The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.
There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?
First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.
Were they first produced today, Einstein's early defining works would go straight into the crackpot file (recall that he was working as a patent clerk when he submitted his four groundbreaking papers, which included special relativity and E=MC2).
The barriers to acceptance you complain about have always been part of science. Einstein's initial ideas WERE initially dismissed, specifically because they were so unconventional and because he had no credentials. The thing is, though, his ideas were RIGHT, so eventually the physics community came around and accepted his theories.
This is because so many of the older physicists, who are string theory adherents, are the ones controlling entry into their field. It also takes a pretty big man (or woman) to admit they've devoted their career to barking up the wrong tree.
Also not new. As Planck said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I think the real problem is that it takes decades of education to catch up to the current frontier of knowledge in the fundamental sciences. A human lifespan is typically only 80 years - as the article points out, Nobels used to be won by people in their 30's, more recently they are being won by people in their late 40's. It's certainly conceivable that we're getting to the point that a human lifetime just isn't long enough to learn everything that has come before and then have a useful amount of productive years left.
The other possibility is that we are in the lull right before the next major breakthrough that offers us a fundamentally new perspective on reality... but there's no guarantee that those will keep coming. We might get to the point that are models are pretty much as good as they are going to get, or get to the point that our brains / lifespans aren't good enough for us to reach the next stepping stone.
I agree with you, basically. Really, I'm just opposed to FUD regarding either alternative energy or nuclear - both of them are honestly great by just about all metrics when compared to fossil fuels, especially coal. But I see a lot of pro-solar folks who demonize nuclear for some reason, and a lot of pro-nuclear folks who demonize solar and wind. An electric grid of nuclear + solar and wind everywhere that it works (which will be just about everywhere as prices continue to fall) would kick all sorts of ass compared to our current method of dumping carbon and carcinogens directly into the air we breath.
If you choose to look solely at provable & immediate deaths (as nuclear proponents always seem to), then yeah, nuclear looks very safe. But when you include a reasonable estimate of lives shortened by cancer as a result of exposure to released radioactive material, then not so much.
No, if you include those estimates, nuclear still comes out as extremely safe by comparison to everything else. Read the original link - it specifically deals with the 4000 deaths you cite.
There are two factors at play here. First, most other forms of power are far more dangerous than people realize... climbing around on wind turbines and roofs is not a statistically very safe activity. And 4000 deaths qualifies as a puny hydroelectric accident, historically speaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Secondly, nuclear produces a TON of electricity, very reliably, for decades. If you are looking at deaths per unit power, nuclear has an average-to-low numerator and a freaking huge denominator. So, on the whole, if you want the least amount of people to die as possible to keep your lights on for an hour, nuclear is the way to go. The pollution and carbon benefits are nice as well.
BTW, I support solar, wind, and every other kind of clean energy out there. But we need to look at the facts on all sides, and the facts are that nuclear is very safe and very clean.
Oh, and I still think this is not news. Every day there is another "discovery" to make an excuse to put global warming in the news.
Bitching about new climate change evidence makes you part of the problem. Every significant study that advances our climate knowledge is worth talking about, because it informs the discussion about what we ought to do. Since we continually get more data, we should continually update our projections, and make policy decisions with the best information possible.
Personally I believe solar power is so expensive, resource heavy, unreliable, and not all that friendly to the environment generally, that it should be a source of last resort.
Science doesn't care what you personally believe. You should take your own advice and educate yourself on this topic. Your claims are either out of date, misinformed, or outright FUD. Solar has become incredibly cheap in recent years - it was at $100/W in 1975, but it's less than $0.37/W today. The panels pay back enormously more energy than they require to build, and have very minimal maintenance requirements. If you live in a sunny place, it's one of the more lucrative home improvement investments you can make, with anywhere between a 2% and 9% annualized return on investment, depending on your specific setup. That compares really well to savings or bond markets, and can even be competitive with stock market returns - with much less risk! The great thing about this is that even detractors like yourself are mattering less and less, because the free market will take over from here and we'll see installations popping up like crazy (which is already happening).
Nuclear energy is great - I would love to see more of it. It's by far the safest form of energy and I actively advocate for it. You can read through my comment history and find me doing exactly that. But you don't need to spread FUD about solar or anything else to promote nuclear. Any power generation that displaces fossil fuels is a step in the right direction.
