klmr

32 ms·

271.
by klmr 8y ago
I fundamentally agree with you but I have the feeling that some some of the major proponents of notebooks belong to the category of people who misunderstand them, and simply use them for everything, and write long and convoluted notebooks;
272.
by klmr 8y ago
Except it seems to be completely random words , with a "few" random quotation marks and brackets [thrown] in the mix. Taken together it has the opposite effect of what it’s supposed to achieve.
273.
by klmr 8y ago
Disappointingly, the article misrepresents the most serious criticism of the GoF patterns: > we often heard folks say that software patterns existed only because people used horrible languages like C++ and Java Maybe folks say that. But
274.
by klmr 8y ago
They don’t blame it on Trump though. And I’m not stating that they don’t lean left (and it’s likely that they do).
275.
by klmr 8y ago
> even now evolution is still only considered a theory No, you simply misunderstand what “theory” means in the scientific context. It’s a synonym for “explanatory model”. And “evolution” in this context stands for something close to “gra
276.
by klmr 8y ago
> it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way. But they don’t: The article also cites the example of vaccine denialism which is much more pervasive on the political left (though they tie it back to Trump).
277.
by klmr 8y ago
Except that chemophobia isn’t irrational just because people use the wrong words. It’s irrational because there is no fundamental, meaningful definition of “synthetic” in this context. What’s synthetic? Is refined sugar, even if it’s chemic
278.
by klmr 8y ago
It would make sense, and is therefore done extensively . Glyphosate got approved in a much more lenient regulatory climate (almost half a century ago!) than what we have today but even so its initial approval required safety studies. Furth
279.
by klmr 8y ago
No: glyphosate is a herbicide , and part of its appeal is that — unlike other herbicides — it has very low toxicity for insects. In fact, it was assumed until now to be safe for bees, and the new study also doesn’t claim that it has a dire
280.
by klmr 8y ago
This is a silly game and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual process of approving ingredients for food safety. That process is far from perfect but — in the case of glyphosate — it worked very well. > It's not scare tactics
281.
by klmr 8y ago
Thanks for the correction.
282.
by klmr 8y ago
You make a good point but I wouldn’t banning a potentially dangerous chemical that requires expert use to be safe “entirely unreasonable”. In fact the same is true for most such compounds, at least in large parts of Western Europe (less s
283.
by klmr 8y ago
Presumption of safety without qualification would be irrational, correct. But the same is true the other way round: there’s a balance to be struck (otherwise you couldn’t leave your house for risk of being run over by a car). And, again, gl
284.
by klmr 8y ago
This is reasonable, and I entirely agree in general. Except glyphosate specifically has been studied for decades, and is known to be a lot less concerning than other herbicides and pesticides that we’re using abundantly (including on organi
285.
by klmr 8y ago
> Presuming chemicals are not safe seeems rational to me I’m sorry but it’s fundamentally irrational. Everything is chemicals. Chemophobia is by definition irrational. > especially sprayed on our food ~~~It’s not.~~~ Glyphosate is a
286.
by klmr 8y ago
Semmelweis also couldn’t explain why his procedure supposedly worked. Again that’s hugely problematic: a sound theory requires an explanatory framework. Otherwise it’s just not convincing.
287.
by klmr 8y ago
> I find it disheartening that it takes studies of this nature to reshape regulations. You … find it disheartening that regulations require sound evidence? That’s odd. > Among bee-keepers, asserting that "roundup kills bees"
288.
by klmr 8y ago
That’s true but for the most part such optimisations happen very predictably (and are extensively verified when applicable). This isn’t a case of writing some very abstract code and hoping that the compiler will sort it. Rather, you use a
289.
by klmr 8y ago
> The progressive demanded he lose his job and conducted a campaign until he did. Potato potato. So what you’re saying is that you want a code of conduct to protect Eich’s free speech but not that of the people who campaigned against him
290.
by klmr 8y ago
> Whenever I see a code of conduct I check if "political opinion" is a "protected class". My guess is that you’ll rarely find this as it’s not a protected characteristic under the law (and, as far as I can see, CoCs e
291.
by klmr 8y ago
Thanks, this is a very insightful comment (and the NYT article confirms a suspicion of mine about workplace sexual harassment training — although here in Europe the legal situation is a bit different). > Maybe when a code of conduct is p
292.
by klmr 8y ago
Do you have a link? This is potentially a good point, but it’s generally acknowledged by people on the spectrum that their condition may explain breaches of etiquette, but does not excuse them.
293.
by klmr 8y ago
Maybe I just missed it in this ranty wall of text but I can’t seem to find an actual concrete complaint about what we supposedly need to unfuck in our codes of conduct. I’m by no means a big fan of the concept of a code of conduct (it’s b
294.
by klmr 8y ago
They are still (ostensibly) the subject matter experts so politicians defer to them. This in itself isn’t a problem: they should defer to experts on complex matters. And often these experts are organised in industry interest groups. The
295.
by klmr 8y ago
I similarly don’t get the enormous popularity of Carbon but it offers two things that a screenshot doesn’t: • It frames the code properly; this is an aesthetic choice, and certainly subjective, but many people seem to prefer it. At the very
296.
by klmr 8y ago
This is simply wrong. The judgement clarifies explicitly that the hate speech in question was the antisemitic slogans that were used as cues, and which were audible on the video.
297.
by klmr 8y ago
Broad discretion in such laws is the problem . It puts you at the mercy of an individual police officer's whim. More broadly it facilitates discrimination. This isn't a theoretical problem: I know people in London who, due to sto
298.
by klmr 8y ago
Look, I obviously know about this law but this is a completely different thing from what you claimed and it doesn't mean at all that it's forbidden to catalogue police crimes against minorities. I will concede that it makes it
299.
by klmr 8y ago
> France has literally made it illegal to collect data on police brutality and incarceration rates of minorities in France You’ll need to provide a good reference for that because this is completely wrong as far as I know (AI doesn’t men
300.
by klmr 8y ago
We’re saying the same thing. The Legal Affairs Committee isn’t the Parliament, it’s merely a committee. The EP only had two options here: either vote in favour of the article (“rubber-stamping”) or rejecting it. That’s what they did. The pr

More ›