thyrsus

At one point, U.S. welfare programs directed at single mothers appeared to cause an increase in single mothers. Fathers either actually left or had to hide their participation in the family lest the mother become ineligible for assistance. The dominant culture is that the poor are morally unfit and undeserving, and the welfare programs reflect that. Politicians emphasize their benefits to the middle class, almost never the poor.

And then you have no legal standing, so you get paid far below market depressing everyone's wages, and in any dispute you get deported. The best thing for workers would be for there to be no such thing as an "illegal alien" - but xenophobia/racism wins instead.

Odd: when I think of "learning AI" I think I'd be constructing an LLM that has added value over what's currently available - such as removing hallucinations within a limited scope.

Alburquerque: #7 in the country for police shootings in 2020.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2020/10/05/cities-where...

More recent data here: https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings

This is how I perceived the difference: >SCIENCE< [a] create a hypothesis [b] collect all the data [c] check the hypothesis and publish; >ENGINEERING< [a] create a hypothesis [b] collect some data [c] refine the hypothesis [d] iterate over [b] and [c] until [e] PROFIT! (and maybe publish someday); the engineering approach is often better funded, allowing more data collection and better validation. If your engineering model is sufficiently deficient your product will be rejected in the market if it can even get to market. If your scientific model is sufficiently deficient, a researcher depending on that model will someday publish a refinement.

Not to mention the innocent folks who calculate that their lives will be least damaged by a plea bargain.

Thanks for the article; it's an important checklist.

I would think you'd want at most one certificate authority per customer rather than per database. Why am I wrong?

Not this time. Use paper, pen, and a non-electronic cash box.

I was given to understand that Crowdstrike provided some protection from unvetted export of data. I'm not sure that data would be useful without the rare domain expertise to use it, but I wasn't shown the risk analysis. And then someone else demands and gets ssh access to GitHub. Sigh.

I recommend using a well respected browser based password manager, protected by a strong password, and having it generate strong passwords that you never think of memorizing. Web sites that disable that with JavaScript on the password field should be liable for damages with added penalties - I'm looking at you, banks.

Wise IT admins >know< they are ignorant and design for that. Before an application gets deployed, its requirements need to be learned - and the users rarely know what those requirements are, so cycles of information gathering and specification of permitted behavior ensue. You do not declare the application ready until that process converges, and the business knows and accepts the risks required to operate the application. Few end users know what a CVE is, much less have mitigated them.

I also note that seatbelts and airbags have undergone decades of engineering refinement; give that time to your admins, and your experience will be equally frictionless. Don't expect it to be done as soon as the download finishes.

Anecdata: log files with failed login attempts became far smaller after leaving port 22.

Yes, that's the point: it is limited, but the Supreme Court just declared it to be insufficiently limited.

The executive is supposed to represent the public interest, opposed to the interests wealthy enough to bring a lawsuit. We seem to have given up on that.

It's in the law already; for instance, for the Clean Air Act, see USC 42 section 7422 where the EPA is authorized to reclassify previously unregulated substances. That the court chose to ignore the plain reading and intent of Congress is baffling, unless one explains it as gross corruption.

Tell that to Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell.

You may have encountered leo [ https://leo-editor.github.io/leo-editor/ ]. I use it to pull in or write code and break it up into comprehensible pieces. It works, but it feels overcomplex. I'm open to something simpler, and will give this a try.

Is this the unison you mean? https://www.unison-lang.org/

Unrelated: what has your experience been using igneous-linearizer to help understand other people's code?

This is why the erlang OTP is so effective: it pushes you toward error (flake) recovery and idempotency.

There was a trope five years ago that small town papers had become economically infeasible, e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/decline-of-newspapers-leaves-ma...

My own town (60,000+) lost its paper more than ten years ago.

Was that not the general experience?

For most U.S. taxpayers selling a home, the capital gains exclusion on one's primary residence ($500,000 filing jointly) obviates such bookkeeping.

Where do I find that data? By contrast, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

Evolution is slow or fast depending on the reproductive cycle of the species. Redwoods: many millenia. Viruses: measured in months - which Covid variant are we on?

I doubt most cannot be articulated, but I think it quite likely there is valuable knowledge that is expensive to articulate, sometimes to the point of complete impracticality, and in that sense "can't". Instances of actual inability to articulate, due to Godel incompleteness or similar, seem rare. Technology applied to knowledge can change the expense.

> Land ISN'T FUNGIBLE

Agreed. I expect to live to grieve the loss of New Orleans, and I'm not young.

Unlike Dr. Friedman, I believe that reaching judgements based on evidence and explicit values is orthogonal to libertarianism: I grew up in a similar intellectual environment, but where the economic political leaning was european style democratic socialist.

In those pre-internet times, it also surfaced a problem with that environment: a sibling who vehemently averred to facts they did not have. They have since matured to be sufficiently tethered to reality to be an excellent parent and employee, but now cherry pick the internet for justification of social policy preferences.

Why contribute to an IRA if civilization will have ceased to function? Why make any investment in society at large if it's inevitably doomed?

I'm having trouble following the algorithm for the month number.

From the article:

The Month-Item. — If it begins or ends with a vowel, subtract the number, denoting its place in the year, from 10. This, plus its number of days, gives the item for the following month. The item for January is ‘0’; for February or March (the 3rd month), ‘3’; for December (the 12th month), ’12.’ [So, for clarity, the required final numbers after division by 7 are January, 0; February, 3; March, 3; April, 6; May, 1; June, 4; July, 6; August 2; September, 5; October, 0; November, 3; and December, 5.]

My attempt to implement:

For January, the preceding month is December, which neither begins nor ends with a vowel, so I do not subtract 10. The days in December are 31, so 12+31 = 43 mod 7 = 1, not the 0 of the article.

For February, the preceding month is January, which ends in a vowel, so I subtract 1 from 10, giving 9, add the days in January 1+31 = 32 mod 7 = 4, not the 3 of the article.

For March, the preceding month is February, which ends in a vowel, so I subtract 2 from 10 giving 8 and add February's 28 days 8+28 = 36 mod 7 = 1, not the 3 of the article. Had I used a leap year 29 for the days in February at this step the result would be 2, which still does not match the article result. Since the article has a constant result for March, it is either always using 28 or always using 29 days in February.

For April, the preceding month is March, which neither begins nor ends in a vowel so I do not subtract it from 10. 31 days in March gives 3+31 = 34 mod 7 = 6, which does match the article result.

For May, the preceding month is April, which starts with a vowel, so I subtract its position from 10, 10-4 = 6, add April's 30 days 6+30 = 36 mod 7 = 1 which does match the article.

For June, the preceding month is May, ending in a vowel, so I subtract May's 5 from 10, and adding May's 31 days gives 5+31= 36 mod 7 = 1 which does not match the article.

This should suffice to illustrate my misunderstanding; what have I got wrong?

[edit: typos]

Once we learn that one of the investigating officers, Reiss, was convicted of possession of child pornography, it becomes understandable - enraging, but understandable.

1. git complains about the uncommitted changes

2. When intentionally writing perl, half the time my "perl -c foo.pl" complains about syntax or badly used names (usu. misspellings), with the typo to correct being obvious. As a practical matter, it's not a problem.

I see a lot of semicolons in that ocr output, which might be cheating.