Discovering deep ocean temperatures as evidence of faster than expected global warming is not news to me, I recall hearing this at least a decade ago. Making this discovery over and over again is either evidence of a short memory among the scientists or that they've been making bad predictions for the last 40 years or more.
It IS news. Here's the thing about science: it doesn't work like in the movies. It's not some genius in isolation who disappears into a chalkboard montage and emerges with infallible truth. It's somebody who makes a claim and supplies their evidence, and then somebody else comes out and challenges it, and then a third group comes out with some additions to the first claim that addresses inaccuracies and suggests a more accurate methodology, and then the original researcher publishes a followup with more recent data, etc, etc. It's iterative, so if it sounds repetitive, it's because this knowledge is built up one small step at a time. Our sensors are constantly improving, our data processing is constantly getting more sophisticated, our models are continually being refined - so our picture will get more and more accurate with time. Predicting the future is hard, but we're getting better and better at it, one small step at a time.
The thing is, our entire society is built upon this basic process of iterative discovery. It's allowed us to produce the most prosperous, populous, and technologically advanced civilization in history. When the foremost experts at this process tell us they are worried about what their data suggest, we should pay attention.
It doesn't mean that their predictions are infallible, or that they won't be updated or improved - it means that this is the best knowledge we have, today. We should make decisions based on the most accurate information available to us at any given time. It's absurd to me that so many people will happily enjoy the abundance of a scientific society, but the moment scientists suggest action that requires personal inconvenience, those same people will attack scientists ruthlessly. Biting the hand that feeds you, and is trying to pull you away from a crumbling cliff.
We are talking about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which in the United States has been determined to at a minimum mean that everyone has a right to pursue gainful employment. We both know many contribute to these projects on contract from an employer or in hopes of demonstrating their skills for future employment. If you prevent people from participating, you are hindering their ability to be gainfully employed.
This just doesn't make sense. By this logic, you would be required to allow a belligerent racist to volunteer for your charity, even if that person's antisocial behaviors were driving away other volunteers and making the entire operation dysfunctional because of conflict. You have a right to pursue happiness - not a guarantee that you will be allowed to be a part of any project you want. Sometimes you pursue something and don't get it until you improve your skills, technical or social.
Here's the thing: even WITH these codes of conduct, a racist, sexist, whatever-ist can be part of any software project they choose, as long as they keep their opinions to themselves. They will be only asked to leave if they are for some reason unable to keep their opinions out of their project communication. There's never any reason to bring those things up in the context of code comments or software arguments anyway.
Is there any anti-Democrat conspiracy theory you WON'T believe? I used to think tin-foil hatters were just an exaggerated joke, but your posts are doing a great job convincing me otherwise. You better tighten that thing up another notch.
Now, she didn't *explicitly* say that Republicans should be hunted down and killed like al-Qaida and the Taliban... But what other implication are you supposed to draw? That they should be thrown in the prison at Guantánamo?
Hillary was using a rhetorical technique of equivalence there to make her opponents seem like backward fundamentalists. Republicans are actively and explicitly advocating for Democrats to be sent to guantanamo - just google it on Infowars. It's completely bonkers.
Here in the US it is one of our principles that a diversity of viewpoints actually makes us stronger.
I agree with you generally. I am a supporter of free speech.
I do believe that the people pushing these agendas are trying to make these projects welcoming. They are doing so by via a means of systemically rejecting and casting out others they've defined as unworthy of welcome. This philosophy makes being anti-social a systemic crime but there is nothing to say social norms of behavior are correct and all that should be tolerated.
I don't agree with you here. If you welcome anti-social assholes to be anti-social assholes, you are NOT creating a developer community that will be healthy, productive, and growing. You don't create a welcoming community by encouraging unwelcoming behavior. A lot of developers believe in the concept of meritocracy, right? Well, if you've failed to communicate professionally and respectfully, you've demonstrated a lack of merit, because now people aren't focused on the technical problems, but on the dev who's causing drama. Being anti-social will get you fired from many workplaces because you make the whole environment less productive and enjoyable for everyone - same principle for open source.
Remember, freedom of speech goes in all directions. Project leaders are exercising their freedom of speech by putting their values in their Code of Conduct. You can exercise your freedom of speech by advocating for a different view. You can also exercise it by finding a different project to work on that accepts your views, or forking the project to create "AssholeSQL" where sociopaths are welcome.
The less defensible their views, the more difficult to understand, the more protection they need.
