Since I know pro-vaxxers won't do any research on their own, rather relying on the supposed experts to tell you what to believe, here is a link for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Yeah, someone got genotype A measles unsurprising considering the billions of shots that have been given. The idea that this could be responsible for outbreaks involved a catastrophic misunderstanding of science. See even if you shed genotype A. It's still vaccine strain, the likely case for someone who encounters it in sufficient quantity is - vaccination.
Didn't finish my thought there. "could easily mean to someone who isn't violating the TOS" should be followed by: "Are you using your parent's account in your own home?"
Personally, I'm disappointed that Slashdot actually posted this.
So it seems that this isn't about piracy at all. Just account sharing, which is defined as "anyone who used a streaming service but did not pay for it". This would include ones parents, common law spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, or sibling - collectively totaling over 60% of the Netflix account sharers. It doesn't really clarify how they determined if this was inside or outside the policy for the given service based on the definition I'd wager they simply didn't care.
How accurate this is depends significantly how the questions were posed. i.e. Saying "Do you pay for your own Netflix account or do you use someone else's?" could easily mean to someone who isn't violating the TOS
Also to those who are saying the implied claim is that 100% of the people who use someone else's credentials would buy their own. Apparently they asked the question "If you lost access to this credential would you get your own." For Netflix aboutt 60% said "yes" and this was used to determine the overall "cost" of account sharing.
You are...as seems to be your habit...flat out wrong.
Fat and carbohydrates are both burned at the same time. Just in different ratios - the ratios do shift but not by much more than 20%. As usual you want to maximize the total calories burned more than anything else.
Well, there are about a zillion parameters in the human body with complex interactions, genetic & epigenetic dependencies, etc. that we barely understand! Yet we assume that everyone is the same?
I'll tell you where this unscientific belief comes from--
Well first we should explain your unscientific belief that this is in fact what either myself or other doctors are describing. It's not that we believe that people are the same but that people are not significantly different in a number of parameters pertaining to BMR. Just because there are lots of things going on in the human body doesn't mean they all affect BMR significantly. That's where your ideas go wrong.
The other problem with your terribly unscientific religion is that you're not controlling for activity or correcting for the fact that people are kind of bad at determining their caloric intake. Considering this conversation was about me correcting someone who claims they take in 3000-4000 KCals/day and doesn't get fat. You appear to immediately take this as evidence supporting your belief without attempting to correct for the fact that this person really doesn't eat that much, or is under 18 or that they're actually more active. It wouldn't take much error in all those parameters to bring that persons actual intake/weight to conform with predictions made from BMR.
Most discussions of obesity have a heavy bias toward the view that people simply choose to be pigs.
This is actually unrelated to what either the OP was talking about and I think that "most discussions" needs to be qualified.
That in no way negates the possibility that the mean values of the samples can be tightly correlated to the indep. vars.
I'll give you that my statement was a tich strong. However the point that the OP is making is that there is variable OTHER than the regressors we currently use that exhibits exceptionally strong control - equal to or greater than the effect of the known regressors combined - over BMR. Even though those variables explain BMR reasonably well. Broadly speaking this claim could be true in several ways:
The regressors could actually be representing our "X factor" and/or our "X factor" explains the currently unexplained portion of the effect or the calculated correlation is random.
The problem with the first idea is that there really are no candidates which explain say...lean body mass - for example. The problem with the second idea is that lean body mass explains quite a bit of the effect. The problem with the third idea is that this has been replicated quite a bit and is based on some known biochemistry.
Ugh...usually when people say "metabolic rate" they mean something like BMR - basal metabolic rate. Did you know that we have quite a number of equations which predict BMR from relatively few variables. If what you assert it true - that BMR varies significantly, per person. Then you wouldn't be able to perform a regression on BMR data with any useful correlation.
Technically, I'm simply saying it's plausible. Knuth is a little cagey about denying it. Two people recollect some kind of rebuke. Steve wasn't exactly Mr. Modest. Knuth wasn't beyond the occasional barb.
