1,387 karma · joined May 19, 2016
Also, hoe vs plow agriculture tended to do with the availability of domesticated draft animals, not the hardness of the soil. The first plows appeared after oxen were domesticated in Mesopotamia. This did have an effect on the gender distribution of agriculture, not because women couldn't use hoes, but because they couldn't handle plows driven by draft animals.
If you exclude any garbage-collected language, you're basically left with Ada, C, C++, some of the "C/C++ successors" (Zig, D, Carbon, maybe Nim), and Rust.
Right, and that's what the rest of my sentence was meant to convey. However, the author goes to great extent to obfuscate this fact, as this faq demonstrates: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...
Not once in that 2000-word rant does Ole outright state that citation is entirely voluntary, and not a condition of the license. Instead, he describes the notice's "GPLv3 compatibility" in a way that incorrectly states you must either respect the license notice or treat the software as it is not open-source. He also responds with vitriol to people who do choose to fork his software, as evidenced here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674
I wouldn't have a problem with the program's current behavior if it simply made you type 'i understand' instead of 'will cite', and made clear that it was a non-binding request. As is, the program attempts to sound like a license agreement while Ole insists to maintainers it is not.
Why? Whether something has contributed meaningfully to my research is my decision, not Ole's. Not having light "hinders my science", so I'll be sure to cite Edison on all my papers.
I agree with the sibling commentator that Ole's behavior is jerkish. Not because he asked for citations, but that he misleads users by claiming his request is standard, when it is decidedly not. He also obfuscates the voluntary nature of his request as much as possible, to make it seem like citing is a legal requirement. And he is inflammatory in responding to people who make the perfectly valid decision to not cite him, or to patch the notice out.
Asking for citations is fine. But GNU parallel wants to treat it like a requirement of using the software, without making it a condition of the copyright: "== Is the citation notice compatible with GPLv3? ==
Yes. The wording has been cleared by Richard M. Stallman to be compatible with GPLv3. This is because the citation notice is not part of the license, but part of academic tradition."
This is disingenuous, because citing every tool you use in preparing a scientific work is not part of academic tradition. And the statement that "If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing." doesn't make any sense in the "academic tradition" framing. If Ole thinks citations are required by academic tradition, that shouldn't change if I pay him enough money.
"If you disagree with Richard M. Stallman's interpretation and feel the citation notice does not adhere to GPLv3, you should treat the software as if it is not available under GPLv3. And since GPLv3 is the only thing that would give you the right to change it, you would not be allowed to change the software.
In other words: If you want to remove the citation notice to make the software compliant with your interpretation of GPLv3, you first have to accept that the software is already compliant with GPLv3, because nothing else gives you the right to change it. And if you accept this, you do not need to change it to make it compliant."
And this is legal nonsense. If I release something under a license, and then break that license, that doesn't nullify the original license. Claiming otherwise would allow me to un-copyleft someone else's code.
However, if you substitute abstract shapes (blocks, balls, etc.), your point absolutely stands up.
In some ways, though, isn't it more interesting to have an intelligence that learns in a completely different way from humans, as opposed to one that learns through essentially the same method?
The electoral college was created because it was expected that state governments would elect the president, not citizens. In the presence of direct election of the president, it's an anachronism at best. It was never about "tyranny of the majority", and in a two-party system, trying to prevent the tyranny of the majority is just a tyranny of the minority.
If you want, weight the votes so votes in small states count more, or votes in rural areas count more. It'll still be a much more fair and equitable system than the electoral college, which effectively means that anyone outside a swing state has no representation.
Of course, doing it that way would make it much more obvious that there's no credible reason we should give 1,000 suburbanites Wyoming more voting power than 1,000 farmers in rural California, or 1,000 voters in Columbus more power than 1,000 voters in Brooklyn.
>A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views.
I'm interested in hearing how the process for selecting speakers currently works, as well as how the signatories would like it to be changed. If a single faculty member wishes to invite a speaker, does that give that speaker the right to talk in an official capacity? What if a speaker has no support on campus? Are they entitled to be hosted by MIT? If not, are they being 'restricted from expressing their views'?
Quantum theory didn't completely overrule how physics works at large length scales. Relativity didn't completely overrule how physics works at slow speeds & sub-planetary length scales. These are the 'apparent exceptions' to the laws of physics Michelson refers to, which lead to 'the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions'. Validating both of those required 'extreme refinement in the science of measurement'. Look, for instance, at the 50 year effort required to validate the Bell Experiment.
Michelson further backs up this point in the next paragraph, where he provides several examples where precise measurements similarly lead to new science. Even more, look at his call to action: "Every means which facilitates accuracy in measurement is a possible factor in a future discovery".
His argument isn't dismissive of new science because it only leads to small differences in measurement. It's supportive of small measurements because it's required for new science.
"It may be well to reply to the very natural question: What would be the use of such extreme refinement in the science of measurement? Very briefly and in general terms the answer would be that in this direction the greater part of all future discovery must lie. The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. Nevertheless, it has been found that there are apparent exceptions to most of these laws, and this is particularly true when the observations are pushed to a limit, i.e., whenever the circumstances of experiment are such that extreme cases can be examined. Such examination almost surely leads, not to the overthrow of the law, but to the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions.