They need protection from punitive actions by the government, certainly. Donate to the ACLU if you feel very strongly about this, they have defended the free-speech rights of some really despicable folks, and I applaud them for it. That said, white supremacists and similar degenerates should NOT be protected from the free speech of others. Free speech does NOT mean freedom from criticism, or disagreement, or social consequences. If you freely present a reprehensible idea, someone (or more likely, many someones) will freely respond by telling you what they think of that idea.
We both know you are trolling and props for trolling well but you do understand we have an actual political powder keg here in the states and it is spreading, I'm trying to defuse the extreme positions that are threatening to blow it and you are stirring the pot.
Actually, I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out that we shouldn't use sloppy, panicked thinking. Rather than making a claim of substance, you made an ad hominem attack against the people you disagree with. Let me remind you - this is a Code of Conduct in a software project that we're talking about here... holy shit, is there anything more boring in the world?
If you really want to defuse extreme positions, then just calm down. Stop looking for liberal bogeyman behind every corner, and just remind yourself that people are generally trying to make these projects welcoming and promote professional communication. There's nothing wrong with that. Actually, it's a good idea. It's not political extremism, and it's not something to get upset about. It's fine to have an opinion about what should and shouldn't be in a Code of Conduct - but just make your argument on its own terms! You don't have to call the person with a different opinion anything at all (political extremist or otherwise) to make your point - just state your preference and your reasoning.
If you genuinely care about a more moderate discourse - then be moderate yourself.
anyone who attempts to inject politics into such a thing is acting in an extreme manner
That's an entirely different argument from this:
anyone who is trying to emphasis a CoC beyond "the mods can boot obvious trolls and spammers" in software development projects is by definition a political extremist.
Let's ignore the fact that you are changing your arguments on a whim. What is extreme about a code of conduct? Can't there be non-extreme politics? And where do you draw the line between politics and simple desirable conduct? "Don't be an asshole" doesn't seem particularly political, and at one time "don't use racist/sexist insults towards devs or users" wouldn't have been considered very political either, but the MRA drama queens that populate slashdot lately seem to think they are being oppressed by political extremists if they are required to adhere to even simple standards of professional dialogue.
He was not debating me. He attempted to look superior by using a strawman (that words have a singular all encompassing definition) to make me look inferior.
That wasn't a strawman, FYI. A strawman would be if I mischaracterized your argument, and then attacked that mischaracterization. If I said "Shaitand thinks trolls and spammers should be allowed in any project, he's a clueless anarchist!" that would be a strawman. But, I just attacked your argument directly: you contended that CoC proponents are political extremists according to the definition of "political extremism". Obviously wrong, according to any dictionary, or reasonably proficient English speaker.
I think that is at least one reasonable definition of political extremism. Who are you to presume to correct me?
My qualifications are minimal: I know how to use a dictionary. The existence of a code of conduct is completely tangential to, or even directly at odds with, political extremism. For instance, my proposed code of conduct: Don't compose erotic poetry in the code comments.
You're just being dramatic (and misusing language) to paint the people you disagree with as extremists and make yourself seem moderate.
Find me a dictionary definition of extremism that has anything whatsoever to do with "codes of conduct" and I'll concede the point. Better yet, stop panicking and relax.
But it becomes an issue because you can't even say it. For example there are various pride organizations for every ethnicity, sans white. Why can't we have a white scholarship?
Here's the thing: there IS scholarship of German-Americans, and Irish-Americans, and Italian-Americans, and various other Americans of European descent, and that is a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile endeavor. If there's some particular European culture you come from, go for it, have some pride, put on your lederhosen or clogs or kilt and celebrate the grand traditions of your forebears. Nobody will give you a hard time about it.
If, however, you aren't trying to celebrate any of those cultures in particular, you are going to have a hard time, because of these issues: If you want to celebrate white pride, what, in precise terms, are you trying to celebrate? Who gets to be in your white pride march? Is the criteria the color of your skin? Is it that you come from Europe? Or specific parts of Europe? How about Mexicans, whose ancestors come from Europe as well? Many Jews are light-skinned and had ancestors in Europe - do they get to be a part of it? Who is it, exactly, that is included as "white"? And, more importantly, who is it that is excluded?
Agreed and anyone who is trying to emphasis a CoC beyond "the mods can boot obvious trolls and spammers" in software development projects is by definition a political extremist.
