It's also worth noting that this was almost handed to Amy Schumer and not Margot Robbie (who actively spearheaded pitching the project alongside Greta Gerwig), which is probably the difference between making a mockery of the project and giving it the love it needs to survive despite being branded bilk.
No, nothing like that—I'm saying that people generally deserve better than recycled IP, and Mattel came very close to people realizing this (yet again) by not choosing Robbie/Gerwig (and if you look at the story of how this movie came to be, Robbie was at least as big a factor as Gerwig was).
It's extraordinary that an article of this kind beings, "When we are interested in cause and effect relationships ... we have two options" and omits the option most characteristic of science.
Given there's a tremendous amount of reputational damage that has been done to science by those who have omit from their practice of science, science, I don't have much patience for this omission.
If one wants to educate an informed reader on the scientific method, you ought begin with a setup of the "problem of science" (that of causes, effects and their controls) that makes it clear that these far less reliable methods are indeed, far less reliable.
What this article does, instead, is claim the opposite. It omits the ideal case where science is possible, then proceeds to claim a status for randomisation (as a method) far above what it's capable of --
"Science" is not a thing in itself, or it's at the very least heavily polysemous and vague. It's a collection of institutions, processes, methodologies, and cultures that can sometimes, under the right conditions produce greater collective certainty about the universe. It's not a magic wand that works great when measuring physical processes but goes flaccid when empirical measurement gets difficult. In fact, that's why it's such a valuable concept and is clearly distinct from "magic".
Just because you prefer "hard science" because it's easier to control variables doesn't give you license to push your pet definition (notably, not provided) and value-judgements about the word onto other people. (Or at least—taking this license destroys your own credibility.) Doing so does just as much reputational damage to the aforementioned institutions, processes, methodologies, and cultures than people who try to draw too much certainty from poorly controlled variables.
What ever happened to nuance and understanding? C'mon! I believe you're capable of better. This kind of rancid tone has no place in serious discussion.
PowerShell designer could learn from decades of programming language progress and especially shell usage. They could improve many aspects indeed. This doesn't mean that the original design is "bonkers", only that it's not perfect.
The way Powershell works is largely based on what the computing world was doing with shells outside Bell Labs, at IBM, Xerox, and others places, exactly at similar timeframe as UNIX was happening.
Modern programming language designers have a bad relationship with verbosity. I don't know why they do this.
It's a lang for an interactive shell, typing literally translates to developer speed. I understand the want for clarity and maybe that's nice in large scripts, but the main goal is to be a shell. So, optimize for that. Also, you probably shouldn't be using powershell for large scripts anyway.
The only recent lang I've seen that has a handle on this is Rust. You can tell they put a lot of thought into having keywords be as short as possible while still being descriptive.
Those aliases are, I believe, only defined on Windows PowerShell (the closed-source version 5; not PowerShell 7). I wish those default aliases you mentioned weren’t a thing. Especially `curl` (people should use `iwr` instead), which is an alias of `Invoke-WebRequest`, because it makes the `curl.exe` shipped with Windows nearly undiscoverable.
"Generally accepted" is nearly impossible to discern from an individual standpoint. I prefer Wittgenstein's stance that you should essentially accept uncertainty that you refer to the same world/concepts/knowledge that others do and engage in good faith efforts to communicate the best you can. This amounts to the same thing but it's not weighted towards some (likely wildly incorrect) subjective viewpoint of the general population.
His advice is good; I've found multiple outfits based on his recommendations. Given that he specifies how to select clothes based on form, function, and taste, and not by pimping brands, this is absolute gold.
Who gives a damn how he dresses; I hope he takes his own advice because it'd be pretty weird not to, but he could walk around nude for all I care.
Expecting the market to sell EV when there's such pressure to subsidize lower fuel costs was never going to work out. Americans' inability to stomach discomfort without destabilizing the country is really, really bad news for the human race.
Even in China non-T1 city purchasers are leaning towards hybrids due to a mix of range anxiety and worries about xharging resources [0]
EVs today are in the same position that hybrids were 20 years ago. They will eventually become more prominent, but the current iteration of EVs is still early in the life cycle, and big budget purchases like EVs still need more time in order for consumers to understand how EV depreciation works.
The global "slowdown" means selling roughly 3 million (20%) more than last year, with the share of all car sales up from 18% to over 20% of total and all predictions expecting that to continue.
Why do words no longer mean anything when people want to deny a reality they find uncomfortable?
Slowdown doesn't mean a net zero or net negative delta. It just means that the YoY delta has slowed.
When any company makes significant CapEx investment like retooling ICE factories for EV manufacturing, the AOPs are generated based on certain assumptions of industry rate of growth.
