This is really cool. Plan to take some inspiration from your config!
121 karma · joined December 12, 2020
Such a treat getting someone with his experience just telling stories of the old days.
I use Vimium C and haven't looked back.
I find I stick to fish more because: 1. has more features that I like out of the box. zsh requires oh-my-zsh to get similar features and that's just another thing for me to install every time. 2. Help menu tab completion. Fish has many completions for common shell apps that will display descriptions from the help menu from just hitting tab. 3. Scripting is much better, while you might not use it much now it much now you don't have a hard corner to cut yourself on if you do need it at some point.
Jellyfin has been on the upgrade list for a while. I think what keeps me on plex is the level of integration.
i.e. home assistant, works on all my devices etc.
As much as its a little older, I find it just kinda works and I haven't really found any reason to upgrade yet.
also bought the lifetime pass so I get a bunch of extra features.
The company has been pretty decent with new apps and features.
I.e. the plexamp is amazing. Full poweramp like interface and feature richness from a self hosted music library. Feels like better self hosted spotify
Found it a lot easier than rolling my own AWS Glacier solution.
> Accordingly, and contrary to what is often suggested in popular books on the psychology of pornography (e.g. Zimbardo & Coulombe, Reference Zimbardo and Coulombe2015), men who face sexual problems and choose to terminate porn use may experience only marginal improvements in their sexual lives (assuming that we can draw causal inferences from our findings); similarly, women who face sexual problems might be well advised not to consider porn use to be a sexual panacea.
This is interesting for sure but you can't draw sweeping conclusions from this research.
This feels like an incel talking point. It reductive that "tinder Elo" == "attractiveness". Especially considering that tinder controls algorithm and will just do whatever makes the most money. Hard pressed to say this is the "nartual" behavior of young people these days.
Its great if you want to run more "classic" AI algorithms as well!
Though even if it's snake oil, its pretty cheap snake oil. The cost ends up being around $1 every 3 days which is pretty reasonable.
I feel like this is objectively good advice though. At least keep an income stream.
pros:
> Healthcare is better and faster
I disagree with that, public healthcare has its problems but you don't have to worry about ever paying. Healthcare in the US is very expensive, there is always a risk that you are not covered by your insurance and get hit by ridiculous medical bills.
- The biggest difference you would find is culture. Canada still has the political culture war but it is much more mild. Our government does not have the same deadlock that the US has.
- Canada also tends to be more friendly to immigrants. Our politics are more progressive, and Canada is immigrant nation. The percentage of minorities is much higher.
- Our summers are very temperate. This might be personal preference, but I prefer being too cold over being too hot.
cons:
- If you want the big city life, the USA is better. We have big cities i.e. Toronto but it doesn't really compare
- Winters are cold, most cities are manageable but the cold is deal breaker for some people.
i.e. Map data from your hometown
I disagree with this argument. Water access is a human right. There is an astounding amount of public water infrastructure and people operating this infrastructure. This is all publicly funded because we have agreed that no one should be without water. Why should housing be any different?
As much as I like computer chess you will get better improvement if you just play against players rated ~300 better than you.
It has all the features of Lightroom with some extras.
I think this illustrates why AI in medicine is a hard problem. I'm not actually sure this is a clear cut AI/Statistics problem.
Mainly because "what pill do I prescribe this patient for high blood pressure?" has lots of hidden questions.
AI solves "what pill will statistically leads to a higher survival rate", but that is not the only consideration.
Often doctors have to balance side effects and other treatments.
What is easier for the patent: A lifestyle change to reduce blood pressure? or Enduring the side effects of the pill?
This type of question is quite difficult for our AI's to answer at the moment
Most drugs have side effects that are hard to objectively measure the impact of.
This post (whether intentionally or not) is misinterpreting some of the evidence it presents.
For example it gives this example research grant as evidence for chimeric viruses being made in the Wuhan lab. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/proje...
This is actually pretty standard virology grant. Nowhere does it say that they are making chimeric viruses. Note that "S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments" is not even close to "Creating chimeric viruses". This is not the same thing and it would not be rational to compare the two.
The posts claim that: "What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. ". That is simply false, they are collecting and testing viruses. They were not creating new ones.
This post also tries to claim that these researches had been doing genetic engineering in past work because of this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
Note that Nature added an editors note here: "30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."
