These meetings create the type of discussion where some guy proposes something everybody who wants to go back to work know is obvious, and they're already planning, but they're politely saying, "that's a great idea, Bill." Bill then leaves those impromptu thinking, "oh, that was so productive and useful" and everybody else is thinking, "if we hadn't wasted those 15 minutes that got me completely out of my zone, I'd have gotten so much accomplished towards that. Now I need to get my brain to context switch back, so those 15 minutes likely cost me an hour in productivity.

Useful ideas only come from working on the problem. When something comes up where different choices should be made, you schedule a targeted meeting to talk about it, bring in people who are relevant, and spend some time brainstorming. Doing this remotely is fine. The ability to just walk into someone's office or interrupt them while they're walking back from the bathroom is the single most damaging part to productivity in an office setting.

I wish I could say that was going to end with remote working, but I have people who started inviting me to Teams meetings without scheduling it ahead of time, because they notice I'm not in a meeting at this moment, so unfortunately, the water cooler meetings are going digital as well, instead of ending. Too much time spent talking, distracting me from the stuff that actually moves the work forward.

The adverse reaction was anaphylaxis, which isn't a symptom of covid, even in the people who need to be hospitalized for it. So that's ruled right out.

Not really. The problem with covid is **precisely** that so many people are asymptomatic. They become carriers without knowing and it creates a much bigger chance that people who will develop serious life-threatening symptoms will be infected. If you could vaccinate everyone who wouldn't die of covid, and not vaccinate anyone who would, you'd still solve the problem.

Obviously not everyone gets radicalized by the same things. I can watch flat-Earth videos all day long for months, and it's not going to turn me into a Flat Earther. But if I were a more religious person, the ones that make a religious argument might have swayed me. If I were an anti-government person, the ones that make a government conspiracy argument might have swayed me, etc.

People are never going to believe something stupid they don't have any interest in believing. But if you want to believe in something, it doesn't take good evidence-based arguments to cause you to buy in. Especially if no one is your bubble is quickly dissuading you before it takes hold.

If you believe you're immune, that just means you're even more susceptible. You're immune to those forums because those topics are not appealing to you. However, if you get locked into a bubble of something that appeals to your moral preferences, you'll be swayed by the stupidest arguments imaginable. Smart people believe stupid things all the time. Case in point, most of the flat earthers are ignorant, but some of the flat earthers are really intelligent and educated people who are capable of coming up with ingenious experiments to test whether the Earth is flat...and they they carry them out, get shown that the Earth is round and convince themselves there's a flaw in the methodology and something they didn't account for, and go improve their experiment or come up with a new one. And they keep doing it, and they're not convinced by their own tests, because they really want to believe. Trust me, you do the same thing with SOMETHING. We all do. And we can easily tell when other people are buying into something through illogical reasons, but it's really hard to tell when we our doing it...we can't tell the difference between something we've reasoned through ourselves or just chose to believe, we can convince ourselves we've reasoned it through.

I recommend Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. Smart people believe stupid stuff all the time. It doesn't mean they'll believe **all** stupid things, but they'll believe the stupid things that aligns ideologically with them. Accepting that you are susceptible to it is your best defense to increase your odds of not doing it. And even then, it doesn't mean you will never do it, just that you'll do it to a lesser extent.

It's honestly, not as great as you make it sound. It's not like they're locked in there. So imagine a bunch of people who don't believe in the germ theory of disease, so they lock themselves up in close quarters together. You initially think, "great, they've quarantined themselves." But what actually happened is that if only a few of them were sick in the beginning, that spreads like wildfire in their little community...and they're not locked in there, so they get out and go shopping and each of them all go to a different place in your town...and now the whole town is infected.

Places like these are the same way. These people all go wall themselves up inside their garden...if even a small number of them are crazy, trolls, or foreign actors deliberately trying to spread misinformation, the bullshit spreads among everyone efficiently. And now everyone is radicalized, and they leave their garden and go cause trouble.

Echo chambers are always bad.