FYI - "by definition" doesn't mean "absolutely". It would mean, in your case, that the dictionary definition of "political extremist" is "one who advocates for a nontrivial code of conduct". If that's really how you define political extremism - you need to expand your worldview a bit more.
Or, more likely, you need to learn to use the phrase "by definition" when it actually applies.
The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.
That's an interesting link, but I can't help thinking that 0 is a very misleading number to use there, particularly because this isn't deaths per million passenger miles, it's deaths per million registered vehicle years. And consider the methodology:
"Although the latest numbers reflect 2011 models, the study included data from earlier-model year vehicles as far back as 2008 if the vehicles weren't substantially redesigned before 2011. Including older, equivalent vehicles increases the exposure and thus the accuracy of the results, the institute said. To be included, a vehicle must have had at least 100,000 registered vehicle years of exposure during 2009-12, or at least 20 deaths."
That article in particular highlights the highest and lowest death rates, which is basically the least reliable meaning to be found in this report - it's no coincidence that many low-sales vehicles are present on both the high and low end of the spectrum. Many of the zeros would have just barely squeaked into being included (considering the ~20k/yr sales on the Mercedes SUV) which means that you're reporting 0 deaths per million vehicle years on data of only 100k vehicle-years.
Based on those statistics you should estimate the rate to be 10 deaths per million vehicle years (basically assume that there was one observed death for the 100k vehicle years you have data on). If they wanted to report this more accurately, they would include the uncertainty - due to the nature of statistics on low-frequency events, there are very large error bars on these estimates. IIRC, the uncertainty on an event count of 0 or 1 will be around 10x in either direction - so really, the "true" value of the Mercedes death rate based on those stats is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 100 deaths per million vehicle years.
The reverse case is also a problem - the Kia Rio also had fairly low sales to be included in the study, so there were probably around 15 total deaths for 100k vehicle-years, which could mean the vehicle (or its average driver) is dangerous, or it could be a statistical outlier. Since we do have some actual observations in that case, though, we have less uncertainty to account for, so the "true" rate is probably somewhere between 100 and 200.
Bottom line - those figures are probably pretty reliable for your Honda Civics and Toyota RAV4s and other vehicles with a high number of vehicles and high number of observed events, but for vehicles with low sales figures, and especially for vehicles with one or zero observed events, we can't say with any confidence that the number is lower than 100 deaths per million vehicle years.
For what it's worth, it used to be my job to estimate how often an event would happen even if we didn't observe it in the test data - which is basically this same situation.
A more effective combo imo is python, pandas, and jupyter notebooks. Python is a simple language, pandas data structures lend themselves to the types of calculations you'd do with a spreadsheet, and jupyter notebooks allow one to tell a sequential story as to how a calculation was done.
A million times this. Notebooks kick all sorts of ass. I think a LOT more work will be done this way in the future, because it's really the first format that can combine data, processing steps, documentation, and visualization into one single package. Honestly, notebooks could replace powerpoint and word as well as excel for many use cases.
I am generally deeply skeptical of what Trump is doing to the EPA, but I don't actually see a problem with the text - it's a good thing to investigate response models to various toxins, radiation, etc. and use the most appropriate one for determining policy. A linear model is almost certainly incorrect for most cases, and could just as easily underestimate the harm as overestimate it.
The problem comes in if this is used to implement unjustified deregulation, which is certainly a concern with this administration. It's hard to say if that's the case without more context though.
Your point would have been better if you didn't make it a partisan thing.
Good quote from a guy whose stuff I like: "In our online interactions, we have a choice of being a smartass and showing people how dumb they are, OR maybe convincing skeptical new people to consider our opinions. Unfortunately for fellow smartasses, we only get to choose one:-)"
I disagree that it's easy to imagine what an atom looks like. If I scaled up an atom of hydrogen so that it was 1m across (instead of 10^-10 m), you wouldn't see anything because the nucleus and the electron would still be microscopic.
The "atom as billiards ball" analogy is a reasonable/useful approximation for most situations where you are thinking about large quantities of atoms. Thinking about kinetic theory of temperature, structure of solids, chemical composition of materials, etc.
Really, this is getting at reasoning by analogy, which is one of our primary approaches to understanding. QM defies reasoning by analogy, because there is nothing in everyday experience that is remotely similar to quantum mechanical behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.
There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?
First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.
