That’s disingenous. Microsoft themselves considered Linux a serious threat as early as 1998, as described in their own confidential memoranda. (AKA the Halloween Documents released by ESR.)
Your assertion, such as it is, is poorly formed. This research did not, as you imply, test 200 potential associations and report the one that was the “winner”. A single /a priori/ hypothesis was formulated and then tested using the data, in accordance with standard statistical methodology. The logical extension of your statement is that no association could ever be found since anything found is just a green-jelly bean association. When multiple tests of hypotheses are performed, accepted statistical practice is to the make the criterion for significance more stringent precisely to avoid the green-jellybean effect you are implying has occurred here.
Similarly illogical is pointing out the size of the questionnaire - as though the number of questions a person is asked has any impact whether eggs have an effect on Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
The difference being that sexuality is typically considered an innate desire, whilst the desire to commit violence is not.
Plus, we as a species have a biological imperative to protect our offspring, but apparently an immense capacity to ignore violence committed against others.
The difference being that sexuality is typically considered an innate desire, whilst the desire to commit violence is not.
Plus, we as a species have a biological imperative to protect our offspring, but apparently an immense capacity to ignore violence committed against others.
Of course they do, if enforced. The number of eight year-olds working in factories is substantially lower than it used to be due to regulations. *in modern democracies
The alternative is to refuse to delegate the formation and development of the character of our children and culture to automated systems and regulatory policies. Engage with your children on topics that matter. Discuss the pros and cons of various viewpoints and political platforms with your friends and neighbors, colleagues and fellow bus-riders. We, ourselves, are the psychosocial immune system for society, and if we construct an environment in which we can not be exposed harmful concepts, then we will never learn how to respond and combat it when we inevitably are exposed to it.
This is not to say that we should not actively work to prevent criminal acts, but that trying to establish a world in which such acts are impossible will cripple society in ways which will leave us vulnerable to much larger and more systemic abuses. Benjamin Franklin’s statement rings as true as ever, if in a rather updated context: “ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Except that it is not materially false. Only in a perfect society will your “system that flags illicit content” not become a system that flags whatever some authoritarian regime considers threatening, and subverting public logging/auditing is similarly trivial to a motivated authoritarian. All your hypothetical solutions rely on humans, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by either money or being beaten with pipes, and on corporations, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by things that influence their stock price.
The Pleyel’s corollary to Murphy’s law is that all compromises to individuals’ rights made for the sake of security will eventually be used to further deprive them of those rights.
(I especially liked the line “You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.”)
One scenario would be if it scanned it once in 8 days and once in 4 days, due to, say, an elliptical orbit or something. Thus, twice in 12 days, but not once every 6 days.
Alternately, complex orbital tracks may result in irregular accumulation of multiple scans, with double scanning only finally being achieved after 12 days.
If you are asserting that Linus Pauling was the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, my doubt in the accuracy of your conclusions has only increased, given that Marie Curie, John Bardeen, and Frederick Sanger have all won two Nobel Prizes.
Of course it can. You take drug A for 5 days to get rid of symptom X. The symptom X does not go away. It is ineffective! You stop taking drug A and immediately experience brutal migraines that go away when you start taking drug A again. Ergo, you have become dependent on drug A for normal functioning, even though it is ineffective at ridding you of symptom X.
The “cut up” feeling that can occur after eating kiwi or pineapple is more likely to be caused by the natural proteases present in the raw fruit (actinidain and bromelain, respectively) as the “cut up” feeling generally does not occur in cooked or canned fruit due to denaturing of the protein proteases. Raphides, which are sharp, insoluble calcium oxalate crystals, are generally not destroyed by boiling (as stated in your link) as so would still be present in the cooked fruit, suggesting that they are unlikely to be responsible for the “cut up” sensation.
The pawpaw referred to here is a small deciduous tree native to the eastern United States and Canada, producing a large, yellowish-green to brown fruit.
The papaya, whilst also sometimes being called a pawpaw, has been available commercially for some time in the US, and is not what is being referred to here.
That was such a delightful fact that I had to source it. Tragically, it is not true.
Gee, K. L., Mathews, L. T., Anderson, M. C., & Hart, G. W. (2022). Saturn-V sound levels: A letter to the Redditor. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 152(2), 1068-1073.
"While this peak level represents acoustic amplitudes that
would propagate nonlinearly to rapidly form shocks and
result in perception of jet “crackle” (e.g., see Gee et al.,
2016), will it melt concrete or set grass or one’s hair on fire?
It will definitely not."