If any of the alternative search engines would offer this and a feature to block pages with affiliate links--like those "review" sites--I would be happy to pay for them. They need to offer ways to customize the search experience.
It is possible to agree that content creators should be paid and that ads are bad. Substack, for example, allows you to pay and doesn't have ads. Ads are one business model, not the only one.
Thanks to the magic of modus tollens, absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. "A 100kt nuclear bomb just went off in your front yard!" Me, looking out the window, nope. It depends, of course, on the argument being made. It could be true in some cases.
As cliches go this one is better than "you can't prove a negative"--not true. At least the "evidence of absence" one makes you think about causality and the nature of evidence.
"The point of experts is they have thought about a field more and are better at making sound arguments in that field."
This is an excellent point. It is so good that I think it may serve as the definition of an expert: An expert is someone who is better at making sound arguments in that field. Sound arguments being what matters and not the person making the argument, just as the calculations matter more than the mathematician.
I agree with you. The idea that using e-prime makes one's writing more clear isn't a "fallacy". People might disagree but it's hardly fallacious. There are many items in this list that aren't fallacies (e.g., "Dog-Whistle Politics"). This list seems to be a mix of actual fallacies and "Things I don't like".
If it is a fallacy we should be able to construct a simple argument from it. With the "Be-verb Fallacy" what would that be? Perhaps, "You used e-prime in your argument but all people who use e-prime are part of a cult, therefore you are part of a cult (and are wrong)." That's a fallacy all right just not the "Be-verb" one.
I also found the definition of a fallacy at the start lacking. It conflates good argumentation with rhetorical technique. I prefer T. Edward Damer's definition from my old logic textbook:
"A good argument must have premises that are true or acceptable, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, and premises that together constitute good or adequate grounds for the truth of the conclusion." Fallacious arguments violate one or more of these three principles.
For your home network DNS: a server with dnsmasq -> stubby -> DNS over TLS -> NextDNS works quite well. Fast with dnsmasq caching and reasonably secure, plus NextDNS can block unwanted domains (ads, malware, etc.)
After many years working with these tools I agree. Declarative and template DSLs are OK for basic things but you quickly bump into their limitations when you want to do advanced configurations. At this point administrators should know how to code so being able to use a normal programming language with IaC modules should be the standard.
Amazon's CDK for AWS is a step in the right direction. Microsoft's new Bicep for Azure misses the mark in my view because it is yet another DSL and not a real programming language.
Scalability is just one reason for using serverless. There are many others. Most of which have to do with being able to focus on the part of your code that actually does something instead of on infrastructure and integration. For example, not having to configure and maintain VMs, containers, or Kubernetes, off-loading a part of security onto the cloud provider, and built-in integration with supporting services like logging and metrics.
Serverless, like every design decision, comes with its own set of trade-offs. Whether those trade-offs make sense for your environment is something you have to determine. At my company we have seen a productivity increase and shorter development times using serverless. Of course, that was after the learning curve which is certainly not trivial.
One rarely discussed effect of drug legalization is that pharmaceutical companies would start developing recreational drugs. I expect they would create milder versions of current drugs specifically for the recreational market. That market would almost certainly be huge. Because of this, Big Pharma ought to be one of the biggest proponents of drug legalization. Whether the net effect on society would be positive or negative I do not know.
Your are conflating what is practical with what is true in logic and argumentation. It is practical to accept our doctor's diagnosis because we trust that the medical system produces competent doctors and because of constraints on our time. If you claimed that a diagnosis must be true because it came from a doctor then you would appealing to authority.
My first thought when reading the article was, how about CORBA? The author makes no attempt to explain why CORBA and SOAP/WSDL failed so their recommendation has very little merit. Software technology historically follows a pattern: "worse is better". We might also call this pattern "commodification". HTTP/JSON has likely reached the lowest common denominator sweet spot to ensure its success and dominance.
Lumpers vs Splitters is a fun categorization. When I see a group of things categorized I view it as a set partition and I wonder what equivalence relation is being used to distinguish the partitions (categories). The relation is usually unstated so it becomes a mental exercise to steelman the categorization by trying to think of one.
It cost a bit more but not, for us, excessively more. A big upside was that we no longer had to tinker with docker and especially kubernetes. This allowed us to focus almost entirely on delivering functionality (and reliability and security) rather than infrastructure. It's always a matter of tradeoffs.
I would play that. Your comment makes me wonder why policy simulators don't already exist, or maybe they do and I am unaware of them. Such a simulator would have to be able to handle the "cobra effect" which could be quite a challenge.
The Cobra effect, by the way, is a great illustration of the problem with static thinking. Problem: too many cobras, Solution: pay a bounty for them, Unintended side-effect: people raise cobras for the bounty so now there are even more cobras.
This is an excellent comment. Thinking about laws or policies as dynamic processes with various feedback loops and side-effects offers a better model than the usual static approach. Side-effects are critical, so critical that they often often work against the intended goal. Yet side-effects are almost never mentioned when people advocate for a certain policy.
How does it end? Probably with brittle systems that are unable to survive exogenous shocks.
We migrated from containers to serverless (Azure Functions in our case). This removed a large amount of complexity from our architecture and we are pleased with the result. It is always a question of tradeoffs, serverless has its own issues but overall it has worked out well.
Academia is not unique in this regard. Superficial metrics have been introduced into many fields with similar results. Warnings about the danger of metrics have been ignored.
Campbell's law: "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor." (1979)