gmane

I think you miss how sophisticated some game server code is. Taking fighting games for example: they have entire processes to have both clients predict what the other client will do, and then have the server arbitrate the different client solutions into a "fair" result based on latency, player inputs, etc. There are problems that game servers solve that could have applications in other areas, and have a lot of value.

Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with business critical production environments.

I have questions here, a lot of lobbying is done by:

a) trade organizations (we're all the onion farmers in Nebraska and want to make sure the Nebraska legislature doesn't pass laws that negatively impact us and promote laws that help us)

and

b) activist organizations (we're a coalition of organizations that protect water usage in the Mississippi delta and want to pass laws that promote conservation in those states)

Those groups often choose to retain professional lobbyists but will also send groups of interested parties to lobby who are not professional lobbyists.

Do you also ban trade organizations and activist organizations in this case? Do you carve out exceptions for them and just ban the "freelance" lobbyists? Most lobbying is meeting with legislators and talking with them about issues, educating them. How do you ban that without making legislators effectively useless (or if you're cynical, even more useless)?

One of my favorite interview questions for senior positions is "Tell me about a decision you made that you would change in hindsight." Junior level people and people who are otherwise unfit for the role will try to give answers that minimize their responsibility or (worst case) have no examples. Senior level people will have an example where they can walk you through exactly how they messed up and what they would have done differently. Good senior level candidates examine their mistakes and are honest about them.

Commenting on my Epic from an LG Fridge.

I disagree with this interpretation of what I said. We HAVE evidence that time and gravity interact. It's actually more of a violation of Occam's Razor to suggest that time travel is somehow exempt from that interaction than to claim that yes, time travel should in someway be subject to the influence of gravity.

I'll give a half-baked counter to this: we know gravity impacts the flow of time through relativity. There is currently no evidence that time travel wouldn't be impacted by gravity in some way. Maybe the way time in time travel interacts with gravity protects you from this problem? Probably not, but it has just as much evidence to support it as your claim of time travel will dump you in empty space.

I would agree with you if this paper was citing... more papers. Since there are so few and one of the citations is a concurrence with the paper with actual data work, then it harms this paper.

Either the author didn't do a literature review before publishing, isn't well versed in the field, or chose not to cite works which may not agree with their results. Neither of which reflects well on the author.

Right, I was criticizing the approach. Edit: specifically the fact that the paper has no discussion of how the meta-analysis data was prepared, processed, or how they made sure it was complete.

This paper cites 10 other papers, two of which are essentially the same paper. The author also has additional papers claiming that Vitamin D helps prevent COVID mortality using a "ecological integrative approach." His papers also all seem to be lacking concrete meta-analysis and discussion of other approaches and clinical data.

Seems... like a quack.

That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child. You’re deliberately misreading my point to argue against a straw man.

That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child.

The internet is truly a wild place. You can say something like "We shouldn't do mandatory paternity tests at birth because they bring no benefit to the child" and someone responds with "So you're saying we shouldn't stop wife beaters?"

No bitch, that's a whole different sentence. What the fuck are you talking about.

I disagree here. Blood tests done at birth are done specifically for the benefit of the child (and with minimal risk to the child). A paternity test has no benefit for the child (it doesn't tell you who the father is, simply who the father isn't) and a ~1% risk of harm to the child.

The period immediately after birth is one of the most dangerous times for children, and we (should) specifically take action to protect them in a moment where they are at risk and have no agency. A paternity test would increase the risk of harm to the child (either through violence, deprivation, or neglect). We didn't even get to the subject of possible violence against the mother either, which is likely.