As instances of such discoveries, which are in most cases due to the increasing order of accuracy made possible by improvements in measuring instruments, may be mentioned: first, the departure of actual gases from the simple laws of the so-called perfect gas, one of the practical results being the liquefaction of air and all known gases; second, the discovery of the velocity of light by astronomical means, depending on the accuracy of telescopes and of astronomical clocks; third, the determination of distances of stars and the orbits of double stars, which depend on measurements of the order of accuracy of one-tenth of a second—an angle which may be represented as that which a pin's head subtends at a distance of a mile. But perhaps the most striking of such instances are the discovery of a new planet by observations of the small irregularities noticed by Leverier in the motions of the planet Uranus, and the more recent brilliant discovery by Lord Rayleigh of a new element in the atmosphere through the minute but unexplained anomalies found in weighing a given volume of nitrogen. Many instances might be cited, but these will suffice to justify the statement that "our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." It follows that every means which facilitates accuracy in measurement is a possible factor in a future discovery, and this will, I trust, be a sufficient excuse for bringing to your notice the various methods and results which form the subject matter of these lectures."
Light Waves and Their Uses. By Albert A. Michelson. Published by The University of Chicago Press, 1903, pp 23-25.
Michelson was arguing exactly the opposite of the position you imply. In context, "the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote" is referring to the fact that new physics (e.g. relativity) tends not to invalidate the older physics which approximate it (e.g. newtonian dynamics) in common situations.
I suppose that says something about the descriptiveness of type signatures, or the generality of Haskell's functions.
Part of the problem is "ancient Roman concrete" is the epitome of selection bias. We basically know why it's strong, and can basically recreate it, but it would take a very long period of process optimization and corrosion testing to get a consistent product we're sure has a long lifespan.
If you want something to last 1000 years, you may be better off cutting it out of a hard, stable stone (like granite).
My [Citation needed] was for your assertion that "many" are making that claim. I emphasized the difference between the two claims. Your version of the claim is that it's impossible to relate to characters of different demographics. The non-strawman version of the claim is that the how and when demographics are represented impacts people's perception of those demographics. If you want me to cite people claiming the above, I can. If you want me to cite evidence for the claim, I can also do that.
>You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household.
For someone complaining about people not imaging themselves in the shoes of others, you're sure slow to imagine yourself in the shoes of others. Read some of the comments in this thread, and you'll find plenty of examples of people who never considered that they could do something, because of their race or gender. At least, until they saw examples of positive representation in media.
Have you considered that the reason other people had difficulty imagining themselves doing something when you didn't may be because of the different messages you received growing up rather than them being prejudical?
>it is still a personal choice to see the world that way
This isn't as relevant to my point, but I would absolutely argue this isn't true. If societal systems exist (as you seem to admit) that discriminate based on race and gender, is it a personal failing when those systems make you aware of your race and gender? Have you considered that the reason you are less aware of your race and gender than others may be due to the fact that your race and gender has had less impact on you than others' has on them?
[Citation needed]
I don't think you could find an example of even one feminist claiming that you can't find representation from people with different demographics to you. This is not what people are claiming when they say "representation matters". In fact, minorities are MUCH more likely to find representation outside their demographic, out of necessity if for no other reason. What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them.
In other words: Yes, a black woman can empathize and relate to characters of any gender and race. But that's not a good argument that we shouldn't correct the underrepresentation of black women in media and STEM. It's also not an argument that black women won't be helped by seeing increased representation in media and STEM.
I'm assuming this is a good faith misunderstanding, but if it's not, it's a very good example of what you call "twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe".
Line 43-55 is the scrutinee (pattern) of the case statement. It only binds values to the given variables and enters the block if `node` matches the quite complex structure shown there.
The alternative would be doing something repetitive like this:
if not isinstance(node, WithStmt):
return
expr = node.expr
if not len(expr) == 1:
return
if not isinstance(expr, CallExpr):
return
callee = expr.callee
if not (isinstance(callee, NameExpr) and callee.name == 'open'):
return
... etc ...
Mostly factual, but with a strong conservative/right-libertarian spin/bias.
All of it freezes on contact with solid surfaces, often the eyes and exposed body parts of the victims.
Here's a good (SFW) video demonstrating an arc flash: https://youtu.be/bPifdBpcMRY
I'd like to use 'or' more often, but it always makes me stop to think "Could this get passed a falsey value?" I've seen a lot of Python bugs because people used "x or 5" when they needed the much uglier "5 if x is None else x".
Annealing is actually a process to soften metal (and sometimes to remove internal stresses), decreasing strength but increasing ductility and toughness. Like simulated annealing, higher temperature allows the material to jump over larger metastable hills in order to reach a more relaxed, lower energy structure.
In annealing, the temperature usually needs to be lowered slowly, because cooling introduces stresses and, to a lesser degree, because the thermodynamically favorable structure changes with temperature. Quenching (cooling quickly) creates residual thermal stresses, and locks in the high temperature structure, which is metastable at lower termperatures.
Another thing to consider is heat waves are much worse in regions without reliable or universal air conditioning. This could explain the much higher death tolls in South America compared to North America.
(With apologies to Wayne Gretzky)
It's a 0.049997% difference, not a 10x difference.
In an unsealed environment, the steady state will be related to amount filtered * % filtered / amount exchanged for any given time period. The difference in % filtered is not a significant factor in the above ratio.