Also note that the Wuhan lab is actually 5th author on this paper. In big publications like this order of authors is very important. 5th author usually means that they had a very minor role in the work. I.e a consulting role. This is compounded by the fact that only 2 people from the Wuhan lab worked on this paper.
It is actually more likely that the "genetic engineering" took place at the University of North Carolina and not in Wuhan. The paper lists a 9 people on the project in the US. Usually the people who do the actual lab work get first author.
Even further what about the 9 other virology labs that are on list? They have about the same amount of contributions to this paper? Why are they not suspect?
In my opinion these are some pretty key details to leave out, especially from a science journalist who should not be hiding some of the key facts here.
This post (whether intentionally or not) is misinterpreting some of the evidence it presents.
For example it gives this example research grant as evidence for chimeric viruses being made in the Wuhan lab. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/proje...
This is actually pretty standard virology grant. Nowhere does it say that they are making chimeric viruses. Note that "S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments" is not even close to "Creating chimeric viruses". This is not the same thing and it would not be rational to compare the two.
The posts claim that: "What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. ". That is simply false, they are collecting and testing viruses. They were not creating new ones.
This post also tries to claim that these researches had been doing genetic engineering in past work because of this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
Note that Nature added an editors note here: "30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."
Also note that the Wuhan lab is actually 5th author on this paper. In big publications like this order of authors is very important. 5th author usually means that they had a very minor role in the work. I.e a consulting role. This is compounded by the fact that only 2 people from the Wuhan lab worked on this paper.
It is actually more likely that the "genetic engineering" took place at the University of North Carolina and not in Wuhan. The paper lists a 9 people on the project in the US. Usually the people who do the actual lab work get first author.
Even further what about the 9 other virology labs that are on list? They have about the same amount of contributions to this paper? Why are they not suspect?
In my opinion these are some pretty key details to leave out, especially from a science journalist who should not be hiding some of the key facts here.
This post (whether intentionally or not) is misinterpreting some of the evidence it presents.
For example it gives this example research grant as evidence for chimeric viruses being made in the Wuhan lab. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/proje...
This is actually pretty standard virology grant. Nowhere does it say that they are making chimeric viruses. Note that "S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments" is not even close to "Creating chimeric viruses". This is not the same thing and it would not be rational to compare the two.
The posts claim that: "What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. ". That is simply false, they are collecting and testing viruses. They were not creating new ones.
This post also tries to claim that these researches had been doing genetic engineering in past work because of this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
Note that Nature added an editors note here: "30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."
Also note that the Wuhan lab is actually 5th author on this paper. In big publications like this order of authors is very important. 5th author usually means that they had a very minor role in the work. I.e a consulting role. This is compounded by the fact that only 2 people from the Wuhan lab worked on this paper.
It is actually more likely that the "genetic engineering" took place at the University of North Carolina and not in Wuhan. The paper lists a 9 people on the project in the US. Usually the people who do the actual lab work get first author.
Even further what about the 9 other virology labs that are on list? They have about the same amount of contributions to this paper? Why are they not suspect?
In my opinion these are some pretty key details to leave out, especially from a science journalist who should not be hiding some of the key facts here.
For example it gives this example research grant as evidence for chimeric viruses being made in the Wuhan lab. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/proje...
This is actually pretty standard virology grant. Nowhere does it say that they are making chimeric viruses. Note that "S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments" is not even close to "Creating chimeric viruses". This is not the same thing and it would not be rational to compare the two.
The posts claim that: "What this means, in non-technical language, is that Dr. Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. ". That is simply false, they are collecting and testing viruses. They were not creating new ones.
This post also tries to claim that these researches had been doing genetic engineering in past work because of this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985
Note that Nature added an editors note here: "30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus."
Also note that the Wuhan lab is actually 5th author on this paper. In big publications like this order of authors is very important. 5th author usually means that they had a very minor role in the work. I.e a consulting role. This is compounded by the fact that only 2 people from the Wuhan lab worked on this paper.
It is actually more likely that the "genetic engineering" took place at the University of North Carolina and not in Wuhan. The paper lists a 9 people on the project in the US. Usually the people who do the actual lab work get first author.
Even further what about the 9 other virology labs that are on list? They have about the same amount of contributions to this paper? Why are they not suspect?
In my opinion these are some pretty key details to leave out, especially from a science journalist who should not be hiding some of the key facts here.
Although, I have not seen any real data on this. Just my gut read.