456 karma · joined May 6, 2011
He states very clearly in his introduction what the scope is, how it's being translated and the problems with both translating ancient text from unfamiliar cultures and translating a work that's only partially complete and how he's approached both issues
I don't think this open debate you're talking about actually happens much on social media. At least, outside of a few select Subreddits, I've very rarely seen it.
Does buying YouTube not count?
On this subject specifically, see the records & tuples proposal (currently at stage 2): https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple
While nobody's fault, imho we'd have been much served by admitting that they're not comparable and doing something else (e.g. add an extra qualifier to the grade or something) than by trying to make them comparable and obviously and predictably failing at it.
This can also be explained by teachers assessments being an accurate representation of students ability, but students traditionally not faring as well in exams as their ability would suggest due to exam taking being an additional unrelated skill.
fwiw though, you only need to look at some of the outliers to see that the algorithm failed. It's all very well to say that it produced a consistent result in general, but each result specifically applies to an individual person so needs to be fair to each person as well as in general.
fwiw the name George in English can be applied to women as well as men (though only rarely I guess). See for example Famous Five books
This is a bad take. Hey is a subscription service. If you buy a magazine from a newsagent and then sign up to a subscription from it, the newsagent doesn't get to claim 30% of the subscription fee.
[1] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...
I'm not old enough to remember football hooliganism in the 80s and before, but abroad at least, it was very far from solved by the 90s - which is why passports are taken away.
> than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity
Without commenting on how effective any of this is, you won't hear about prevention because it isn't news.
It's worth pointing out that Tory MPs absolutely voted for him before Tory party members got the chance to, and that if MPs in general don't like him then they can vote to bring down the government whenever they like. Quite why non-Tory MPs should get to pick who leads the Tory party I have no idea.
Sure. Where you actually put stuff depends entirely on the complexity of what it is that you're building. If you have an async function that you need to use in several places then it makes sense to keep it separate. If you have several of these then maintaining a separate container component for each view component that needs access to these quickly becomes unmaintainable.
On the other hand, keeping them as separate functions and adding them in via redux `connect` syntax and `mapDispatchToProps` is simple and makes it clear what's going on. In this scenario, the `connect` higher-order-component acts like the container class, but it built up from separate parts depending on what you need.
> redux-thunk seems to encourage that you use it for everything
I don't think this is true. redux-thunk is a piece of middleware and that's pretty much it. It should be used however is most appropriate for your application and your particular use case. Keeping state inside components isn't always appropriate, but isn't always a bad thing either. If one is growing too complicated, then perhaps the other is more appropriate.
The benefit of redux-thunk (and there are obviously other alternatives that provide the same value) is that it lets you write plain functions that have nothing to do with the store, and nothing to do with components. If you put all your business logic into these plain functions, then they're really easy to test, reason about, move, refactor, etc.
> What drives people to put all of that into their store?
It's worth pointing out that redux-thunk doesn't move async code into your store. The store (i.e. reducers) is still completely synchronous.
Not that these doors aren't terrible design (they are), but notice how the stick figure is facing towards the handle when they open it, but the man in the image is facing away from the handle and reaching behind him to open it. If he turned around to face the other way before trying to open the door, he'd find it a lot easier.
The alternative to school was for girls to help out around the house until they were married off and for boys to either learn their father's trade and then do that for the rest of their lives or get apprenticed off to whoever could take them and then do _that_ for the rest of their lives.
School helps children create a life for themselves. If children don't learn anything there they'll find far fewer paths open to them later on.
> The goal should be to try harder to use less code
Why is this the goal? At best it's a performance optimisation that some (probably most) sites could use to speed up time to render. But at the same time, there are many other sites where this doesn't make sense or for which the purpose isn't the traditional document based web that is sped up by removing JS. Why should sites that actually benefit from something like WebAssembly be limited just because other sites will use it and (continue to) be slow bug ridden monsters?
The goal is to deliver content and experiences that people actually want, it has nothing to do with the amount of code at all.
At best, using less code might be a performance optimisation (though not always).
That is, he's saying explicitly that women find leadership roles more difficult. Generally if somebody finds something more difficult they're not as good at it as people who find it easier. As a result I'm not sure how this could be taken any other way than stating that men are better managers simply because they're men.
> When you don't have facts to back you up you can just make up whatever story you want "Encryption kills your kids" will get shared on facebook no worries.
If the brexit debate taught us anything it's that people can see BS in arguments from a mile away and, when it happens on both sides they dismiss all the facts and go with their instincts. There are some really good arguments against what the UK government is trying to do. I think dressing them up with falsehoods does nothing to advance them.
> Given the gravity of what’s at stake – which is nothing less than the integrity of personhood in the digital age and the future of democracy in Europe
So banning encryption in online chat programs (she obviously can't and won't be banning _all_ forms of encryption) is the same as destroying democracy and will effectively stop people from existing as people on the internet?
> Translation: We want to ban encryption and if we do we will be better equipped to catch terrorists.
in response to a direct quote saying "we don't want to ban encryption" is a bold and unsubstantiated opinion at best.
> Does it matter that you’re more at risk dying from falling out of bed than you are from terrorism
All analogies are bad, but this one is especially so. Nobody worries about dying falling out of bed. And if it really did happen, then it would be "merely" a tragic accident. Should the government only act to prevent types of murder if it happens more than people falling out of bed? A lot of people die of heart disease every year. Does that mean the government shouldn't do anything to try and prevent traffic accidents?
> Translation: We want to scapegoat the Internet as the root of the problem with terrorism.
This again is clearly not what's being said. They're aiming their guns at the internet, but nowhere is it implied that the root cause of terrorism is internet encryption.
> It is not the role of multinational corporations to police the world’s citizenry.
This is true, but those corporations cannot also place themselves above the law so they do have at least some duty, moral or otherwise to do something if the government wants them to (setting aside the specifics of the laws involved).
> Rudd pivots from the government’s successful battle against the spread of public propaganda by terrorist organisations to their belief that they need to eavesdrop on the private communications of every citizen in order to keep us safe.
I assume I missed something somewhere because afaict Rudd wants to be able to listen in on and extract evidence from private communications of suspects, much like they already do with telephone systems. I can't see anywhere she claims to want to actively listen to the entire population (though I fully get that it may end up that way on the basis that they've up to this point proven that they don't understand the technology well enough).
> You should take note of the companies that are part of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and never trust another word they say to you about the encryption and privacy features of their products.
Feel free to stop using everything that most tech companies produce but if if this is intended to be actual advice I don't think it's realistic.
> What it will do is make all of less safe and lead to chilling effects that will destroy what little democracy we have left. It will result in a surveillance state and a global panopticon the likes of which humanity has never seen.
Having just gone through a general election that resulted in a rare minority government and, potentially as a result, a fundamental change to brexit ambitions, I don't buy this at all. We have just as much democracy as we had before. It's a very very long way from where we are now to the UK government locking up leaders of the opposition for example.
I expect exaggeration from Rudd and I expect her to misunderstand how certain things (i.e. encryption and the internet) really work because a) she's a politician b) she's not an encryption expert (that's what advisors are for). I don't really expect the same thing from people should be trying to counter her arguments with facts, explanation and alternative ideas though.