pariahHN

But straight up using homophobic slurs because of an API change? Apparently random racial slurs in comments? Why? Someone deliberately choose those specific words, they don't bring any benefit to the program, and they really are not something I would want to be associated with as a contributor.

I think the words people choose to convey information say a lot about what is floating near the top of their mind. Who seriously comes up with 'sluts' as their first choice to name an array of women?

Thanks for sharing it.

Academic progression does not necessarily have to be tied in lockstep with social development.

I am interested by a couple of their references, specifically regarding the possibility of HCQ only working as a prophylactic after a sufficiently long period of exposure. That could be a contributor to difficulty in replication.

I came across an example of this the other day after seeing the word used in a historical text for a class [0,1]. I was fairly certain it did not mean what it sounded like it meant so I looked into it. While the word does not have a definition associated with slavery (that I know of) and is thus arguably further away from the issue than the word master, its phonetics are enough for its usage to result in condemnation.

Lives can be ruined, either from an accusation over a misunderstanding or a failure to recognize actual harmful intent. Vagueness creates friction. To solve a problem there needs be a thorough and precise understanding, and when it involves multiple people there also needs to be a sufficiently common definition.

[0]: http://www.americanyawp.com/reader/16-capital-and-labor/will...

[1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Controversies_about_the_word_nig...

Seems to confirm, 28% increase in the past month overall in tests performed per positive. But this graph doesn't give any regional focus unfortunately - all we can say is that on a national scale, the positive test rate is decreasing. It is entirely possible that there is an increase being hidden by a larger decrease in the hot spots, but the next month should give us the answer.

I would think however that placing any physical barrier in the path of an airflow is going to have an effect regardless of direction, as some non zero portion of particles are always going to impact the barrier.

Edit: It appears from other comments you may in fact be referring to improper use of masks that are also not specifically designed to maximize filtration ability. I would still submit that some degree of mitigation is better than none, but I can see how a false sense of safety could outweigh the benefits of the mask.

But I'm really curious as to what the underlying reasoning here is. I can sort of understand when it comes down to obvious luxuries, so long as those luxuries are not in fact mandatory for being a productive member of the corresponding society (eg complaining about not being one of the 100 people to have one of those newfangled telephones vs complaining about not having a telephone in an age where having a telephone is the default expectation).

How would having a basic posture of gratitude aid someone in resolving issues they face that deal with what may be seen as luxuries in areas that are improving but which may be necessities in their own area? What relevance does the improvement of others have to resolving or mitigating the backwards slide of another? Is it not better for everyone to be experiencing improvement? Is there some fundamental mechanism that requires some areas backslide in order for others to improve?

I'm genuinely curious - you aren't the first person I have met that makes the assertions you have, and I have experienced the same sense of bafflement every time.

So, your premise here seems to be that even though your own life may be going downhill as long as everyone else is doing better you shouldn't bother with exploring the reasons behind or even trying to fix your own backwards slide. Is that correct?

But, I would guess that it has to do with wiggles in space-time, since they do say it's from the vibrating of the atoms. Energy is transferred through a medium via imparting of wiggles to that medium, so I think it would be reasonable to guess that it's either the vibrations moving through space-time or maybe some other field related to mass.

It's also not horrendously expensive - we are getting better and better at storage as well data analysis techniques, so stuff that seems useless today may be useful 50 years from now and cost less to store than it does now. The key thing again being that we can't benefit from hindsight.

Even graffiti can give insight into a time period, even if that insight is that that time period had an unusually high number of graffiti artists.

I wish people would be more specific - it's not that education in of itself is bad, it's that the way it is currently implemented in this specific society has these specific flaws. I strongly dislike when a discussion disparages an entire concept when it's really just our implementation of that concept that is flawed. It rules out potential solutions simply because they are associated with ones that failed, when the differences between them could result in success.

Not saying that's what's in the video - I get the impression that they are in fact talking about specifically the implementation and not ripping on education itself, but I've seen and heard stuff like this used as the foundation not only of attacks on being educated but also on anything else where some implementations of an ideal failed and so the ideal and all possible solutions stemming from that ideal are dismissed as unworkable. And it bothers me a bit how that approach is popular among many sides of many arguments that I have seen. I would in fact suggest that it is in fact a marker of a failed education - using an example of a failed implementation to argue that the concept itself is inherently flawed is itself an example of a failure in critical thinking.

Also I feel your comment may be implying that this sort of hyper aggressive enforcement is the only thing keeping crime down - I would suspect that crime at the level of shoplifting a shirt is more often due to need and desperation than to purely malicious intent, and while hyper aggressive enforcement may have some deterrent effect those crimes would probably be better resolved by trying to eliminate the core issues driving them in the first place.

A government brings with it the ability to actually enforce laws, and I think there are sufficient examples in world history as to why the ability to enforce is just as important, if not more, as the ability to legislate. That's partly why we now have the Constitution instead of still using the Articles of Confederation.

Cryptographic trust won't help much either unless it is packaged and presented in the right way to the end user - it's basically advanced black magic to most people. I would love to have cryptographic verification setup for the non-profit's communication so that they can have some guarantee of legitimacy, but first I have to figure out how to make it fit into their workflow and not require them to actually take any action.

It's important to keep in mind that we have some distorted sampling. I would guess that most if not all of the people on HN are technical to some degree, so we may tend to have a bit of a bubble. We are a pathetically, uncomfortably small minority.

Never, ever, ever rely on humans doing the right thing if you can help it, whether in the form of an individual, a corporation, or a government.

However I agree that breaking them up may not be the solution - mandated interoperability may be. At least then there would be the benefits of having freedom of choice with plenty of options without the downsides of losing access to your data and your social network (which I think constitute the majority of the switching barrier). Similar mandates in healthcare and education would also be beneficial. This would of course not immediately solve the problem, but I would rather have to deal with getting developers to be mindful of the needs of their users than face the impossibility of getting users in the first place.

An entity should be allowed to be as successful as they can manage, so long as the practical barriers to competition are not affected (ie, network effects)