You've never been to a restaurant designed to be staffed by robots, so you have no idea if it will pleasant, or unpleasant. They don't exist yet, and you refuse to imagine them working. It is just an imagination fail on your part.
They don't know, because last year they didn't have labeling requirements. This isn't rocket surgery. They do in fact need to know about their supply chain. I've worked in the food packing industry and they're required to have a lot of information about the ingredients. Just because they don't put all that info on the box doesn't mean they don't know where anything came from.
Yeah, the crap about "pushing mankind to its outer limits" is hard to read. Is that really what engineering does?
Obviously, understanding the humans and the use cases is more important to being a great engineer than just math; the math is just a base requirement, not the job of engineering.
On github this week, I fixed a bug where the ticket was over 5 years old, and the project owner finally realized it is a real bug and the solution is harmless.
It hasn't been accepted yet, of course. Give it a couple more years.
Which is a good example how and why OSS works: It was found, documented, traced back (no sign of foul play) and fixed. What do you think would have happened in a commercial, closed library?
In commercial software it would be found, documented, traced back, and fixed. Documentation would be internal.
I'm pretty strongly against using proprietary stuff in my tool chain, but I just don't think this is a real difference.
He could have used proprietary encryption products, a self-hosted commercial VPN instead of Tor, an obscure proprietary OS not on the list of things worth backdooring, etc.
He did use some libre software, so we know what happened could happen using those tools. But we don't know anything about this idea that he couldn't have done it otherwise.
Avoiding Windows in particular is prudent for a wide variety of reasons; not least, products designed for the masses will have sacrificed some security for convenience.
And keep in mind, almost all the software I use is Free or OSS. I do also use a proprietary email app on my mobile device, and I use the LTSpice circuit simulator. (Only for simulation of the OSS-generated netlist)
Maybe they're not "mixing up" anything, maybe they found a correlation?
I recommend actually reading all of Feynman's memoirs. He had great charisma and liked people, but he was also somewhat introverted. He doesn't talk about having a lot of friends, though he does talk about meeting people and having an interest in meeting different sorts of people from different walks of life.
He actually describes spending most of his time alone, working on various math problems.
Being a good public speaker and enjoying people-watching doesn't really make him an extrovert. If you understand the technical difference between introvert and extrovert it becomes obvious; he didn't care about the "social environment," he cared about his own thoughts and feelings. For example where he talks about uniforms, and social expectations to "look like a professor." Those really expose where he is on that spectrum.
Introvert doesn't mean hermit; a charismatic introvert can be a great public speaker, and famous as a "people person." It doesn't keep them from spending the weekend working on a project, though.;)
I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.
You went off the rails at "telling people" in the first place. No, when they provide you with unwanted drama, you just need to stop telling them things, or listening to things they say. The only time you would tell them that you "don't do drama" would be after you've already stopped talking to them and they want to know why.
It doesn't say that. It just says you'll be happier if you stay in the basement than you would be if you went out and found other pantsless losers to "hang out" with.
They don't have to have an anxiety disorder as you describe (feeling like they're wasting time when they're not).
They might still be happier when doing something intellectual than they are the second or third hour "hanging out," without any discontent in either situation.
It isn't health related, it was never health related, people who support this don't claim it is health related.
Where in the Constitution does it say, "legislation can only be enacted for health-related reasons." Oh, wait, it isn't there.
You don't even need to ask if there is a health reason. What you need to know is: Do people want to have the information about the product? Is that important to people? Do people believe it makes a difference to some issue, policy, or whatever in society?
(And I'll give you the spoiler; very few people who care about this think it is a health issue!)
And they have every right to labeling of school books that disagree as "science" or with a "no religious content" mark if they're not sure which book is their Good Book and which isn't, if they can get enough support for the policy.
Look, it isn't "anti-science" to know what science is.
What science tells you what labels I want? Is it ag science? Or do they not even study humans, much less this?
What science tells you what labels I should want? There isn't one, that isn't science.
I'm certainly not being anti-science. But if somebody tells me that my opinion is "anti-science" because they don't share my values, they should find a mirror. And I'm not talking about optics, I'm talking about psychology.
It doesn't need to be "different" to you in order for me to want the label. Science isn't involved, except that we're having to explain to you what "science" is after you throw the word around.
Look buddy, rub a couple brain cells together and think about it. Are there significant differences in the amount? Yes. Yes there are. That is not debatable, and you don't even debate it; you simply point at squirrels.
You don't know anything about what is used on a field when, or you'd know there is a huge difference in the amount applied. Either use the truth, or don't bother pretending to have knowledge about the subject.
It really serves no purpose to be intentionally misleading even after the correct points were already made.
I don't care about users, most of the software I use is written so that I can use it, and the software I use wasn't written to maximize users. Proprietary software has more users, for example, and that was never a problem. Software I use is written so that I can use it, not so that I must.