Spoken like someone who as only read about such things. See if Jobs had opened with a lie like "I'm interested in your work" *that* would be a fiction which is has a social purpose (Pro Tip: In my experience just admitting ignorance probably works better). It gives the other person permission to talk about themselves. Whereas "I've read all your books" is actually anti-social. Knuth knows he can't talk about his work because he knows Jobs hasn't read it and probably knows it's beyond Job's ability to understand. Not only that but if he picked up on the obvious lead and wanted to talk about a specific work it puts Jobs in the awkward position to continue to lie or catches him in a lie (awkward for most people, for all I know Jobs lied a lot). A statement like that actually shuts social interaction down (It's the "inter" part that's important - in case your books don't cover that). Not unlike the way bragging shuts down social interaction.
So I get that you might not understand that. Social moires can be subtle. But by the time you're out of college I'm sure you'll have these things down.:-)
Reading the story, it is inconceivable that Knuth would have said what he said.
If you take a look at the comments. The other person in the room recalled a somewhat softer rebuke. I'm sorry that either are beyond your ability to conceive.
And surely Steve didn't look like a doofus at all
I think someone who says "I've read all your books" to Knuth really didn't know to what he was referring. TAOCPS was at three volumes in 1986 and I doubt Steve Jobs - based on his not-very technical reputation - would have got through them. Not to mention a few books on math, typography as well as the MIX/360 users guide.
Steve Jobs accomplished some great things - with an enormous amount of help from people who actually knew how to do things - but there is absolutely no evidence that he knew anything about coding. So, to me anyway saying you've read all someones work when you clearly have not and could not. Makes you look like a doofus.
I have yet to see where Knuth clearly denies the story. It is corroborated by the two other living people in the room (although they have differing recollections as to how strong the rebuke was). So it's at least plausible.
Not a bad source for stories about Jobs dickish behavior...and before some/.er wants to point it out I'll do so. There's one story with Knuth where Steve looks like a pretty big doofus. It's been reported that Knuth has denied it - in particular in a talk by Randal Monroe's where he was present - the actual quote from Knuth though could easily be interpreted as avoiding the question rather than denying it.
I'll assume the main reason to do this is to get a job, one that in particular advertises for a specific set of skills. One of which is an obscure programming language. Unless you have nothing to do it's probably more worth your time to spend a day before said interview learning enough to fake it. If you want to lie or be honest about this on your resume or in your interview that's up to you and how well you think you can pull that off but if you want your resume to get past HR and make a short list AND you are actively pursuing multiple opportunities. This is probably your best bet.
"The millisecond a quantum environment is proven capable of cracking most modern crypto like a fucking egg"
Uh...no. It is proven to be able to factor large numbers quickly which will make the two major public key systems (DHX and RSA) and in some insanely popular use cases (the internet) we use these to exchange keys for symmetric block cipher but that's hardly 'most modern crypto'.
"Well sure, but then there is obviously some other politics at play that should be addressed." - What if there's a latent bias in society? Now imagine how that affects at other levels. For example in getting an education, getting a good education, participating in open source projects and finally "fitting with the team"?
Wouldn't all these things have a winnowing effect on your pool of candidates?
"fits well with the rest of the team" - So if there some hostility toward some particular people group within your team. Wouldn't your system just bifurcate?
"This got a lot of publicity but it doesn't really add all that much security"
When you don't have a clause starting with "relative to" and/or "given that" this always reads like a sentence fragment. Increasing resistance to certain attacks 1000x may well be worth it in a number of circumstances.
Not to mention you appear to misunderstand the point the cartoon is making. People need to remember passwords. People can remember four entirely random common words but are unlikely to remember ten entirely random characters. Your points about "good priors" is correct but that's why XKCD only rates the 10 character password with 22 bits of entropy instead of 59 (or more since it uses punctuation). However since the WORDS are random - there are no priors.
Even choosing four random words from the vocabulary of an eight year old gives you about 53 bits of entropy. Outperforming the entropy of the an entirely random 8 character password (52 bits - using a 62 character alphabet and 30 non-alphabetic symbols).
