klmr

35 ms·

151.
by klmr 7y ago
… and the IARC monograph on Roundup, in turn, has been dismissed universally by experts as both flawed and misleading. Amongst other things, they arbitrarily excluded high-quality studies that showed no evidence of carcinogenicity, and in
152.
by klmr 7y ago
No direct evidence as far as I know (definitely none for glyphosate, possibly for Roundup) but that’s why Monsanto/Bayer publishes precise usage instructions, and such risk would be based on dosage and wearing of appropriate PPE (= e.g
153.
by klmr 7y ago
Indeed, you’re completely right, and I should have known (can’t edit the comment any more). FYI, the IARC publishes a comprehensive list of their classifications: https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications-volumes&#x
154.
by klmr 7y ago
Yes, of course maybe all the experts are wrong, and the jury of lay people was right. But even if this unlikely case occurred here, do you really want to build legal cases and policy on such a fluke?
155.
by klmr 7y ago
It’s worth noting that these reviews were written in response to the ethically questionable and misleading IARC review. They did not impact the prevailing expert opinion, formed before the IARC review, that Roundup is generally safe and t
156.
by klmr 7y ago
> The scientific opinion is that is insufficient evidence to either exclude or include it as a cancer cause but most studies show some increase. No, this is patently false. Out of all expert consortia, only IARC (= WHO) has reached thi
157.
by klmr 7y ago
That guy is a twat but the safety of something isn’t determined by whether you can safely drink a pint of it, unless, well, it’s a drink. You also can’t safely eat a pound of salt (it’s much more harmful than drinking a pint of Roundup),
158.
by klmr 7y ago
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted but you did make a mistake: Red meat and coffee are classified as definitely carcinogenic to humans by IARC.
159.
by klmr 7y ago
Except it clearly didn’t work in this case since the jury reached a conclusion that is fundamentally at odds with the conclusion reached by experts worldwide. I’m baffled by how this is discussed on here as “well, maybe the jury was right”.
160.
by klmr 7y ago
I guess they’re saying that there’s, on balance, no good evidence to suggest that (especially proper use of) Roundup causes cancer. Because that’s the prevailing expert opinion, backed up by decades of studies.
161.
by klmr 7y ago
I was going to say that you can combat this by simply linking to your website from all these profiles but it turns out that virtually all social media sites `rel="nofollow"` homepage links. Which in itself is a pretty sleazy tacti
162.
by klmr 7y ago
It seems that this might indeed be the case. After writing the comment I’ve had a look through the (obsolete) Ruby code base of the project that somebody linked, and it doesn’t actually perform (what I’d call) text mining as far as I can se
163.
by klmr 7y ago
The software does perform text mining (presumably via some sort of NLP?), an area that is firmly a subset of AI.
164.
by klmr 7y ago
> Now I have no idea how that information is being re-used or sold. You were explicitly asked for permission (in clear, non-caged language) when you accessed your data. If you declined, your data isn’t being resold. Other reuse is restri
165.
by klmr 8y ago
> The problem is that it's not usefully deterministic once you add in exceptions, shared pointers, move semantics, lambda captures, etc. No, it really is , even in the presence of the things you mentioned. That’s the whole point.
166.
by klmr 8y ago
C++ without deterministic destructors to manage lifetime would be a (fundamentally) different language. Furthermore, also disagree with you that it would be a better language. C++ has many warts but object lifetime and RAII is amongst its
167.
by klmr 8y ago
It specifically says it’s “not yet ” official. That’s a very distinct message; and, in the context of the wording on the rest of the site, it’s actively misleading.
168.
by klmr 8y ago
Why in the world did Firefox care enough to revert the behaviour, rather than telling them to go to hell?
169.
by klmr 8y ago
That’s (substantially) more than I have as #5 at a startup. Truth be told I didn’t pay attention to this when joining because at the time they hadn’t yet set up their EMIs and I was told that negotiating for share options is pointless since
170.
by klmr 8y ago
No, I’m not talking about UB. Although you’re right that if you use references rather than copies and return a lambda then, yes, you’ll run into UB. The solution to this is to use copies, as mentioned. > Look up the upwards funarg prob
171.
by klmr 8y ago
C++ lambdas do not use the heap. As I wrote, they are stack allocated.
172.
by klmr 8y ago
If you’re happy for the compiler to copy variables out of the closed-over scope when returning the closure, this can still be handled with a single stack. That’s what C++ lambdas do: “Closures” in C++ are locally-allocated structures that h
173.
by klmr 8y ago
Undergrad maths classes with 500 people? That must be one hell of a course. Either way, all undergrad classes I attended in Germany were based on some kind of textbook (usually (co-)authored by the lecturer, and occasionally self-published,
174.
by klmr 8y ago
You either didn’t understand the point I was making, or you are intentionally ignoring it. So let me be direct: How is the EU structurally more similar to a Trotskyist superstate than to the USA? How do you justify comparing the EU, but not
175.
by klmr 8y ago
> Trotsky pushed for a communist, soviet united states of Europe in 1923. Right, but what does this have to do with anything? The only thing in common is that both have “Europe” in the name (and I’m not even sure that was part of Trotsky
176.
by klmr 8y ago
For starters, this fine isn’t about browsers, it’s about AdSense. Apart from that, we can discuss the pros and cons of multinational treaty cooperations until we’re blue in the face but at the very least the EU in principle follows a dem
177.
by klmr 8y ago
It’s not pop-sci at all. It’s a term typically used within the field for what is described here.
178.
by klmr 8y ago
> and they have a point But they don’t: the usage of “hack” in the title was squarely within the original definition of “to hack” (for instance, it’s covered by definition 6 in the Jargon File if we accept [as is generally done in hacker
179.
by klmr 8y ago
You’re right. The parent comment focussed specifically on energy, so I did as well. But obviously both cannabis plants and yeast need other nutrients. That said, a minimal yeast broth is extremely simple.
180.
by klmr 8y ago
Why? The original title was totally fine.

More ›