Do you agree that if it's serious then people should be more careful with their words?

And if it's casual then are you complaining that I've strayed off topic?

Charities and humanitarian efforts are such a quagmire of problems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Fund_to_Fight_AIDS,...

Interesting for me because the example on the page: "2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference" shows a neatly presented timeline that is full of sentences with dates attached that have no consistency with their importance or theme.

Confirmation bias for me is: the software doesn't understand anything so the summary (or transformation) is nonsensical.

I was trying to write a reply to call out the use of that word. People need to be more careful with their language.

Another chess variant to make you think: https://www.chess.com/terms/duck-chess

But they will witness violence all the time through media of different types. Which affects you in a different way.

I remember working with a team where a new starter had joined and although he talked a lot in meetings I wasn't sure what he was contributing. I checked the code commits and he had committed 2 things in a couple of months.

It wasn't my team so I didn't cause a fuss but from that point onwards I made sure that he wasn't on the critical path for anything I cared about.

In hindsight the mismanagement on that team probably led to the exit 5 years later being $100-200 million lower than it could have been. But the company was super stingy with shares so I'm not sure it would have been worth my time rocking the boat.

In other hindsight I might have realised why I look angry while I'm at work.

You stated, "I don't know what BDSM looks like so it looks innocent enough to me". So you're stating that you're not informed about the background context of the imagery. It's really unfortunate that the photographer also did not know, research, or think about the imagery in their photoshoot. And specifically the juxtaposition with children.

At the risk of going close to Godwin's law I would say that a photographer publishing pictures of anti-semitic symbols is going to face negative feedback if they don't understand what they are photographing and present it appropriately. I'm not justifying threats of violence but criticism is definitely valid.

I was trying to talk about the photographer not having shown good judgement and how we should learn from that. If it involves sexuality, race, ethnicity, children, disabilities, or politics then professionals should probably think about whether they are qualified to do it appropriately.

There was another story on HN yesterday about Hospice care. So if you take babies, children, mentally ill people, and dying people what percentage of society needs to be protected in some form or another?

The photographer was hired to do a job and he did it. I doubt his reputation will be damaged by this.

Nevertheless I think he showed poor judgement. I doubt he could pretend that he didn't know that the teddy bears were sexually themed as BDSM styling is not that obscure. And it really feels to me that he should be paying attention to what he is photographing.

So I stand by my point that I hope that other professionals pay attention to what they are being asked to do and decide whether they will do it.

Humans deserve benefit of the doubt. I'm not so sure the same should apply to corporations

"Gabriele Galimberti, who shot the teddy bear ad but had no involvement with the spring campaign, said in a statement on Instagram that he too was given no control over the creative content of his shoot, other than details like lighting and framing. The content — pairing child models with the teddy bear bag — had already been decided before he was hired, he said."

There is a valid lesson here for all professionals including us Software Engineers. The photographer has demonstrated something about his willingness to do something for money regardless of whether it's a 'good' idea.

Take a step back and decide do I want to be involved in this?

Does it need to involve the government?

How about any aspect of human behaviour that involves people with a difference in economic, health, or educational levels will lead to an exploitative marketplace?

(Edit: ^ that looks like a slippery slope to Marxism which isn't intentional so please be gentle with your feedback)

As fertiliser for algae or in a direct chemical reaction that reacts with the CO2 in the water?

Super impressed by the units used on that map: Mm3/d = millions of cubic meters per day

Edit: Largest average effusion rate is 12Mm3/d which is 138 cubic meters per second. So if that were all in a single lava flow it could be as high as a person, as wide as a football field and moving at 2+ miles an hour. And basically unstoppable.

Clickbait spoiler: It's the Netherlands

Here's a randomly picked alternative article that isn't locked behind a Pay wall: https://dutchreview.com/culture/innovation/second-largest-ag...

I was about to say the writer doesn't seem to have been very careful with their words but then I checked the article and you have been very careless with your quoting because the entire next paragraph is very relevant the income of mothers.

Did you not read that far or did you choose to not include it for a reason?

Thanks for the excellent summary.

And very good point about the Overton window aspect of this issue. There's a large number of things in this world that might potentially be improved but people aren't allowed to discuss the problems or solutions freely.

"The thing that blows my mind is no one is even willing to try."

Your sleep deprivation is getting to you. Lots of people work 4x10.

I'm not a DDD advocate but it worries me that the blog author has not referenced the 2003 Eric Evans book "Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software".

Thanks. I couldn't see it because it disappears if you click on 'Play again' and reappears when the picture is solved

Nice and relaxing but I want to do another one now.

You could do a hex tile version as well

Swipe sideways left or right to turn left or right