It absolutely is censorship if it's not being done by the government. It is, however, legal censorship when not being done by the government.

Which is how it should be. If I don't like what you have to say, I shouldn't be able to stop you from speaking your mind. However, that doesn't mean I have to give you access to a platform.

You do realize that the article is talking about software solving PDEs. It's not saying they're notoriously hard for people to manually solve, it's saying it's highly computationally intensive.

The idea is to replace CADs that solve the PDEs through numerical integration with CADs that solve the the PDEs with neural networks. So if you're using CAD software that solves PDEs, you're using PDEs in the real world.

You are absolutely correct, and he phrased it incorrectly. However, the implications of the license the ZFS code contained at the time of the fork is that Oracle can't do anything about OpenZFS. If they wanted to kill it, tough luck, the CDDL grants non-exclusive free rights to reproduce and modify the code. It also says the developer grants the use of any of their patent claims. Here's the license.

The licensing problem with ZFS has nothing to do with Oracle's ability to cause problems. It's that the CDDL isn't compatible with the GPL. Which isn't at all a problem when it comes to using it. It's a problem in the sense that code from OpenZFS can't be copied into the kernel (unless relicensed for that use by the copyright holder), and code from GPL programs can't be copied into OpenZFS (unless relicensed for that use by the copyright holder). You're free to distribute both. You're free to load an OpenZFS module into the kernel. Same way you're free to load your nvidia proprietary kernel driver.

So the CDDL incompatibility is a pain for open source developers who need to be careful about cross-pollination, but end-users trying to pick a file-system? OpenZFS is more mature, it performs better (unless you disable COW with btrfs, but then you don't have COW), it has more features. It's a no-brainer.

In other words, yes, look at the implications. Then we can finally end the weird stigma against OpenZFS on Linux.

Uh, no. You're the one that's making the terrible assumption here.

Humans suck at driving. There are on average 6 million car accidents a year in teh united states. The computer can be buggy as hell, and still be better than humans.

Absolutely, 100%. That's why I specified public criticism in my post. If the company requires all employees to be yes-men, it's not going to last long.

However, if you're out on social media dissing the company you work for and not hiding the fact that you work there...you're biting the hand that feeds you. You're causing problems for them, and they're not going to want to keep paying you.

If you want to be credited, make that part of your license.

The entire point of having a license that doesn't require attribution is so companies can use it without crediting you. So if you release under such a license and then bitch about it, or even bring attention to it at all, you're the asshole.

It's like being the person constantly offering to help you with a task, and then after you take them up on that offer once, they bring it up every time they see you, as if you owe them a debt you can never repay. "Remember that one time I gave you a ride to the airport? You have to help me move, man." "Remember that one time I gave you a ride to the airport? You have to lend me money."

Amazon is under no obligation, legal, moral, or ethical, to give credit to him. It's not even professional courtesy to do so. It is, in fact, unreasonable for him to expect credit, and unprofessional to ask for it.

I still don't have a problem with it. I feel like the company can enforce whatever corporate culture they want in the workplace, as long as it's not abusive to the employees.

For instance, if I work at a defense contractor, and I bring in opinions that are anti military-industrial complex to the workplace...well, why are you working there if you feel that way? It makes sense that the company only wants people who are in favor of government money spent on the military industry, or at least can shut up about it while at work.

Having a culture where employees are allowed to harass (sexually or otherwise) one another is not ok. Everyone should be able to feel their work environment is safe.

Limiting or monitoring the speech of what employees do on their own time is not ok. As long as you're not using your position in the company that is. In the example above, you should be able to say on your personal twitter, "military spending is a waste." No retribution should come your way, your employer shouldn't take away your right of political speech on your own time. But you shouldn't be able to say, "as a Lockheed Martin engineer, I think military spending is a waste," and expect to keep your job. No company is going to want to pay you to criticize them. If you want to criticize your employer publicly, you quit first. Then you go nuts.

