teachingassist

It's tricky to organise, but in theory, yes, you can interpret your own results.

Ancestry/23andme-type medical results are (in my opinion) almost entirely a nice write-up and display of public databases of research on SNPs, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp/docs/entrez_help/, https://www.snpedia.com/

You could (for example) submit the data you get to Promethease which will do the processing for you. Promethease is now owned by MyHeritage, so I'm not sure how their terms are looking - I'd be a little cautious about using that.

Can you name a poor philosopher?

If anything, the barriers appear to me to be greater.

I assume the thinking was somewhat broader than that (fishermen only have 10,000 votes between them).

I assume that people understood their town's local economy would be uplifted by a renewed fishing industry.

Of course, that was never a real possibility.

> You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote.

I was disagreeing directly with your point that this was intended to be simple, or for "regular people". I contend that it wasn't any of this - it was intended to enrich a room-full of people with the support of wealthy elites. The immediate effect was to shift power only slightly, and not in the direction of regular people. How is that a strawman, please?

From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim.

> this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.

Ironic.

> If there's a famine or a meat shortage, wouldn't people turn to other foods on their own?

Encouraging weekly fish-eating habits is also a mechanism to ensure that you have a healthy national fish industry, that you can dial up as soon as you need it.

This is something that modern [especially European] nations seem to have institutionally neglected or forgotten.

By importing all necessities and instead focusing on exporting services, you put your nation and people at risk from any such crisis.

To censor Bing for an infraction is not a consistent free speech position. It has clearly become a political, and extreme (becoming user-hostile), position.

[Edited to note: the parent's claim is confirmed by the link on the page]

> regular people

You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote.

That was the group which expected to gain political power from the Declaration and Constitution - that was the target audience.

Defining "regular people" has a fraught history in the USA.

> If you care to question any aspect of something that comprises part of someone's identity, then it can easily be perceived as a personal attack on that individual

I don't think it's healthy conversation to "question" what someone [you have just met] is saying in any circumstances.

Questioning without having a developed background and context is a polite way of calling them a liar, isn't it?

"Oh, I haven't experienced that" is less confrontational - you are not expected to have experienced it if you don't hold the same identity.

> If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations

Gay people don't have to, and often don't, vote based on LGBTQI organization recommendations.

However, if LGBTQI organizations believe that LGBTQI people are more impacted by gig work, shouldn't the orgs be speaking on that?

It seems relevant to me. As long as dismissal for being gay is still possible, workers' rights seem to be very much in scope for these organizations.

[To downvoters: What's the point of having an organization, otherwise?]

The opposite, surely.

If there's no market for old hardware, there's no benefit to making new products which hold their value.

> the best strategy for the last 20 years (with hindsight) would be to buy the shares that have performed best over this period,

The best strategy doesn't seem to me to be straightforward to calculate, even with perfect hindsight.

It might be to continually switch in the short-term most profitable asset, after taking into account the transaction costs and risks of influencing the market.

> that’s how you kill a city center.

This is a function of American cities being poorly designed. You are expected to arrive by car from the sprawling suburbs. I agree with your exceptions, NYC, Chicago: but I'd add, almost every city in Europe, such as the grandparent was talking about.

If this poor design is killed, hopefully something better can arise.

Nobody has yet mentioned the UK, but: reduced regulation on fishing was a big motivator for Brexit, where the campaign had its roots deep in coastal towns.

Same issue in Chrome.

I've found it effective to have a standing rule that you are not allowed to critique someone else's idea, unless you are improving upon it.

'Legal tender' means that you are [everyone is] obliged to accept bitcoin as a means of settling any debt.

(That would be a nightmare - in my opinion, it would at least require some kind of official exchange rate between Bitcoin and yen.)

> So how do you imagine you disagree with me?

Ah, ok.

Then, I imagine that you really think it's fine for people to do politics, as long as it's politics that you agree with.

You simply see politics that you don't agree with as an "activism first" attitude.

I don't do activism at work, but I certainly do sell myself to employers and potential employers.

The greatest value that I provide in my work is that I am me: I am a person, with human needs and concerns and thoughts and inspiration and creativity. I leave some of myself in my work.