Were they first produced today, Einstein's early defining works would go straight into the crackpot file (recall that he was working as a patent clerk when he submitted his four groundbreaking papers, which included special relativity and E=MC2).
The barriers to acceptance you complain about have always been part of science. Einstein's initial ideas WERE initially dismissed, specifically because they were so unconventional and because he had no credentials. The thing is, though, his ideas were RIGHT, so eventually the physics community came around and accepted his theories.
This is because so many of the older physicists, who are string theory adherents, are the ones controlling entry into their field. It also takes a pretty big man (or woman) to admit they've devoted their career to barking up the wrong tree.
Also not new. As Planck said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I think the real problem is that it takes decades of education to catch up to the current frontier of knowledge in the fundamental sciences. A human lifespan is typically only 80 years - as the article points out, Nobels used to be won by people in their 30's, more recently they are being won by people in their late 40's. It's certainly conceivable that we're getting to the point that a human lifetime just isn't long enough to learn everything that has come before and then have a useful amount of productive years left.
The other possibility is that we are in the lull right before the next major breakthrough that offers us a fundamentally new perspective on reality... but there's no guarantee that those will keep coming. We might get to the point that are models are pretty much as good as they are going to get, or get to the point that our brains / lifespans aren't good enough for us to reach the next stepping stone.
I agree with you, basically. Really, I'm just opposed to FUD regarding either alternative energy or nuclear - both of them are honestly great by just about all metrics when compared to fossil fuels, especially coal. But I see a lot of pro-solar folks who demonize nuclear for some reason, and a lot of pro-nuclear folks who demonize solar and wind. An electric grid of nuclear + solar and wind everywhere that it works (which will be just about everywhere as prices continue to fall) would kick all sorts of ass compared to our current method of dumping carbon and carcinogens directly into the air we breath.
If you choose to look solely at provable & immediate deaths (as nuclear proponents always seem to), then yeah, nuclear looks very safe. But when you include a reasonable estimate of lives shortened by cancer as a result of exposure to released radioactive material, then not so much.
No, if you include those estimates, nuclear still comes out as extremely safe by comparison to everything else. Read the original link - it specifically deals with the 4000 deaths you cite.
There are two factors at play here. First, most other forms of power are far more dangerous than people realize... climbing around on wind turbines and roofs is not a statistically very safe activity. And 4000 deaths qualifies as a puny hydroelectric accident, historically speaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Secondly, nuclear produces a TON of electricity, very reliably, for decades. If you are looking at deaths per unit power, nuclear has an average-to-low numerator and a freaking huge denominator. So, on the whole, if you want the least amount of people to die as possible to keep your lights on for an hour, nuclear is the way to go. The pollution and carbon benefits are nice as well.
BTW, I support solar, wind, and every other kind of clean energy out there. But we need to look at the facts on all sides, and the facts are that nuclear is very safe and very clean.
FYI, the numbers say that nuclear energy is by far the safest form of energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bitching about new climate change evidence makes you part of the problem. Every significant study that advances our climate knowledge is worth talking about, because it informs the discussion about what we ought to do. Since we continually get more data, we should continually update our projections, and make policy decisions with the best information possible.
Science doesn't care what you personally believe. You should take your own advice and educate yourself on this topic. Your claims are either out of date, misinformed, or outright FUD. Solar has become incredibly cheap in recent years - it was at $100/W in 1975, but it's less than $0.37/W today. The panels pay back enormously more energy than they require to build, and have very minimal maintenance requirements. If you live in a sunny place, it's one of the more lucrative home improvement investments you can make, with anywhere between a 2% and 9% annualized return on investment, depending on your specific setup. That compares really well to savings or bond markets, and can even be competitive with stock market returns - with much less risk! The great thing about this is that even detractors like yourself are mattering less and less, because the free market will take over from here and we'll see installations popping up like crazy (which is already happening).
Nuclear energy is great - I would love to see more of it. It's by far the safest form of energy and I actively advocate for it. You can read through my comment history and find me doing exactly that. But you don't need to spread FUD about solar or anything else to promote nuclear. Any power generation that displaces fossil fuels is a step in the right direction.
Discovering deep ocean temperatures as evidence of faster than expected global warming is not news to me, I recall hearing this at least a decade ago. Making this discovery over and over again is either evidence of a short memory among the scientists or that they've been making bad predictions for the last 40 years or more.