So, they're offering a choice of when to work for higher pay. They're not firing you. In fact, you can choose to work a couple of hours a month, if you want to.

Most Uber drivers are also Lyft drivers. Do you know any employment contract that lets you work for the competitor? This is the definition of independent contractor. You work when you want to, where you want to. You bring your own equipment. If you can't or don't want to take any clients for a while, you don't, and quit earning money, but the moment you want to take them again, you just do.

Uber and Lyft is a service that the drivers pay for: in exchange for a percentage of the fare, they handle background check services so their clients feel comfortable getting into a stranger's car. They find the clients for them. They process payments for them. They don't hire the drivers, the drivers hire them.

If it's not worth it for the drivers, then the drivers shouldn't log in to Uber, or Lyft. They should seek employment in taxi companies. What they're seeing is that this isn't profitable anymore, and the low pay is because there are far too many drivers competing with them. If the pay isn't good enough and there are less drivers in the road, costs will rise, and they'll get paid more. But right now, competition is fierce. That's great for customers, it's not great for the drivers, but the service Uber and Lyft provides them is so good, they don't seem to stop using it. They're still out on the road, with their apps turned on.

Again, that's the point. They were targeted by the politicians, they're trying to see if they can get the people to show they feel differently. That is the point.

The vulnerability of the masses to populist manipulation is a good argument against having such propositions. Direct democracies suck. Even if, in this case, Uber and Lyft are in the right: drivers are not employees. If they don't like the terms, they're free to not drive for Uber and Lyft. They're free to try to get a job with a traditional taxi company.

Penrose's history with crackpotism isn't the same as the regular crackpot's version. The regular crackpot doesn't understand the theory, and doesn't understand the math. Penrose's bad theories, like his quantum consciousness one, doesn't have bad math, and it doesn't involve a bad understanding of quantum theory. It's just that he tends to start believing in things if the math works out, without as much consideration for the evidence. So while he says, "hey, it's possible we use quantum effects in our brain," other scientists are saying, "whoa, hold on, there's absolutely no evidence that's even needed."

And this is the reason the above is relevant. You're attacking his theory on the assumption he doesn't know that, when actually it's perfectly consistent. What you're missing is an understanding of his proposal. In conformal cyclic cosmology, the universe that came before isn't exactly the one now with the same physical constants. In particular, it's conformal, and so the scale changes. His argument is that after you reach the point where the big rip happens, and all the matter in the universe is converted to energy, nothing exists that can feel time: all the energy of the previous universe is traveling at the speed of light, the length contraction is infinite, the time experienced by the photons is zero, which in that sense is en equivalent state to the big bang in our past looks like. So the infinite size of the previous universe looks like a singularity in ours and the scale fundamentally changed. A very tiny temperature from the previous universe observed in our universe would not be tiny.

Is this real? Who knows. As I've said above, I agree with you Penrose has a penchant to not be very strict in his search for evidence. So while he says those hot spots are evidence of his theory, most other physicists would be more cautious and go, "whoa, hold on a second, have we looked at every other explanation for this?" But it is interesting, it's well-grounded math, and it's worth looking into it. He's not a youtuber talking about free energy, he knows his stuff better than you imply.

On the desktop right now, yes. Although they went through a period of trying to copy chrome when chrome first came out. I quit firefox then, and switched to Chrome, might as well use what they're trying to emulate.

They've gotten better, specifically regarding amazing privacy features, so I went back. Mobile version on android was also great, as I could install pretty much the same add-ons that I wanted to use on the desktop. Then the latest android upgrade came, a bunch of features went away (I can't see the web page source code anymore? Why?), add-ons like lastpass stopped working with it, and general usability went to shit..somehow there were always 20 open tabs and I had to manually get them out instead of the more appropriate if I want a new tab, I create a new one.

Then mobile version of firefox is all change for the sake of change. There is a ton of shit that no longer works, or no longer works well, and I can't think of a SINGLE thing that is better about, so I can't even start the discussion of whether the trade-off and growing pains are worth it.