davorak

35 ms·

361.
by davorak 5y ago
Do you agree that you liberty to swing your fist ends at a non-consenting nose though right?
362.
by davorak 5y ago
I think you had an extra 'not' and meant something like 'Even if you do get a breakthrough, chances of going to a hospital is significantly lower.'
363.
by davorak 5y ago
> 'First, do no harm'. If you are unsure, then don't do it. Inaction is not an escape from responsibility or prevent consequences. Doing nothing is sometimes the worst choice.
364.
by davorak 5y ago
> That’s a reasonable explanation, of course, but it contradicts the two points in this thread that caused me to ask those questions: > 1. It was claimed that the the China policy is authoritarian, but the U.S. policy is not authorita
365.
by davorak 5y ago
My experience in the USA is that most seem to believe the in, or at least act in line with, the idea that governments with feedback from the masses serve the masses better or really at least less worse with those without feedback. Many syst
366.
by davorak 5y ago
> then what is it that makes the policy authoritarian or not? Typically when a person says, 'that policy is authoritarian', they are making the claim that ~'that policy can only practical be made and enforced in an authori
367.
by davorak 6y ago
Are there any first hand accounts or primary sources on what happens during these "contrition vacations"? Info along those lines would help illuminate why and how the current process is the status quo. I have not seen any first ha
368.
by davorak 6y ago
> If anything, the entire team seemed to do far more due diligence in decision making than pretty much 90% of the move-fast and break things (TM) SV startups. The author did not convince me that they had above average due diligence. It&#
369.
by davorak 6y ago
> First you say nobody has called me stupid. > Then in the NEXT PARAGRAPH, you tell me that I don't understand command line tools. Nothing I read by malux85 implied to me that not understanding command line tools makes someone st
370.
by davorak 6y ago
> Awesome, we are still getting somewhere. What other oop feature would you be using I'm glad you think it was productive so far. I am not convinced it is a productive use of our time to continue/extend the thought exercise tho
371.
by davorak 6y ago
>> I could not model/implement an Object with an internal state changing method in a fp language via a functor. > I don't think anyone claimed that. I was not trying to refute the opposite claim. I was giving info on the
372.
by davorak 6y ago
> But Haskell's explanations of Monads is in my experience really no adequate. Category Theory is the underlying since theory, but do you need to know about mechanics and gears to drive a car? Monads are part of the underlying categ
373.
by davorak 6y ago
If the author was using the description to explain Functors to someone who only knew oop it's a reasonable start. I got the impression the author was implying that is basically all you need to understand Functors and is not the case.
374.
by davorak 6y ago
I will take a stab at it. > Functors are basically an Object with a internal state changing method in typical OOP terms. If I was writing a functional language, in an oop language, I could implement functors at least partially with an Ob
375.
by davorak 6y ago
I think the subtle part might be "It was approved then", I read that somewhere too and it was not clear whether it was approved by google despite it not following the normal 2 week process or if it was talking about some other for
376.
by davorak 6y ago
> Which is exactly why she has refrained from releasing it throughout this whole drama: plausible deniability. I do not think there is evidence for that. It is normal to remove employee access to email if they are leaving so it is unlike
377.
by davorak 6y ago
What is missing and would make it clearer where things fall is the email from Timnit to Jeff. Then the language used by Timnit could analyzed and reasoned through to determine if it counts as a formal offer to resign or not. I not jumping o
378.
by davorak 6y ago
> If you email your employer saying give me this or I resign If it's that clear cut it's that clear cut. Without the email I can not tell. Timnit Gebru said she "hadn't resigned" and "had asked for simple co
379.
by davorak 6y ago
I read that, not clear without reading the email whether it was a formal offer to resign. If an employee tells their boss they have a plan to offer a resignation on x day or do not get y or are considering it they can fire the employee befo
380.
by davorak 6y ago
Having conditions is often part of a negotiation. Maybe they offered to resign in that email, but Timnit Gebru does not say she did in the linked twitter as far as I can tell. Unless she formally offer to resign it seems like her managemen
381.
by davorak 6y ago
> It sounds to me what you really want is for someone to alleviate your discomfort by shoveling off the riff-raff so that you can enjoy your bike ride, rather than having to address the systemic issues, which might impact your net worth.
382.
by davorak 6y ago
Neither example seem to fully apply to my example, for example you did not layout how the online class is viable post Section 230 and the second example does seems to apply to small time actors like the small, volunteer(clarification), conf
383.
by davorak 6y ago
> I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this? You example does not address my original question in:
384.
by davorak 6y ago
> paying a third party to handle moderation (and indemnify/insure me against legal liability). For any criminal material that makes it through the 3rd party moderation the publisher will be criminal liable. The third party can pay f
385.
by davorak 6y ago
> This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitch ToS to moderate their chats and the streamers face bans if they fail to do so. Currently twitch is not held legally responsible if the s
386.
by davorak 6y ago
> I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line? IANL even if they called themselves a platform they would still be acting as a publisher and the law would tre
387.
by davorak 6y ago
> What I am pondering is: would this ruin the Internet? It would break most of how the internet works today. It would prevent most forms of real time, one to many, communication since a human would first have to moderate it. Best exampl
388.
by davorak 6y ago
> If someone falsely defames me, who do I sue? You would sue the person who defamed you today.
389.
by davorak 6y ago
> The behavior you describe is simply automating an existing business practice: acting as an editor when deciding what’s included in an anthology. Forums are typically about back and forth communication among community members that does
390.
by davorak 6y ago
> ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if they are not putting in some serious effort then "That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them." Seeing how I am uninformed on what they

More ›