Don't worry, there's plenty more where that came from.

https://youtu.be/g5vnZec964c?t...>Amen!

but, but, but, that would be State overreach!

Yup, and I think all of it can be tracked back to the tyranny of metrics (not the book, the subject). When "doing good science" became formalized into number of publications, or h factors, or any other system, users (scientists most interested in career advancement) gamed the system. And so we now have reams of papers that explain essentially nothing. But we have to read orders of magnitude more just to stand still, and are certainly going to miss the basic fact that it's already been done. But no matter, papers don't get retracted for reporting mild twists on unacknowledged old discoveries, so onward! And career advancement for the savvy operator is a feedback loop--they consume ever more students and postdocs, to do things that have already been done or are objectively worthless, shit out ever more papers, and are judged only on the gamed metrics. They gain editorships, at which point the lowly truth-seeker had better cite their work if they want to get their own work published! And higher their metrics go!

The kicker is that there is good stuff being done in the trenches, which in a pinch is held up as proof the broken system works. But it gets done in spite of the system, not because of it. And given our obsession with metrics, the same can be said of pretty much everything in modern society (American, at least, can't speak for others). So-called leaders, titans of industry, technology, economics--all falling down. But (insert your favorite politician), FAANG, 5G, "unemployment" figures--I must be wrong. And on it goes...

The phrase "faster than light" is kinda misleading in these discussions. An entangled pair of things can't be expressed as a product state; from a certain point of view, it is no longer two things. So even though you can poke here and apparently have an effect there, it's one object (composed of two strongly coupled objects) reacting.

The division into photons 1 and 2 is artificial when they're entangled. Any "impulse" that were traveling wouldn't be doing so through the vacuum or environment between the photons. So, is it "faster than light"? Only from the fiction that something must move through the space between them.

So, wormholes, all the way down.

More so, the lack of protections for shouting fire seem to rest on the properties of (a) panic, AND (b) falsehood. I suspect one's shouting of "fire" in a crowded theater would indeed be protected, if there were in fact a fire that threatened everyone in the theater.

Conservatives have gleefully embraced the alternative reality of Hannity, Jones, et al. as it suited them. That the intrinsic falsehood of that alternative world should lead to the actual world filtering it out is just the other shoe dropping. Don't like it that reality has a liberal bias? Tough.

I look forward to sinking my teeth into a burger that could have been cooked, but is apparently not by default.

• 1000 * (0.083 * 0.04) * 0.25 = 0.83, or perhaps 1 person, if math illiterate.
• 1000 * 0.04 * 0.25 = 10 as stated, if just plain illiterate. Even so, if they identified Siri or Alexa, then this 4% could not in fact identify a famous female tech leader, as these two names are not tech leaders.

So, what happened again? The inability to express the issue clearly kinda takes the sting out of the critique.

Besides, the more alarming thing was that all the other active respondents identified Tay. :)

No more lies! We'll see the mic booms on the "moon landing" footage, chemtrails will be exposed as whites-only obesity-promoting chemicals, and we'll learn the true extent of the HAARP array's mind control powers!

...Or did they mean fighting actually fake news? Pphht, doesn't seem like a very revenue-positive thing to do.

It will be a thing of the past. You will run a Linux distro in a VM on Linux in the cloud, or a Linux distro in a VM on Azure, or a Linux distro in a VM on Android, or something else. For the most part, who cares? Of course for the really performance-minded, no, Linux-on-metal isn't going away anytime soon.

As for whether a company can extinguish the world's technical backbone, I doubt it without extinguishing the concept of FOSS altogether, which they would have done long ago if they could.

Thank goodness Verizon was finally able to buy the dog shit for their Central Park diorama, because it just isn't a park without a healthy helping of dog turds.

OK, maybe Finance is worth something, possibly Sports I imagine, but what else does Yahoo bring? BRAND recognition? A savvy user base? Maybe they're conflating (defunct) accounts with "people"?

...but don't belong in every discussion.

..., thereby succeeding in its goals to remain apolitical and objective.

There is plenty to support in "social justice," but injecting it into every discussion regardless of scope is dumb. And for a self-styled scientist to do so brings into doubt their credibility as a scientist. A current pet peeve is claims that diverse groups are necessarily better, for example this one . The danger of this over-enthusiastic embrace of affirmative action is the contrapositive--if diverse teams are better/smarter/Xer, then less diverse teams are necessarily less good/smart/X. If that were true, then I can say that whites/males/{over-represented group of choice} are either demonstrably less X as individuals, or that they are demonstrably less capable of having team interactions that lead to better X. Once that door is open to racial/gender/etc discrimination, the barrel can be turned right back onto the very groups that were hoping to benefit from greater diversity.

Not to mention the poor sampling of diversity dimensions. Gender and race have some representation in the diversity debate, but what about LGBTQ? Geographic? Philosophical? Political?

Affirmative action is a defensible temporary policy to correct certain historical discriminations, given the intensity and horror of them. But when it becomes unquestioned policy applied across the board, it is an outright danger to the very things it attempts to fix.

Until the funding source to maintain the site runs dry, or vested interests persuade certain Congressional parties to defund it.

We had developed software under the DOE SciDAC program, which was distributed via an Outreach site. When funding got tight, that site was the first to go. Last I checked, the lone guy holding the line was keeping it up until the server died, at which point it was gone for good. If you want persistence, better make sure not to rely on a single point of failure. And these days, any .gov domain is prone to failure and/or corruption.

Totally agree, based on the source I've seen dumped out by various tools. However, the question is whether it needs to be that way. I don't think it does, and that comes down to the research part. I know "Deep Neural Net" is treated like magic pixie dust to solve everything, but what if unreadable machine-generated code is a non-linear transformation away from readable, maintainable code? If it is, then would COBOL-to-maintainable-C be impossible? If we can't answer that with more than opinion, then it may be worth taking a look at seriously.

Yes, I realize the 95% correctness of a trained NN would result in awful correctness checking exercises, and there would undoubtedly be labor-intensive steps, but if it's that or "let the system collapse or rot", I'd choose moving ahead. Then again, maybe the problem's not that serious.

So true! Assemble multiple rockets in orbit, lash 'em together, and go. That 10-rockets-to-accelerate-no-deceleration plan might just get someone onto the surface of Mars in jellied form by his impeachment trial end date, if we start now.