You just hand-wave and claim that "functionality" is improved by never throwing anything away. I disagree, and I challenge that that is some sort of given. I also challenge the absurd idea that somehow people who want higher quality code at any cost think coding is done by monkeys. It shows a lack of theory of mind.
You may not hear much about "buggy spaghetti," but don't tell me I don't. Because I do. The reason you don't hear about the great successes, is that in open source branding isn't important, and the good teams name the rewrite something new. So you simply don't know it happened. And often, after rewriting it, it becomes "stable" and doesn't need to be changed for years.
And I absolutely support their right to have any over-the-counter vaccinations labeled as such, even though I wouldn't let their kids in public schools.;)
If you can't find where "there" is, I'm not even convinced you care about using the tool, or how it functions.
Why would I value your comments?
As for your strange claim about rendering support... actually fuck it, in light of your above lack of interest, and the lack of correct quoting, not gonna bother. You're wrong, done.
LOL so your argument against robots being able to do something like cleaning a restroom is that you once saw a restroom, and it had a sign or label somewhere that said "low maintenance," and so that tells you a robot can't do it?
It has nothing to do with politics, or public policy. You "stepped right in it" there.
I don't give a rats ass what you or your colleagues think; you're certainly not public policy experts. And I really doubt you're a "scientist." That is horse shit, or you'd know how irrelevant that is to what information humans want on labels. It isn't about "education" that you would determine for people, it is about information, the availability of it. Not the quality, or if you agree, or whatever.
You're more likely a food industry worker with an undergraduate degree with "science" in the name, based on your irrational stance and lack of knowledge about what "science" is and how it relates to this issue.
Right, but these are not actual scientists, these are people who speak for them on the internet.
Any real scientist would agree that it is not a matter of science, but of which policy people want to have. Which information people care about can be measured scientifically; the result would be that many people care about GMO. But science can't tell us which policy we should want, and I'm very skeptical of somebody claiming to be a "scientist" and that that means they know what policy we should want. It certainly raises the question, "Wait, what science are you trained in again?"
Slashdot Mirror
Those are well established, middle limits.
People whose child-rearing pushed them outside humanity's limits... usually all died.
You end up totally insane, but that is the expected outcome.
Well, I just want to stand up and say, "I've worked on silly projects too."
Am I the only one who made money on checking for "Y2K" bugs?
I'd make a silly website right now if somebody wanted to pay the right amount for it.
From an engineering perspective, the main problem that facebook solves is "keeping in touch with people you knew when you were in school."
When they launched, myspace was already solving that problem.
And the technical side of it is trivial; it is just a website with basic features. Nothing to solve, only stuff to implement.
The privacy issues are irrelevant. That is a concern for the user, not the builder.
You've never been to a restaurant designed to be staffed by robots, so you have no idea if it will pleasant, or unpleasant. They don't exist yet, and you refuse to imagine them working. It is just an imagination fail on your part.
They don't know, because last year they didn't have labeling requirements. This isn't rocket surgery. They do in fact need to know about their supply chain. I've worked in the food packing industry and they're required to have a lot of information about the ingredients. Just because they don't put all that info on the box doesn't mean they don't know where anything came from.
Yeah, the crap about "pushing mankind to its outer limits" is hard to read. Is that really what engineering does?
Obviously, understanding the humans and the use cases is more important to being a great engineer than just math; the math is just a base requirement, not the job of engineering.
Same is true for open source.
On github this week, I fixed a bug where the ticket was over 5 years old, and the project owner finally realized it is a real bug and the solution is harmless.
It hasn't been accepted yet, of course. Give it a couple more years.
Which is a good example how and why OSS works: It was found, documented, traced back (no sign of foul play) and fixed. What do you think would have happened in a commercial, closed library?
In commercial software it would be found, documented, traced back, and fixed. Documentation would be internal.
I'm pretty strongly against using proprietary stuff in my tool chain, but I just don't think this is a real difference.
Exactly; it is a really weak claim.
He could have used proprietary encryption products, a self-hosted commercial VPN instead of Tor, an obscure proprietary OS not on the list of things worth backdooring, etc.
He did use some libre software, so we know what happened could happen using those tools. But we don't know anything about this idea that he couldn't have done it otherwise.
Avoiding Windows in particular is prudent for a wide variety of reasons; not least, products designed for the masses will have sacrificed some security for convenience.
And keep in mind, almost all the software I use is Free or OSS. I do also use a proprietary email app on my mobile device, and I use the LTSpice circuit simulator. (Only for simulation of the OSS-generated netlist)
Maybe they're not "mixing up" anything, maybe they found a correlation?
I recommend actually reading all of Feynman's memoirs. He had great charisma and liked people, but he was also somewhat introverted. He doesn't talk about having a lot of friends, though he does talk about meeting people and having an interest in meeting different sorts of people from different walks of life.
He actually describes spending most of his time alone, working on various math problems.