Passphrases provide a higher amount of memorable entropy.
Uh who's talking about some exceptionally specific situation? Nobody. The poster I was responding to said they "Stopped reading at 'microagressions'" and then appeared to call any and all allegations of microagression a "delusion".
Hence my question is do they believe in the kind of social exchange I describe.
Soooo you think it's impossible for a social exchange to occur in which a person says or does something, often accidentally, and without intended malice, that belittles and alienates a member of a marginalized group?
The thing you're not experiencing is getting asked this a lot - in contexts when nobody else is getting asked and people not being satisfied when you just say "here". To me the inequity/racism starts as soon as the white person is either not required to be asked the same question and/or the white persons answer is considered sufficient but the non-white persons answer is not.
My wife is Asian and we live in a very very white suburb. When someone asked how she liked living there she casually mentioned that the lack of diversity got to her occasionally (I'm white and it gets to *me*). The person then verbally stumbled over themselves telling her how NORMAL she was. How perfect her English was (which is unsurprising since she has lived in an English speaking country all her life during which she has earned three degrees) and it ended with "I think of you as white!"
The person was entirely pleasant and certainly had no ill intent and we didn't think it the right time to turn this into a teaching moment however but it's pretty clear that the underlying message was "I don't think of you as significantly different". Perhaps this is the thing people don't get. It's not about being accepted as NORMAL it's about being accepted as DIFFERENT.
I didn't say you had to learn them. I said they were there.
Sorry the likely case is you are backpedaling. The whole post, in fact the whole portion of this thread is about learning Chinese and you thought adding something that has zero to do with it was a good idea to throw in. That's what you want readers to believe? Let's look at your quote shall we?
About 2000 of them constitute (approximately) high school literacy. But there are about 50 thousand of them. Bad enough?
In order for your "they are just there" be what you really meant you would have had to switch from talking about words you need to learn for literacy to words that have no impact on literacy whatsoever in the space between the period and the word "but". Not to mention you are telling the reader that those two sentences are related by using a conjunction. Albeit one used with a period.
If your defense is really that you inserted a non-sequitor then perhaps there are some large gaps in your English education too? The more likely case is that you were trying to convince the reader that there are lots of characters to learn. Big numbers make your case better. Even though when it comes to talking about literacy (and I question that character counts are a very good way to talk about this) your big numbers are off by a fucking order of magnitude.
As for a simplified character vocabulary, take a trip to Taiwan, why don't you. See how that works out for you.
...and what? Taiwan officially uses traditional and colloquially uses simplified. Toronto, where I live is likely even more mixed. Unlike Taiwan there is no regulation on character usage (since Chinese is not an official language here). Original immigrants were mostly HK Cantonese speakers. To the point that many of my friends who speak Cantonese actually had to *learn* it because nobody spoke their native dialect. Today I see far more Taiwanese and Mandarin speakers. Lots of storefronts sport traditional signs but the goods inside are often marked with simplified charcters. Sing Tao Daily writes in Traditional BUT the advertisement inserts often have simplified and the entertainment sections will often have quotes from people using HKCS. Actually some of the things I've seen from Canton province are probably more interesting than Taiwanese stuff. Where people are using simplified characters but with HKCS. Taiwan does use variants that are rarely seen in the mainland (I mentioned da2 which I've seen in Taiwan and Japan but never in simplified - even though it's technically part of modern Chinese but ironically it contains two copies of the same radical which ARE simplified) - Anyway Taiwan probably has more spoken variants than orthographical ones.
Your experience is only your experience
While true, it ironically doesn't exclude that my experience probably exceeds your own in every way.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
How the outbreak in Disney was not a wild strain.
Are you trolling? Disneyland outbreak was genotype B3. http://outbreaknewstoday.com/p...
Since I know pro-vaxxers won't do any research on their own, rather relying on the supposed experts to tell you what to believe, here is a link for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Yeah, someone got genotype A measles unsurprising considering the billions of shots that have been given. The idea that this could be responsible for outbreaks involved a catastrophic misunderstanding of science. See even if you shed genotype A. It's still vaccine strain, the likely case for someone who encounters it in sufficient quantity is - vaccination.
