dnbgfher

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem.

We do have a problem with nomenclature being fractured, even within fields, never mind between them. But that's not the problem.

The problem is that when you get deep enough into how things work, things just get really complex and they stop behaving in ways and patterns that humans experience the world. They end up being things that cannot be simplified down to a common human experience in any meaningful way. At best, you can take a portion of the concept and make an analogy to some limited portion of a common experience without lying too much. But they are fundamentally not the same, so you cannot use the analogy to discover anything new about the original concept.

There is also a problem of the time it takes to internalize new ideas and concepts. You can't quickly and easily give someone an intuitive understanding of anything - it takes work and experience and time on their part to get there. I don't see how going and reworking nomenclatures of entire fields is going to make people more willing or able to devote their time to this. Mostly you'll have to put in incredible amount of work, convince far too many people to do things a different way because you said so, and all you'll have really done is save some (significant) annoyance from students getting their feet wet in a new field.

I felt that the second season greatly improved from the first. I'd say the studio segments were still pretty subpar compared to the Top Gear days, but they seemed to get a better handle on the rest of it. I haven't watched the latest season yet, but hopefully they managed to improve again.

If you gave up after the first season, you might want to give the later ones a shot. Though I have to admit I never cared too much about the reviews, so that's worth keeping in mind.

I don't see much in there that is relevant to vaping in general being unsafe. The main concerns seem to be related to non-nicotine contents of the liquids being used. While that is certainly an issue to keep in mind when talking about current vape usage, it should be something that is addressable without getting rid of vaping altogether. The only concern specific to nicotine seems to be the possibility of spills leading to overdoses. I suspect this is minor enough to ignore entirely, but if not then better education and even product design can be used to address this.

Otherwise the section referenced said nicotine does not seem to be a carcinogen but some people suspect it may be a tumor promoter. If we're drawing the line at "suspected to be involved in cancer somehow but doesn't cause it" then we're going to have to rework most of society and then some.

The only other thing that stood out was the particulates issue, though they didn't mention any health effects of being exposed to the particulates and I don't have that knowledge off-hand.

I think you're ignoring some very basic aspects of the ISP business and taking entirely the wrong lessons away from Google Fiber.

There is no cheap way to enter many/most/all of these markets. This isn't a world of cheap VC cash, because there is no chance of winning a lottery. Google of all people couldn't make this make sense. Sure, they would have had a better pitch if they were competing with incumbants who did things like block Google Search. Except it's even more trivial to unblock Google Search than it is to offer better service. This gets worse when you consider the possibility of not outright blocking, but intentionally slowing services.

So yeah. If Google couldn't make Google Fiber work, there is no way any new competitor is going to spring out of nowhere. The reality of the competition hasn't changed - incumbants are at a massive advantage even compared to most incumbants. Infrastructure is a massive barrier to newcomers, and any competitive aspects that can be used to differentiate one offer from another can be trivially and immediately matched by the incumbants. And in practice most all of the offers are difficult or impossible to really compare to each other in pratice, so most consumers have to rely mainly on the marketing materials and subjective experiences.

And again I've left out a whole other side of the issue, namely the relationships between ISPs and services.

This is just an awful system to rely on tradional markets. It uses expensive infrastructure, and the products are indifferentiable in any meaningful way over any period of time.

You misunderstand me. I agree Cotton is almost certainly dead.

I was responding to the statement that questioning the doctor was essentially useless when looking into the possiblity that Cotton faked his death, as either he did indeed die or the doctor was part of the scheme. I was pointing out that there is value in talking to the doctor, as there are possiblities that don't require the doctor to be complicit.

If you've decided investigating the matter is worth your time, you may as well do it properly is all. Doesn't mean I think it's what likely happened.

I'm not sure why you think the only option here is that the doctor was in on it. He could have treated a man with fake papers identifying him as Mr. Cotten. By asking the doctor to compare with known-valid photos you can eliminate the possibility that the doctor was unintentionally mistaken about the identity of the man he treated.

While true, the upgrade situation for Android is way better than for most IoT devices, which is saying something. And this is the sort of thing you may well keep for a decade. While you may still have other Google microphones, I would be a lot more worried about this one specifically being vulnerable at some point.

For Google, I'm not sure how option 2 is supposed to be acceptable either. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about introducing an internet-connected microphone into your house. It doesn't even require assuming a malicious Google to see potential problems with this. You're one decent security flaw (in an IoT device no less) from anybody having a microphone in your house.

I don't see how this tracks. Particularly in relation to many of the jobs going away, productivity isn't inversely related to hours worked. People working 6 hours instead of 8 will get three quarters as much done. How would their wages go up?

If you are proposing the government cover the difference, then you're effectively proposing a bastardized version of UBI with an employment requirement, and payout that is proportional to current economic advantage. I'm not even sure it wouldn't cost more than current UBI proposals given that proportionality.

I don't understand why you would be in favor of this, but think UBI was bad. Or how it could possibly work, if it wasn't the government paying for it.

I'm not sure what you mean. Ada hasn't ever undergone any breaking changes I'm aware of, so even Ada 83 would be valid Ada 2012. I'm not sure how a compiler could lose support of older versions.

The only difference I've ever run into was an AdaCore-defined (as in not part of the standard) aspect that was known but not fully implemented by GCC Ada, while the Community edition did have it. That's since been added to GCC as well.

Nah, mostly it's just (IMO) the result of AdaCore being needlessly confusing. AdaCore also maintains the GNU compiler, which is what their Pro offering is based on. I'm not really sure why the Community edition exists, as it's basically at most a slightly different version than the GNU offering.

AdaCore maintains the GNU compiler as well. As a result, the GNU and AdaCore compiler (Community and Commercial) are essentially the same. The Ada community in fact just calls them all GNAT and then specifies further if it's relevant. The main difference is that GNU can lag behind a bit historically, but recently there has been some initiative from inside AdaCore to tackle that issue and they've done a great job.

Grab whichever is easiest for you to get started with. It's a weird and ultimately meaningless situation license-wise. If and when licenses matter, grab the GNU version. Unless you're doing something that requires a support contract anyway, then you'll end up with Pro.

I really wish AdaCore would do something about that Community edition. I have no idea what purpose it is supposed to have. In my opinion, right now it's mostly a thorn in the communities side. All it does is create a bunch of hesitation and confusion about the licenses and compiler capabilities for newcomers. As a result, before people even start with Ada they're getting deep into license discussions which is just a wonderful first impression. And worst of all, it's all basically for nothing because they're at most slightly different versions of the same software with a different license.

I don't see how it's a call to humanity. "Think if it was your kid vs two strangers" isn't calling on humanity. It's calling on familial tribalism and selfishness if anything.

And obviously, in the real world, a ML-given estimate with a 1% variance is probably entirely useless. In these sorts of hypotheticals,I'm not sure why that really matters. You can play with the numbers as you want, or even move the whole question out far enough into the future that the margin of error can be considered very low. The question remains the same.

The answer to "what" is implied above. Evolution.

And what about the family of those two people?

I don't understand the insistence of bringing everything back to "what if it was your child." Pretty much everybody has family, and friends, and all that. I'm not sure how somebody being a child of somebody is supposed to be a rational argument for adjusting any of our thinking. As far as I can tell, it's basically the ultimate appeal to emotion.