It surprises me when people have the attitude that you have expressed, that you are just there to get the work done. Is your job in high tech really to robotically do the task?

It makes it seem, to me, like you are greatly underselling yourself.

No doubt;

Nonetheless, this is business as usual.

Booking.com are masters of tax avoidance and I'd guess all of their usual bonuses are essentially covered by Dutch state aid in the form of reduced taxes.

I believe the article clarifies this - the "no bonuses" rule didn't exist when Booking.com claimed this aid.

The rule existed for the second tranche of aid, which Booking didn't claim.

This is a little unorthodox. But, a first party cookie that stores consenting data used for reasonably expected purposes, doesn't need to ask you explicitly for consent. [As Hacker News ostensibly doesn't need cookie consent for you to log in with a cookie.]

https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ suggests they share data with third-party Google Analytics, which seems to breach guidelines - except that they respect Do Not Track in this case.

> why people don't use magnets on strings to search for lost things in European canals more often.

There are TikTok accounts devoted to this (where else?) - it seems surprisingly common to find safes.

iPhones 7 through 11 felt increasingly easy to destroy with the slightest touch - not so the iPhone 12.

From my point of view, the lab-leak hypothesis is presented in a political way and not a scientific way, so it's hard to challenge scientifically.

This is my genuine scientific take, having worked in a genome lab:

If the virus was artificially engineered, then you might expect to see points of artificial cleavage in the genome (which I assume you don't, because that would have been identified by now and would be presented as strong scientific evidence for lab origin).

If the virus were stored and allowed to mutate naturally but in a lab, then it might look very much like any naturally-occurring virus, but in lab conditions it seems likely (probabilistically 'almost certain') to evolve in the direction of reduced infectiousness. So, this also seems unlikely.

Deliberately engineering a human-infectious virus to appear natural is theoretically possible, but it seems to me that it would have to be deliberate - and is far beyond our current public understanding of science. So, I'd expect the cost to be astronomical. One lab or one group of scientists privately working on this doesn't seem to be enough.

The fact that this coronavirus transfers so easily to and between other species (and mink in particular) suggests that it has cross-species potential, and therefore cross-species origin. It suggests that this virus doesn't have any particular connection to humans.

Like any scientist, I'm prepared to accept that it's not impossible. Indeed, I have laid out three routes in this comment. But, the arguments for a lab-leak it are not scientifically convincing, to me, and it seems vanishingly unlikely. I haven't seen any hint of evidence that would make me sit up and pay attention.

I agree with this but don't believe it relates to the grandparent's comment, which implied that we should accept shameful behaviour from 17 year olds because it is an innate part of being 17 years old. I object to that idea.

(Is suffering indoctrination shameful? And, as you say, that is not unique to 17 year olds.)

This went over my head, I'm afraid. You're trying to explain why I should have understood this - which is fine, except that I genuinely didn't (having read the flyer in a level of depth that I normally wouldn't have given to a flyer).

"Limited government" appears to be an American phrase that I'm not familiar with.

According to my reading, the "free and fair election" quote could be sarcastic, from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it was free or fair.

> How much did you do at 17 that you aren't proud of today?

Not that much. For sure I made some mistakes, as I continue to do, but I'd stand by what I did at 17. I didn't (for example) write down plainly racist statements and then publish them on the internet. I didn't do anything comparable to that.

What were y'all doing at 17?

Please check Poe's Law.

Given that I know nothing about the characters here, I have no reason to believe that such people don't exist. A lot worse does exist in fringe politics.

Given that I've never heard of the Stanford Federalist Society, I would be unable to identify this as satire. It's presented as any other official flyer from that organisation might be.

In a way, it's defamation - a false statement (in its accreditation) that harms the organisation's reputation. For some people, this will be their first experience of that organisation, and those people have no reason to take it as satire.

> Once you optimize your job to be close to your home, many of the benefits of wfh disappear.

Alternative framing: your life has been constrained by your career expectation of working in an office; you've optimised around that and found a local maximum.

Work-from-home doesn't remove that local maximum from you, but it creates an opening to find a higher maximum.