It IS news. Here's the thing about science: it doesn't work like in the movies. It's not some genius in isolation who disappears into a chalkboard montage and emerges with infallible truth. It's somebody who makes a claim and supplies their evidence, and then somebody else comes out and challenges it, and then a third group comes out with some additions to the first claim that addresses inaccuracies and suggests a more accurate methodology, and then the original researcher publishes a followup with more recent data, etc, etc. It's iterative, so if it sounds repetitive, it's because this knowledge is built up one small step at a time. Our sensors are constantly improving, our data processing is constantly getting more sophisticated, our models are continually being refined - so our picture will get more and more accurate with time. Predicting the future is hard, but we're getting better and better at it, one small step at a time.
The thing is, our entire society is built upon this basic process of iterative discovery. It's allowed us to produce the most prosperous, populous, and technologically advanced civilization in history. When the foremost experts at this process tell us they are worried about what their data suggest, we should pay attention.
It doesn't mean that their predictions are infallible, or that they won't be updated or improved - it means that this is the best knowledge we have, today. We should make decisions based on the most accurate information available to us at any given time. It's absurd to me that so many people will happily enjoy the abundance of a scientific society, but the moment scientists suggest action that requires personal inconvenience, those same people will attack scientists ruthlessly. Biting the hand that feeds you, and is trying to pull you away from a crumbling cliff.
We are talking about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which in the United States has been determined to at a minimum mean that everyone has a right to pursue gainful employment. We both know many contribute to these projects on contract from an employer or in hopes of demonstrating their skills for future employment. If you prevent people from participating, you are hindering their ability to be gainfully employed.
This just doesn't make sense. By this logic, you would be required to allow a belligerent racist to volunteer for your charity, even if that person's antisocial behaviors were driving away other volunteers and making the entire operation dysfunctional because of conflict. You have a right to pursue happiness - not a guarantee that you will be allowed to be a part of any project you want. Sometimes you pursue something and don't get it until you improve your skills, technical or social.
Here's the thing: even WITH these codes of conduct, a racist, sexist, whatever-ist can be part of any software project they choose, as long as they keep their opinions to themselves. They will be only asked to leave if they are for some reason unable to keep their opinions out of their project communication. There's never any reason to bring those things up in the context of code comments or software arguments anyway.
Is there any anti-Democrat conspiracy theory you WON'T believe? I used to think tin-foil hatters were just an exaggerated joke, but your posts are doing a great job convincing me otherwise. You better tighten that thing up another notch.
Now, she didn't *explicitly* say that Republicans should be hunted down and killed like al-Qaida and the Taliban... But what other implication are you supposed to draw? That they should be thrown in the prison at Guantánamo?
Hillary was using a rhetorical technique of equivalence there to make her opponents seem like backward fundamentalists. Republicans are actively and explicitly advocating for Democrats to be sent to guantanamo - just google it on Infowars. It's completely bonkers.
Here in the US it is one of our principles that a diversity of viewpoints actually makes us stronger.
I agree with you generally. I am a supporter of free speech.
I do believe that the people pushing these agendas are trying to make these projects welcoming. They are doing so by via a means of systemically rejecting and casting out others they've defined as unworthy of welcome. This philosophy makes being anti-social a systemic crime but there is nothing to say social norms of behavior are correct and all that should be tolerated.
I don't agree with you here. If you welcome anti-social assholes to be anti-social assholes, you are NOT creating a developer community that will be healthy, productive, and growing. You don't create a welcoming community by encouraging unwelcoming behavior. A lot of developers believe in the concept of meritocracy, right? Well, if you've failed to communicate professionally and respectfully, you've demonstrated a lack of merit, because now people aren't focused on the technical problems, but on the dev who's causing drama. Being anti-social will get you fired from many workplaces because you make the whole environment less productive and enjoyable for everyone - same principle for open source.
Remember, freedom of speech goes in all directions. Project leaders are exercising their freedom of speech by putting their values in their Code of Conduct. You can exercise your freedom of speech by advocating for a different view. You can also exercise it by finding a different project to work on that accepts your views, or forking the project to create "AssholeSQL" where sociopaths are welcome.
The less defensible their views, the more difficult to understand, the more protection they need.
They need protection from punitive actions by the government, certainly. Donate to the ACLU if you feel very strongly about this, they have defended the free-speech rights of some really despicable folks, and I applaud them for it. That said, white supremacists and similar degenerates should NOT be protected from the free speech of others. Free speech does NOT mean freedom from criticism, or disagreement, or social consequences. If you freely present a reprehensible idea, someone (or more likely, many someones) will freely respond by telling you what they think of that idea.