Another link for the unbelievers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
This simply looks at post hoc ER visits. Not actual events.
Didn't finish my thought there. "could easily mean to someone who isn't violating the TOS" should be followed by: "Are you using your parent's account in your own home?"
Personally, I'm disappointed that Slashdot actually posted this.
So it seems that this isn't about piracy at all. Just account sharing, which is defined as "anyone who used a streaming service but did not pay for it". This would include ones parents, common law spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, or sibling - collectively totaling over 60% of the Netflix account sharers. It doesn't really clarify how they determined if this was inside or outside the policy for the given service based on the definition I'd wager they simply didn't care.
How accurate this is depends significantly how the questions were posed. i.e. Saying "Do you pay for your own Netflix account or do you use someone else's?" could easily mean to someone who isn't violating the TOS
Also to those who are saying the implied claim is that 100% of the people who use someone else's credentials would buy their own. Apparently they asked the question "If you lost access to this credential would you get your own." For Netflix aboutt 60% said "yes" and this was used to determine the overall "cost" of account sharing.
Snapshots.
You are...as seems to be your habit...flat out wrong.
Fat and carbohydrates are both burned at the same time. Just in different ratios - the ratios do shift but not by much more than 20%. As usual you want to maximize the total calories burned more than anything else.
Please stop just making things up.
Well, there are about a zillion parameters in the human body with complex interactions, genetic & epigenetic dependencies, etc. that we barely understand! Yet we assume that everyone is the same?
I'll tell you where this unscientific belief comes from--
Well first we should explain your unscientific belief that this is in fact what either myself or other doctors are describing. It's not that we believe that people are the same but that people are not significantly different in a number of parameters pertaining to BMR. Just because there are lots of things going on in the human body doesn't mean they all affect BMR significantly. That's where your ideas go wrong.
The other problem with your terribly unscientific religion is that you're not controlling for activity or correcting for the fact that people are kind of bad at determining their caloric intake. Considering this conversation was about me correcting someone who claims they take in 3000-4000 KCals/day and doesn't get fat. You appear to immediately take this as evidence supporting your belief without attempting to correct for the fact that this person really doesn't eat that much, or is under 18 or that they're actually more active. It wouldn't take much error in all those parameters to bring that persons actual intake/weight to conform with predictions made from BMR.
Most discussions of obesity have a heavy bias toward the view that people simply choose to be pigs.
This is actually unrelated to what either the OP was talking about and I think that "most discussions" needs to be qualified.
This is flat out wrong.
Not really. :-)
That in no way negates the possibility that the mean values of the samples can be tightly correlated to the indep. vars.
I'll give you that my statement was a tich strong. However the point that the OP is making is that there is variable OTHER than the regressors we currently use that exhibits exceptionally strong control - equal to or greater than the effect of the known regressors combined - over BMR. Even though those variables explain BMR reasonably well. Broadly speaking this claim could be true in several ways:
The regressors could actually be representing our "X factor" and/or our "X factor" explains the currently unexplained portion of the effect or the calculated correlation is random.
The problem with the first idea is that there really are no candidates which explain say...lean body mass - for example. The problem with the second idea is that lean body mass explains quite a bit of the effect. The problem with the third idea is that this has been replicated quite a bit and is based on some known biochemistry.
Ugh...usually when people say "metabolic rate" they mean something like BMR - basal metabolic rate. Did you know that we have quite a number of equations which predict BMR from relatively few variables. If what you assert it true - that BMR varies significantly, per person. Then you wouldn't be able to perform a regression on BMR data with any useful correlation.
We do. Hence you are wrong.
Technically, I'm simply saying it's plausible. Knuth is a little cagey about denying it. Two people recollect some kind of rebuke. Steve wasn't exactly Mr. Modest. Knuth wasn't beyond the occasional barb.
It makes you look like a polite host
Not really.
You know, social interaction.
