cauch

43 ms·

391.
by cauch 3y ago
I think that one element is that people like that are encouraging protest so they can sell more books. This is a strategy that was employed for real, as explained by this person who did it: https://observer.com/2017/02&
392.
by cauch 3y ago
I'm not sure how it answer to what I say. What I've said is that: 1) the majority of attempts are not successful, so "yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing" is just incorrect, so there is no parado
393.
by cauch 3y ago
Do they "consistently expel people" though? The very very large majority of requests to deplatforming are not followed by deplatforming. There are _tons_ of university and _tons_ of people complaining. If the majority was reaching
394.
by cauch 3y ago
I may be wrong, but from what I've seen, the majority of "prevention of other people from speaking" is done to people who are not really constructive and muddy the water. The article mention Milo Yiannopolous, for example. If
395.
by cauch 3y ago
That's a strange metric to measure "free speech", as this metric would be very high in campus where free speech is strongly suppressed and where students are punished to complain about discourse that are dangerous for their o
396.
by cauch 3y ago
or an alternative to nicegui. I fully agree that it is a great project and that there is plenty of space to have different frameworks with their specialties that allow to choose the best one based on the circumstances.
397.
by cauch 3y ago
My understanding is that "outside of the genes information" is not just the color or the shape of the house, it is _essential_ instruction on how to build the house. Without it, you will not get something that qualifies as "h
398.
by cauch 3y ago
The people who investigate or shedding light on real conspiracies are journalists, academics and members of the government. Exactly the kind of people that according to conspiracy theorists should not be trusted. In practice, people investi
399.
by cauch 3y ago
Answering to the "look at history" part of your comment only (I agree on the bit about the problem of using "it's a conspiracy" about everything, but it's a symmetric problem: there is at least as many people t
400.
by cauch 3y ago
While I understand the meaning of this comment and see its value, I wonder how you would know to which extend it weakens the initial thesis, though. If some people live in an island where some place are around 10 degrees and other around 15
401.
by cauch 3y ago
> I believe quality is intrinsic to the product. You are switching definition: in this discussion, people have defined "quality" in one way, which is not relevant for the academic sector. Then you arrive with a different defin
402.
by cauch 3y ago
> I understand this is really the core of your complaint If you think that it is the core of my complaint, then you did not understood at all. This element is just there to say that it's easy to not understand the situation of the s
403.
by cauch 3y ago
The reason the code of scientist is like it is is not "corrupt incentives of academia", it is just because the goals and the context is different. First, scientific code is exploratory: you start building it without knowing which
404.
by cauch 3y ago
"Quality" for scientists is not the same specificities as "quality" for a software developer. The goal of the software of the scientist is different, so the definition of what is "quality" is different. The art
405.
by cauch 3y ago
That's a strange comment. It looks like the goal of these software are not at all for "productization" and that even if the author wanted to, there will be no point of porting it or hardening it. It feels like Software Develo
406.
by cauch 3y ago
My problem with this discussion is that a lot of people just say "I'm a scientist (or I'm working with scientists) and I'm observing X so I can say 'scientists blahblahblah'". Different scientific research
407.
by cauch 3y ago
> I think a big difference in our framing is that you're putting things as if there is a universally optimal strategy by a single nation. That's exactly the opposite of my point. I explicitly say that nation A going into direct
408.
by cauch 3y ago
Sorry if I have misunderstood. But I still don't understand the reason you put the electricity map website and saying "I suggest poking around ... to be a more accurate view of this specific question we're addressing", t
409.
by cauch 3y ago
I liked you first comment about things being complicated and that "good" or "bad" is difficult to tell because people will give more importance to the partial elements they see. Unfortunately, you've done just that
410.
by cauch 3y ago
While I agree with that and still enjoy some of Egan's writing, his text would definitively be better and more interesting if the characters were not so artificial, without losing anything about the science. It is amusing to think that
411.
by cauch 3y ago
I think your notions are just too basic. It's a bit like in school when the teacher says "you should write all your sentences as subject + verb + complement". It is good at school, to teach students the basics and to put boun
412.
by cauch 3y ago
I still don't get it. You are explaining error propagation, but my point is that _if you are doing error propagation (as you should do if you want to do things properly), significant figures ARE just for making deliverable pretty_. You
413.
by cauch 3y ago
But the error propagation is not transmitted by the significant number. x, y being written with the correct number of significant number will not lead to f(x, y) being written to the correct number of significant number. Usually, the best a
414.
by cauch 3y ago
I agree with that. It reminds me of the tomato. Some people don't know the tomato is a fruit. Some people know the tomato is a fruit and treat them like a fruit. Some people know the tomato is a fruit and still treat them like a vegeta
415.
by cauch 3y ago
Hm, I think I have the same definition of flow. For example, you can be "in the zone", and then suddenly realise you need answer X than only John can provide. In the office, you can look at John and he does not look busy, so you q
416.
by cauch 3y ago
What are you talking about? OP said "asking quick questions and getting an instant answer. vs chat where I may not get an answer for hours" It's ALL they have said. They did NOT said they will "touch your shoulder",
417.
by cauch 3y ago
> And I (and most other people in this thread) am fed up with them and trying to actively remove them from my life. And OP does that too, but suddenly, when OP does that, they are a toddler, but when you do it, it's fine. > There
418.
by cauch 3y ago
I think you did not got my point. My point is not that it is self-centered to "break the flow" (or whatever you call the reason that makes asking a question disruptive). My point is that we had a situation where at least one perso
419.
by cauch 3y ago
> ... as it's acceptable to do some research on yourself before asking somebody, or try to keep your voice down in shared rooms, or to not tap people on the shoulder when they have indicated deep work (headphones). Again, nobody is
420.
by cauch 3y ago
That's exactly the question. My solution is: Bob should try to ask with moderation, and Bob and Alice should work together in a situation where Bob does not need to distract Alice. If Bob needs to distract Alice, then Alice just needs

More ›