We both know you are trolling and props for trolling well but you do understand we have an actual political powder keg here in the states and it is spreading, I'm trying to defuse the extreme positions that are threatening to blow it and you are stirring the pot.
Actually, I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out that we shouldn't use sloppy, panicked thinking. Rather than making a claim of substance, you made an ad hominem attack against the people you disagree with. Let me remind you - this is a Code of Conduct in a software project that we're talking about here... holy shit, is there anything more boring in the world?
If you really want to defuse extreme positions, then just calm down. Stop looking for liberal bogeyman behind every corner, and just remind yourself that people are generally trying to make these projects welcoming and promote professional communication. There's nothing wrong with that. Actually, it's a good idea. It's not political extremism, and it's not something to get upset about. It's fine to have an opinion about what should and shouldn't be in a Code of Conduct - but just make your argument on its own terms! You don't have to call the person with a different opinion anything at all (political extremist or otherwise) to make your point - just state your preference and your reasoning.
If you genuinely care about a more moderate discourse - then be moderate yourself.
Yeah, that whole algebra thing is pretty lame and useless. Chemistry too.
The actual dictionary seems to disagree with you.
"Codes of conduct are politically extreme" does not follow from "extremism = being extreme". Try again.
anyone who attempts to inject politics into such a thing is acting in an extreme manner
That's an entirely different argument from this:
anyone who is trying to emphasis a CoC beyond "the mods can boot obvious trolls and spammers" in software development projects is by definition a political extremist.
Let's ignore the fact that you are changing your arguments on a whim. What is extreme about a code of conduct? Can't there be non-extreme politics? And where do you draw the line between politics and simple desirable conduct? "Don't be an asshole" doesn't seem particularly political, and at one time "don't use racist/sexist insults towards devs or users" wouldn't have been considered very political either, but the MRA drama queens that populate slashdot lately seem to think they are being oppressed by political extremists if they are required to adhere to even simple standards of professional dialogue.
He was not debating me. He attempted to look superior by using a strawman (that words have a singular all encompassing definition) to make me look inferior.
That wasn't a strawman, FYI. A strawman would be if I mischaracterized your argument, and then attacked that mischaracterization. If I said "Shaitand thinks trolls and spammers should be allowed in any project, he's a clueless anarchist!" that would be a strawman. But, I just attacked your argument directly: you contended that CoC proponents are political extremists according to the definition of "political extremism". Obviously wrong, according to any dictionary, or reasonably proficient English speaker.
I think that is at least one reasonable definition of political extremism. Who are you to presume to correct me?
My qualifications are minimal: I know how to use a dictionary. The existence of a code of conduct is completely tangential to, or even directly at odds with, political extremism. For instance, my proposed code of conduct: Don't compose erotic poetry in the code comments.
You're just being dramatic (and misusing language) to paint the people you disagree with as extremists and make yourself seem moderate.
Find me a dictionary definition of extremism that has anything whatsoever to do with "codes of conduct" and I'll concede the point. Better yet, stop panicking and relax.
But it becomes an issue because you can't even say it. For example there are various pride organizations for every ethnicity, sans white. Why can't we have a white scholarship?
Here's the thing: there IS scholarship of German-Americans, and Irish-Americans, and Italian-Americans, and various other Americans of European descent, and that is a perfectly legitimate and worthwhile endeavor. If there's some particular European culture you come from, go for it, have some pride, put on your lederhosen or clogs or kilt and celebrate the grand traditions of your forebears. Nobody will give you a hard time about it.
If, however, you aren't trying to celebrate any of those cultures in particular, you are going to have a hard time, because of these issues: If you want to celebrate white pride, what, in precise terms, are you trying to celebrate? Who gets to be in your white pride march? Is the criteria the color of your skin? Is it that you come from Europe? Or specific parts of Europe? How about Mexicans, whose ancestors come from Europe as well? Many Jews are light-skinned and had ancestors in Europe - do they get to be a part of it? Who is it, exactly, that is included as "white"? And, more importantly, who is it that is excluded?
This kind of post is what slashdot is for. Props to you sir.
"WTF does a CoC have to do with software?"
Agreed and anyone who is trying to emphasis a CoC beyond "the mods can boot obvious trolls and spammers" in software development projects is by definition a political extremist.