Spoken like someone who as only read about such things. See if Jobs had opened with a lie like "I'm interested in your work" *that* would be a fiction which is has a social purpose (Pro Tip: In my experience just admitting ignorance probably works better). It gives the other person permission to talk about themselves. Whereas "I've read all your books" is actually anti-social. Knuth knows he can't talk about his work because he knows Jobs hasn't read it and probably knows it's beyond Job's ability to understand. Not only that but if he picked up on the obvious lead and wanted to talk about a specific work it puts Jobs in the awkward position to continue to lie or catches him in a lie (awkward for most people, for all I know Jobs lied a lot). A statement like that actually shuts social interaction down (It's the "inter" part that's important - in case your books don't cover that). Not unlike the way bragging shuts down social interaction.
So I get that you might not understand that. Social moires can be subtle. But by the time you're out of college I'm sure you'll have these things down. :-)
The person writing the story was present Tom Zito and so was Mike Boich (who mentions this in the comments).
Reading the story, it is inconceivable that Knuth would have said what he said.
If you take a look at the comments. The other person in the room recalled a somewhat softer rebuke. I'm sorry that either are beyond your ability to conceive.
And surely Steve didn't look like a doofus at all
I think someone who says "I've read all your books" to Knuth really didn't know to what he was referring. TAOCPS was at three volumes in 1986 and I doubt Steve Jobs - based on his not-very technical reputation - would have got through them. Not to mention a few books on math, typography as well as the MIX/360 users guide.
Steve Jobs accomplished some great things - with an enormous amount of help from people who actually knew how to do things - but there is absolutely no evidence that he knew anything about coding. So, to me anyway saying you've read all someones work when you clearly have not and could not. Makes you look like a doofus.
I have yet to see where Knuth clearly denies the story. It is corroborated by the two other living people in the room (although they have differing recollections as to how strong the rebuke was). So it's at least plausible.
http://www.folklore.org/
Not a bad source for stories about Jobs dickish behavior...and before some /.er wants to point it out I'll do so. There's one story with Knuth where Steve looks like a pretty big doofus. It's been reported that Knuth has denied it - in particular in a talk by Randal Monroe's where he was present - the actual quote from Knuth though could easily be interpreted as avoiding the question rather than denying it.
I'll assume the main reason to do this is to get a job, one that in particular advertises for a specific set of skills. One of which is an obscure programming language. Unless you have nothing to do it's probably more worth your time to spend a day before said interview learning enough to fake it. If you want to lie or be honest about this on your resume or in your interview that's up to you and how well you think you can pull that off but if you want your resume to get past HR and make a short list AND you are actively pursuing multiple opportunities. This is probably your best bet.
Which is what I read. Just answering the obvious implication.
Some ability to think is probably just as essential. Let me know when you show some. :-)
"The millisecond a quantum environment is proven capable of cracking most modern crypto like a fucking egg"
Uh...no. It is proven to be able to factor large numbers quickly which will make the two major public key systems (DHX and RSA) and in some insanely popular use cases (the internet) we use these to exchange keys for symmetric block cipher but that's hardly 'most modern crypto'.
"Well sure, but then there is obviously some other politics at play that should be addressed." - What if there's a latent bias in society? Now imagine how that affects at other levels. For example in getting an education, getting a good education, participating in open source projects and finally "fitting with the team"?
Wouldn't all these things have a winnowing effect on your pool of candidates?
"fits well with the rest of the team" - So if there some hostility toward some particular people group within your team. Wouldn't your system just bifurcate?
"This got a lot of publicity but it doesn't really add all that much security"
When you don't have a clause starting with "relative to" and/or "given that" this always reads like a sentence fragment. Increasing resistance to certain attacks 1000x may well be worth it in a number of circumstances.
Not to mention you appear to misunderstand the point the cartoon is making. People need to remember passwords. People can remember four entirely random common words but are unlikely to remember ten entirely random characters. Your points about "good priors" is correct but that's why XKCD only rates the 10 character password with 22 bits of entropy instead of 59 (or more since it uses punctuation). However since the WORDS are random - there are no priors.
