elyobo

"Australia" has a low population density because most of it has close to no population; it's easy to be mislead by this if you're not aware of how the population is distributed within a huge area, but the areas where most people live do not have low population density. It's heavily urbanised (more so than the UK), with the vast majority of the population living in reasonably dense metropolitan areas.

It's the willingness and ability to take effective measures, not the geography, that matters.

I also miss missing the missus, but that hasn't been for a decade or so now, so I guess I can't blame COVID.

Well, presumably not straggling cattle.

I'm largely uninsured.

* I insure my car, because I'm not a good driver - I don't generally drive though, and would prefer to go without, but my wife wants one even though it would be cheaper to Uber everywhere that we actually travel.

* I own an apartment, and building corp levies include insurance on the building (but don't insure contents). This is an insurance I would keep even if it wasn't mandatory; the tail risk is too expensive for me to recover from.

* I have health insurance (in Australia, where the public health system is good) only for tax reasons (it would cost me almost as much _not_ to have insurance). Public health system is sufficient that this would not generally be required.

I should probably insure more (life, income protection, probably home contents, maybe but probably not actually useful health insurance).

I feel like this would make the most sense if it was presented with any context at all. Reading a low level and detailed spec is much easier if you have some higher level understanding of what they're talking about at all.

I can't find stats to back this up either way; funding seems to have grown in real terms over time, but I can't see real funding per capita which is probably the more relevant factor.

Sometimes it's painful, normally it's not, and yes - the longer lived it is the more painful it's likely to be.

no-ff merges are easier, but leave a messier non-sequential history of when things actually go out which is sometimes confusing when understanding why things are the way they are; I generally, but not always, judge it to be worth the pain!

Unsure how, but I've only had to work in small teams to relatively low complexity. Can you explain your use case for multiple development branches in the sense that I describe (just a combined endpoint for all merged features that have not yet been deployed).

I don't mean that as a problem, just that that's what I would do if I did it that way (and I don't see it as a problem, just the concomitant requirement for changing).

I have two long lived branches, develop and master.

* major features are done in feature branches, w/rebasing prior to merge

* minor stuff directly in develop

* master is auto deployed following successful CI, whenever we merge develop in to it

* we merge frequently, but not automatically

* we tag releases manually when we do merge

It's a more minimal version of git flow. Small teams so not much problem.

We could probably just drop the develop / master split and still be fine, but would force all changes to be in feature branches instead.

Daily mail? I'm going to need some more sources for whatever it is they're claiming.

It was apparently a common confusion.

https://daringfireball.net/2019/10/mails_message_action_tool...

"wild SQL-esque" should have been "wild SQL-esque thing I wrote to query the JSON"

We do something like this; one of the outputs of the data pipeline is an sqlite file that's deployed nightly along with code to App Engine. The sqlite stuff is all read only, read/write data for the app is stored in firestore instead.

We initially used json but ran in to memory issues; sqlite is more memory efficient and being able to use SQL instead of the wild SQL-esque is both faster and more reliable.

Yeah, I didn't think of that, and several people have pointed it out in the responses :) Agreed completely, if the silent :+1: option is there then a content free "me too" is a bit rude.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of GH specifically, but if you have the silent thumbs up option, then a "me too" with no meaningful contribution is a bit rude.

Yeah, that's fair, in the context of GH where you have the option of doing the thumbs up instead, a "me too" style comment is a little rude.

Yes, I think that adding the thumbs up feature (which people still use badly) was a good solution to that. It lets you give a "me too" response without cluttering up the comments, and without spamming the maintainers with notifications either - but if they do look they can see people expressing interest.

Yes, that's a fair point. Just "me too" doesn't convey a lot of extra information. Would "me to, because this would help solve my scenario xyz" be more helpful? What about "me too, because I also have the exact problem described" (which at least conveys that they've put more thought in to it than a totally light weight "me too")?

This is a really good article.

One thing that I found surprising was that the author considered comments along the lines of "Just chiming in to say that I would also really like this feature." to be rude. I would have thought it was helpful feedback; more people indicating the value of a feature seems helpful in assessing whether it's worth doing (if it's not obvious for other reasons).

> second month of three

Well, we hope there's only three. The long range forecasts weren't looking great, with lower than average levels of rainfall up until April.

That sounds entirely reasonable, but was not at all what he said in the statement I quoted.

I don't think it works out that way. Thinking about politics as a single left/right continuum might make it seem like it would, but

* measuring distance to know how "far" they are is hard, so hard to say how far any given position is from the "median or average" viewpoint * hard also to measure not just the distance, but how common such a position is, which you'd need to do as well * harder still to do this over many different positions * harder still when you realise that, of course, the left/right thing is an incredibly simplified (although sometimes useful) way of looking at a complicated set of topics

For any individual "moderate" it seems very unlikely that they will end up "in the middle" even across a range of political topics.

For an aggregate of all "moderates", then it'll end up somewhere, but no reason to assume that it will be in the middle of things (even if you could determine where such a middle even was).

No, but his definition of "moderate" isn't anything to do with those, it's just "thinks for themselves instead of taking on a group of positions" - which can land you anywhere, potentially.

> Whereas an accidental moderate's opinions will be scattered over a broad range, but will, like those of the intentional moderate, average to about 50.

This is only the case if left and right are equally right and wrong, which is unlikely to be the case. The average place of an accidental moderate could be anywhere, even to the left of the left or the right of right right.

Assuming things about individuals based on group membership is a key part of racism, sexism, etc. Why would anybody be worried? Because people do it all the time.

The article suggests that you can do the opposite of that (use traits of the individual to reasonably accurately infer that they're male or female).

The parent's concern is that, given you know someone is male or female, you will make further assumptions about them based on their group membership rather than their individual traits, something that is not supported by the article.

> I am a strong believer that individual differences are more important than sex differences.

TBH, I don't know how anyone could not feel disturbed by that at all.

That said, I feel anything to do with children being victims much more viscerally now as a parent than I did before.

I don't think anyone is missing it, it's just that it's too obvious to warrant discussion (they article does not try to hide that) and beside the point unless your specific allegation is not that it's advertising, but that it's fabricated.

I'm a parent and I'm not sure why the idea that parents should protect their children is somehow controversial.

In this case it should not be necessary - the world should be a better place, without these sick assholes preying on children. However it is not a better place and so parents need to be aware.