FYI - "by definition" doesn't mean "absolutely". It would mean, in your case, that the dictionary definition of "political extremist" is "one who advocates for a nontrivial code of conduct". If that's really how you define political extremism - you need to expand your worldview a bit more.
Or, more likely, you need to learn to use the phrase "by definition" when it actually applies.
The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.
That's an interesting link, but I can't help thinking that 0 is a very misleading number to use there, particularly because this isn't deaths per million passenger miles, it's deaths per million registered vehicle years. And consider the methodology:
"Although the latest numbers reflect 2011 models, the study included data from earlier-model year vehicles as far back as 2008 if the vehicles weren't substantially redesigned before 2011. Including older, equivalent vehicles increases the exposure and thus the accuracy of the results, the institute said. To be included, a vehicle must have had at least 100,000 registered vehicle years of exposure during 2009-12, or at least 20 deaths."
That article in particular highlights the highest and lowest death rates, which is basically the least reliable meaning to be found in this report - it's no coincidence that many low-sales vehicles are present on both the high and low end of the spectrum. Many of the zeros would have just barely squeaked into being included (considering the ~20k/yr sales on the Mercedes SUV) which means that you're reporting 0 deaths per million vehicle years on data of only 100k vehicle-years.
Based on those statistics you should estimate the rate to be 10 deaths per million vehicle years (basically assume that there was one observed death for the 100k vehicle years you have data on). If they wanted to report this more accurately, they would include the uncertainty - due to the nature of statistics on low-frequency events, there are very large error bars on these estimates. IIRC, the uncertainty on an event count of 0 or 1 will be around 10x in either direction - so really, the "true" value of the Mercedes death rate based on those stats is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 100 deaths per million vehicle years.
The reverse case is also a problem - the Kia Rio also had fairly low sales to be included in the study, so there were probably around 15 total deaths for 100k vehicle-years, which could mean the vehicle (or its average driver) is dangerous, or it could be a statistical outlier. Since we do have some actual observations in that case, though, we have less uncertainty to account for, so the "true" rate is probably somewhere between 100 and 200.
Bottom line - those figures are probably pretty reliable for your Honda Civics and Toyota RAV4s and other vehicles with a high number of vehicles and high number of observed events, but for vehicles with low sales figures, and especially for vehicles with one or zero observed events, we can't say with any confidence that the number is lower than 100 deaths per million vehicle years.
For what it's worth, it used to be my job to estimate how often an event would happen even if we didn't observe it in the test data - which is basically this same situation.
A more effective combo imo is python, pandas, and jupyter notebooks. Python is a simple language, pandas data structures lend themselves to the types of calculations you'd do with a spreadsheet, and jupyter notebooks allow one to tell a sequential story as to how a calculation was done.
A million times this. Notebooks kick all sorts of ass. I think a LOT more work will be done this way in the future, because it's really the first format that can combine data, processing steps, documentation, and visualization into one single package. Honestly, notebooks could replace powerpoint and word as well as excel for many use cases.
I am generally deeply skeptical of what Trump is doing to the EPA, but I don't actually see a problem with the text - it's a good thing to investigate response models to various toxins, radiation, etc. and use the most appropriate one for determining policy. A linear model is almost certainly incorrect for most cases, and could just as easily underestimate the harm as overestimate it.
The problem comes in if this is used to implement unjustified deregulation, which is certainly a concern with this administration. It's hard to say if that's the case without more context though.
Your point would have been better if you didn't make it a partisan thing.
Good quote from a guy whose stuff I like: "In our online interactions, we have a choice of being a smartass and showing people how dumb they are, OR maybe convincing skeptical new people to consider our opinions. Unfortunately for fellow smartasses, we only get to choose one :-)"
I disagree that it's easy to imagine what an atom looks like. If I scaled up an atom of hydrogen so that it was 1m across (instead of 10^-10 m), you wouldn't see anything because the nucleus and the electron would still be microscopic.
The "atom as billiards ball" analogy is a reasonable/useful approximation for most situations where you are thinking about large quantities of atoms. Thinking about kinetic theory of temperature, structure of solids, chemical composition of materials, etc.
Really, this is getting at reasoning by analogy, which is one of our primary approaches to understanding. QM defies reasoning by analogy, because there is nothing in everyday experience that is remotely similar to quantum mechanical behavior.