Even choosing four random words from the vocabulary of an eight year old gives you about 53 bits of entropy. Outperforming the entropy of the an entirely random 8 character password (52 bits - using a 62 character alphabet and 30 non-alphabetic symbols).
Passphrases provide a higher amount of memorable entropy.
If you mean the 2 (or 1) points my post has? Well that all has to do with not posting as an AC.
Please think at least once (some Western proverbs suggest twice, at least one Chinese proverb suggests thrice) before you speak next time.
"A hostess at a restaurant"
Uh who's talking about some exceptionally specific situation? Nobody. The poster I was responding to said they "Stopped reading at 'microagressions'" and then appeared to call any and all allegations of microagression a "delusion".
Hence my question is do they believe in the kind of social exchange I describe.
Soooo you think it's impossible for a social exchange to occur in which a person says or does something, often accidentally, and without intended malice, that belittles and alienates a member of a marginalized group?
The thing you're not experiencing is getting asked this a lot - in contexts when nobody else is getting asked and people not being satisfied when you just say "here". To me the inequity/racism starts as soon as the white person is either not required to be asked the same question and/or the white persons answer is considered sufficient but the non-white persons answer is not.
My wife is Asian and we live in a very very white suburb. When someone asked how she liked living there she casually mentioned that the lack of diversity got to her occasionally (I'm white and it gets to *me*). The person then verbally stumbled over themselves telling her how NORMAL she was. How perfect her English was (which is unsurprising since she has lived in an English speaking country all her life during which she has earned three degrees) and it ended with "I think of you as white!"
The person was entirely pleasant and certainly had no ill intent and we didn't think it the right time to turn this into a teaching moment however but it's pretty clear that the underlying message was "I don't think of you as significantly different". Perhaps this is the thing people don't get. It's not about being accepted as NORMAL it's about being accepted as DIFFERENT.
I didn't say you had to learn them. I said they were there.
Sorry the likely case is you are backpedaling. The whole post, in fact the whole portion of this thread is about learning Chinese and you thought adding something that has zero to do with it was a good idea to throw in. That's what you want readers to believe? Let's look at your quote shall we?
About 2000 of them constitute (approximately) high school literacy. But there are about 50 thousand of them. Bad enough?
In order for your "they are just there" be what you really meant you would have had to switch from talking about words you need to learn for literacy to words that have no impact on literacy whatsoever in the space between the period and the word "but". Not to mention you are telling the reader that those two sentences are related by using a conjunction. Albeit one used with a period.
If your defense is really that you inserted a non-sequitor then perhaps there are some large gaps in your English education too? The more likely case is that you were trying to convince the reader that there are lots of characters to learn. Big numbers make your case better. Even though when it comes to talking about literacy (and I question that character counts are a very good way to talk about this) your big numbers are off by a fucking order of magnitude.
As for a simplified character vocabulary, take a trip to Taiwan, why don't you. See how that works out for you.
...and what? Taiwan officially uses traditional and colloquially uses simplified. Toronto, where I live is likely even more mixed. Unlike Taiwan there is no regulation on character usage (since Chinese is not an official language here). Original immigrants were mostly HK Cantonese speakers. To the point that many of my friends who speak Cantonese actually had to *learn* it because nobody spoke their native dialect. Today I see far more Taiwanese and Mandarin speakers. Lots of storefronts sport traditional signs but the goods inside are often marked with simplified charcters. Sing Tao Daily writes in Traditional BUT the advertisement inserts often have simplified and the entertainment sections will often have quotes from people using HKCS. Actually some of the things I've seen from Canton province are probably more interesting than Taiwanese stuff. Where people are using simplified characters but with HKCS. Taiwan does use variants that are rarely seen in the mainland (I mentioned da2 which I've seen in Taiwan and Japan but never in simplified - even though it's technically part of modern Chinese but ironically it contains two copies of the same radical which ARE simplified) - Anyway Taiwan probably has more spoken variants than orthographical ones.
Your experience is only your experience
While true, it ironically doesn't exclude that my experience probably exceeds your own in every way. :-)