Being a good public speaker and enjoying people-watching doesn't really make him an extrovert. If you understand the technical difference between introvert and extrovert it becomes obvious; he didn't care about the "social environment," he cared about his own thoughts and feelings. For example where he talks about uniforms, and social expectations to "look like a professor." Those really expose where he is on that spectrum.
Introvert doesn't mean hermit; a charismatic introvert can be a great public speaker, and famous as a "people person." It doesn't keep them from spending the weekend working on a project, though. ;)
I've been telling people for months "I don't do drama" and it's not helping.
You went off the rails at "telling people" in the first place. No, when they provide you with unwanted drama, you just need to stop telling them things, or listening to things they say. The only time you would tell them that you "don't do drama" would be after you've already stopped talking to them and they want to know why.
It doesn't say that. It just says you'll be happier if you stay in the basement than you would be if you went out and found other pantsless losers to "hang out" with.
They don't have to have an anxiety disorder as you describe (feeling like they're wasting time when they're not).
They might still be happier when doing something intellectual than they are the second or third hour "hanging out," without any discontent in either situation.
It isn't health related, it was never health related, people who support this don't claim it is health related.
Where in the Constitution does it say, "legislation can only be enacted for health-related reasons." Oh, wait, it isn't there.
You don't even need to ask if there is a health reason. What you need to know is: Do people want to have the information about the product? Is that important to people? Do people believe it makes a difference to some issue, policy, or whatever in society?
(And I'll give you the spoiler; very few people who care about this think it is a health issue!)
Don't worry, being intelligent has nothing to do with people thinking you're right. Or with you thinking they're right, even.
And they have every right to labeling of school books that disagree as "science" or with a "no religious content" mark if they're not sure which book is their Good Book and which isn't, if they can get enough support for the policy.
Look, it isn't "anti-science" to know what science is.
What science tells you what labels I want? Is it ag science? Or do they not even study humans, much less this?
What science tells you what labels I should want? There isn't one, that isn't science.
I'm certainly not being anti-science. But if somebody tells me that my opinion is "anti-science" because they don't share my values, they should find a mirror. And I'm not talking about optics, I'm talking about psychology.
It doesn't need to be "different" to you in order for me to want the label. Science isn't involved, except that we're having to explain to you what "science" is after you throw the word around.
Look buddy, rub a couple brain cells together and think about it. Are there significant differences in the amount? Yes. Yes there are. That is not debatable, and you don't even debate it; you simply point at squirrels.
You don't know anything about what is used on a field when, or you'd know there is a huge difference in the amount applied. Either use the truth, or don't bother pretending to have knowledge about the subject.
It really serves no purpose to be intentionally misleading even after the correct points were already made.
I don't care about users, most of the software I use is written so that I can use it, and the software I use wasn't written to maximize users. Proprietary software has more users, for example, and that was never a problem. Software I use is written so that I can use it, not so that I must.
You just hand-wave and claim that "functionality" is improved by never throwing anything away. I disagree, and I challenge that that is some sort of given. I also challenge the absurd idea that somehow people who want higher quality code at any cost think coding is done by monkeys. It shows a lack of theory of mind.
You may not hear much about "buggy spaghetti," but don't tell me I don't. Because I do. The reason you don't hear about the great successes, is that in open source branding isn't important, and the good teams name the rewrite something new. So you simply don't know it happened. And often, after rewriting it, it becomes "stable" and doesn't need to be changed for years.
And I absolutely support their right to have any over-the-counter vaccinations labeled as such, even though I wouldn't let their kids in public schools. ;)
If you can't find where "there" is, I'm not even convinced you care about using the tool, or how it functions.
Why would I value your comments?
As for your strange claim about rendering support... actually fuck it, in light of your above lack of interest, and the lack of correct quoting, not gonna bother. You're wrong, done.
Try building a robot that can lift all the chairs in the lobby so the floor can be mopped, then clean the windows.
Uh, those are not even hard problems.
LOL so your argument against robots being able to do something like cleaning a restroom is that you once saw a restroom, and it had a sign or label somewhere that said "low maintenance," and so that tells you a robot can't do it?
You work "in plant science" that is nice.
It has nothing to do with politics, or public policy. You "stepped right in it" there.
I don't give a rats ass what you or your colleagues think; you're certainly not public policy experts. And I really doubt you're a "scientist." That is horse shit, or you'd know how irrelevant that is to what information humans want on labels. It isn't about "education" that you would determine for people, it is about information, the availability of it. Not the quality, or if you agree, or whatever.
You're more likely a food industry worker with an undergraduate degree with "science" in the name, based on your irrational stance and lack of knowledge about what "science" is and how it relates to this issue.
Right, but these are not actual scientists, these are people who speak for them on the internet.
Any real scientist would agree that it is not a matter of science, but of which policy people want to have. Which information people care about can be measured scientifically; the result would be that many people care about GMO. But science can't tell us which policy we should want, and I'm very skeptical of somebody claiming to be a "scientist" and that that means they know what policy we should want. It certainly raises the question, "Wait, what science are you trained in again?"