It is not sadistic to laugh at life (and death).

It *is* sadistic witness a tragedy and laugh at the suffering person. It *is* sadistic to have the ability to help the person and not do everything in one's power to do so. It *is* sadistic to impede help for that person, to create the conditions where such a thing could happen to someone else, to laugh in front of this person's loved ones, etc. It *is* sadistic to spread animus toward any individual or group, to have a negative effect on this world when a positive effect was in your grasp. We can and should be as kind as possible in cases where we can make somebody else's life better, make the world better.

But please, let me laugh when I read about somebody dropping their cellphone into a dinosaur and getting stuck in it. I'm not hurting anybody. And it is funny. However, I know -- and I hope everybody knows -- that it could have been me and it could have been you. We're all idiots sometimes, and any one of us might have done the same thing, or something else equally stupid. We're all human. Which is funny. Tragic, but funny.

And should real programmers turn off all compiler warnings too? After all, for a careful programmer they're unnecessary also. Have no memory safety bugs made it into the kernel recently? Rust may or may not be the solution, but denying there is an issue isn't the solution either.

It's called empathy, it's called not being an asshole, and it's a good thing.

I don't know your background NuttyBee, but I do know that there are terms that could have arisen other than master/slave that you would find offensive and demand be changed, and for good reason. Oh, you can't think of any? I'm thinking I could come up with some that would infuriate you. It's almost too easy. If those had arisen through an accident of Computer Science history, then you'd demand they be changed and you'd be right.

We can't make the world perfectly pleasant for everybody, nor should we try. But do you genuinely believe that it's better to *gratuitously* bandy about *slavery* as if it's completely *trivial*? Are you really not capable of seeing what we can do a little better? And at essentially zero cost! Yes somehow, this is an outrage to you.

The amazing thing is that if you had a black guest in your home, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't just throw around the words "master" and "slave" when there were other words you could use -- you'd be too polite to do that. Aren't you?

"Automated" and "pull, not push" sounds self-contradictory. Can you provide an example? Thanks!

"Still, the publication of these new guidelines in such a prominent medical journal is unfortunate as it risks further harm to the credibility of nutrition science, eroding public trust in research as well as the recommendations they ultimately inform."

Articles that don't fall in line with the orthodoxy must be suppressed out of fear of harming credibility? That's the exact wrong way to be scientific. If we are ever to change our minds about anything in nutrition science, or any field, it will only happen with the publication of opposing views in prominent medical journals. A healthy debate about the quality of studies is good, as are scientists who have held and promulgated a certain view for decades and yet are open to changing their minds in the face of new data. It was Plank who said that science proceeds one funeral at a time. I suspect he would have been disappointed by the above quote.

> ... scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

Is anybody else disturbed by that sentence? Can nutrition science coming out of Harvard be trusted if that's their attitude? Let's hope that the reporter got the flavor of this quote wrong, because the context makes it sound as if the quoted scientist believes that research results should be withheld from the public when they contradict previous beliefs, that public trust in dubious theories is more important than the most recent data. If that's an accurate reflection of their beliefs, I can only suggest to the Harvard researchers that the very best way to obtain public trust is not by burying inconvenient results, but rather by making sure that they be very careful to not overstate their conclusions in the first place.

You're in your time zone, and there is no Daylight Saving Time, period. If, because of your location, parent pressure, whatever, your school/league/job decides for certain portions of the year to shift its hours around, fine. If your school doesn't want kids going to school in the dark, then for part of the year school starts a bit later. If your league doesn't want games in the heat of the day in summer, then the games start later. Etc.

We had first mover advantage in solar, but instead of ramping up, we were tricked by academics and Chinese, using their clever reverse psychology, into believing that global warming was a hoax, so that we'd not go full steam ahead and we'd lose the early mover advantage. Now the Chinese have the expertise in building the very soon to be cheapest, cleanest sources of energy and we have to buy it from them rather than them buying it from us.

So either it was a conspiracy, or we're just idiots.

How is this anything but good?

1. Africans should get energy? Yes they should, and this will help enrich the region, at least more than if this were not built.
2. Cables are a terrorist target? Yep. So are a lot of things. Diversify.
3. I thought Europe was already green? No, and this won't make it 100% either, not by itself. But it'll help.
4. Only enough to power Ireland? True. Better than NOT building enough solar to power Ireland.
5. Unfair to Tunisia/Unfair to Europe? No. Trade is good. Tunisia can produce energy cheap, and Europe has money to buy it. Capitalism at its finest.
6. We don't want energy dependency in that part of the world? True. Nor do we want it in any part of the world. Diversification again is key. Here's a way to diversify: get some solar from Tunisia. Bad idea: get most energy from Tunisia. Or most from fossil fuels, for that matter.
7. Local energy is better and conservatives would like that? Local IS better ... and elitist, like eating local. The poor person who can't afford it?

Political, rant against both sides for lack of common sense:

Conservatives like to drill-baby-drill, but since we don't have that many fossil fuel reserves, the remainder would have to be US renewable or imported cheap fuel. Conservatives choose imported cheap stuff every time, reducing our security for a modest decrease in price. In fact, we have our own deserts where, with some modest grid improvements, we could get cheaper, cleaner, domestic energy, better in every imaginable way, but the right does not want that (because the left does). And the left has trouble encouraging nuclear. Nuclear DOES have issues: waste and safety, both of which can be dealt with. There's another issue: nuclear power plants might not be competitive with wind at this point. If that's so, and if the left doesn't like nuclear, then they should be screaming FOR nuclear. The nuclear wouldn't get built (energy companies won't build anything uncompetitive) and the left would look like patriotic heroes for trying. Or at least they'd look consistent on the issue of carbon emissions. And if nuclear plants do get built because they can be built safely and are economical ... that's good! I HOPE that happens.

Everybody with a brain should admit the facts:

* Global warming is real. The physics are trivial -- read a book from say 50 years ago about Venus' atmosphere to get a non-political understanding of the mechanism and devistating inevitability of the problem. It's real. Don't change the facts to fit your theory. If your doctor told you that you had cancer, you wouldn't wait for treatment until you really needed it. You'd attack the problem early, because waiting is stupid.

* The solutions go beyond your ideology, left or right. Remember Acid Rain? Republicans and Democrats argued but eventually came to a market-based approach, and the problem was solved for dirt-cheap. The problem was liberal (the environment actually matters), the solution was conservative (market forces), and the world is now better off. Ozone hole? The problem was universal (skin cancer), the solution kind of liberal (international agreements) and again for a minimal price the problem has turned the corner and will be fine in a while. Everybody needs to quit whining and just take care of the problem. It's not that big a deal, especially at current renewable prices. Conservatives need to contribute their voice, to put forward proposals that actually solve the problem but without silly liberal baggage, and after some ridiculously ugly compromise, we'll solve the problem, it won't be that expensive, and like acid rain or lead in gasoline or ozone layers it'll be a boring thing of the past.

Paris wouldn't have happened without cars. We should ban them. Paris wouldn't have happened without food. We should ban that. Paris wouldn't have happened without people. Ban them. If the speed limit were reduced to 10mph, forget a few hundred people in Parise. We could save hundreds of thousand PER YEAR all around the world. Every good thing has bad things about it. We do not restrict good things because they can be used for ill. A cost-benefit analysis looks as benefits as well as costs. Even if the premise of the article is true, that's the start of a conversation, not the end.