the_grue

Can anyone explain the findings? A quick google of 'excess burden' term didn't yield a clear definition, there is a similar term in taxation, but that seems unrelated.

I went that route on a school PC in 1998. There was no floppy drive, so I installed a Linux distro (also Slackware, iirc) onto the Windows partition, then resized the Windows partition with Partition Magic and used the existing Linux as a bootstrap for a fresh install on its own partition. It was so incredibly magical. No one had any idea I was doing it, and I felt part of the hacker culture :) I tinkered with it for a few of months at least, and eventually was compiling my own kernels, playing with boot/swap partitions, etc. Never got X to work, though.

I don't think you can reasonably conclude either that a) anti-vaxxer propaganda is effective insofar it attracts statistically significant number of new people under its bannder, or b) that FB blocking their pages effectively reverses the effect of (a).

Personally, I hold the opinion that anti-vaxxers are more of a natural product of their environments than anything else. You can clearly see the distinction along the religious and educational boundaries, for example. Limiting the freedom of speech in attempt to silence them is not going to work, like it's not working in stopping any other kind of speech you don't like. Censorship is dangerous: it alienates people and prevents communication, effectively radicalizing those affected.

Take a step back. Why did Moderna founders invest in research and technology? Are they selfless idealists? Probably not, at least that is not the only driving motivator. And even if they are, they still want the company to earn money in order to invest it into more research.

Bottom line is they want the company to be successful, so their long-term plan is to profit from making drugs. If they lived in a socialist economy where no such profit was possible, they would not have bothered, and then there would be no cure. If that is the world you prefer to live in, you have options (North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela currently, the rest having collapsed or transitioned to free market some time ago).

As far as I understand the term, white privilege means some kind of economical and political advantage of whites over other races. Meaning that the outcomes are different, depending on one's race. From a brief glimpse of the paper, it is quite clear that the authors push for equality of outcome and label their position as 'liberal'. However, many people disagree. The classical liberal position is granting every person equality of opportunity, saying nothing about equality of outcome. And for a good reason: you actually can't have both. Either everyone is equal at the start of the game and then the more successful achieve more, or everyone is equal at the end, and for that you have to make their opportunities unequal.

When you think about it this way, equality of outcome is essentially a Marxist rhetoric. So it's quite understandable why many people don't like politicians who advocate this controversial position.

If, the other hand, what politicians really want is a greater equality of opportunity, they really should make that clear. But I don't think they usually mean that, given that people who talk about white privilege are usually the ones who push for so-called 'affirmative action', which clearly reduces equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome.

I think a important advance is being able to build neural networks in a modular fashion by constructing a toolkit of components and techniques one can reasonably expect, when combined, to produce certain result. As the field advances, this toolbox will become richer and better defined and delineated, forming basic building blocks. Just like functions, loops and virtual methods came out of the chaos of assembly.

Same for Kotlin.

Hmm, your link has an author_access_token in it. Are you sure it's not linked to your or someone else's (author's?) account?

The article is behind the paywall, but it can be accessed through Sci-Hub. Some of the most interesting findings:

- 43% respondents did not agree with "Advocacy and research should be kept as separate as possible to protect the objectivity of the research".

- 45% respondents did not agree with "It is plausible that women's greater representation than men in people-oriented professions (social work, nursing, etc.) is due in part to a biological component".

- 31% respondents did agree with "It is not plausible to conclude that gender discrimination in the workplace has disappeared until men and women are (at least roughly) equally represented in virtually all occupational categories."

I'm using FF 56, since that's the last version to support the old extensions. Sorry, should've mentioned it.

Neither in Firefox...

Unfortunately, I really cannot begin to understand what you're talking about. What country is it in? What city? What kind of people are involved? What kind of jobs are that low-paying that two jobs are not enough to live? Why don't they move to a better place? So many questions. In any case, it's all anecdotal evidence, so is there a solid, unbiased study that describes this?