The recentish rush of ICE manufacturers into EVs thanks to global subsidizes (something I support because battery supply chains have dual use implications) was predicated on the assumption that the rate of EV adoption and new car sales would be consistent with 2019-23, but these projections didn't take into account that overall automotive consumer demand would shrink rapidly (ICE and EV) or the fact that ESG financing would lose relevance due to external shocks from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
What this means is a number of very new players in the EV space got burned really bad because their AOPs have fallen apart.
Companies like Tesla and BYD weren't as badly affected because they had been investing in EV manufacturing for over a decade, unlike more recent entries who only began these investments in the 2019-23 period.
Adoption is happening, but it's not going to be as fast as EV fanatics say, but it's not going to be as slow as ICE fanatics say either.
That said, for most manufacturers who entered the EV space without a cohesive strategy, they are in a world of pain now because they have financial obligations to make whole.
> Why do words no longer mean anything when people want to deny a reality they find uncomfortable
Frack off.
I'm not making a moral judgement on EVs or biasing in favor of ICE vehicles.
Yeah, the chargers build-out was done a bit too poorly.
Really needed to subsidize / give a premium per kwh dispersed at a charger instead of just paying them to make them. The current incentives meant we got a ton of chargers but not that they stayed in working order which is pretty much the worse situation. It's better to know that the few chargers work than have many options to charge at but not know if they work (or they work poorly).
Thanks goes to all those "humanists" who did not wamt to engage with humanity as it is and consider the physical building human material for their perfect sky castle. You took away moments of vital debate thinking it was all about air superiority, meanwhile its all about engaging a hostile physical universe with a brittle spoon.
This response reads to me as, at best, a bad faith intepretation of hyperbole.
It seems very obvious why someone could get worked up over demonizing a relatively benign psychedelic over literal poison that is responsible for myriad health issues and daily violence.
If you can't meet in the middle and actually discuss the substance of the topic rather than nitpicking their comment, why comment at all?
Who cares? You're missing the forest for the trees. Alcohol is still legal and kills thousands (millions?) times more people. If we can't discuss that, being correct has no value. If the only thing you want to contribute is to point out a lie, why have the conversation in the first place? It's just wasting everyone's time.
> Not lying is a basic precondition to have a reasonable discussion.
No, it isn't. Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any. Third, you're perfectly capable of communicated despite this, and certainly more than pointing out a disagreement over facts. Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement and don't appear willing to discuss the bulk of the commentary?
Meanwhile, "good faith" actually is a precondition for decent conversation.
EDIT: Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim. So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value. Eg https://apnews.com/article/singapore-death-penalty-drugs-exe...
> Secondly, you're assuming malice where it doesn't appear there is any.
I take such an extreme case of misrepresentation / exaggeration as an attempt to mislead readers, which for me is malice.
> Why comment at all if you only want to point out disagreement
I didn't point out a disagreement, but a wrong fact.
> Meanwhile, googling "marijuana death penalty singapore" turns up way, way too many results for this to be likely to be an entirely false claim
Let me cite from the article you linked: "The man, ..., had been imprisoned for seven years and convicted in 2019 for trafficking around 1.5 kilograms (3.3 pounds) of cannabis" - how is that strengthening op's case that you get executed for smoking a joint?
> So from my perspective you basically killed the conversation while contributing nothing of value.
I'm happy to discuss things once facts are settled. You're killing the conversation by this weird insistence that setting facts straight is wrong?
Why are you getting bent out of shape defending a death penalty for owning about enough weed to get a frat house hyped on bob marley? How is that not horrible?
I can't say I've ever tipped based on service and it's a hilarious and depressing falsehood that anyone believes this is what tipping is for. We tip to compensate for the owner-biased, dysfunctional society we have the fortune to be born into.
That said, I rarely eat out anymore, and when I do get food I order takeout. The obsession with service when I don't really give a damn about it has basically destroyed my desire to sit down in a restaurant and pay even more to have my water occasionally refilled. The constant "thank you"s and "how's the food" and pushing menu items on me is basically the opposite of how I'd prefer to spend my time eating in a restaurant. Just bring the food and a water pitcher and leave me alone, please!
If we got rid of tipping and paid restaurant employees fairly, then this:
> The constant "thank you"s and "how's the food" and pushing menu items on me is basically the opposite of how I'd prefer to spend my time eating in a restaurant
should mostly go away, I think.
(I eat out all of the time and am 100% with you. It's SO MUCH BETTER outside of the United States. Restaurants by and large don't have TVs (pubs/bars do, but it's usually one or two, not SEVEN THOUSAND of them, in every angle). You only see servers when you order your food, when you receive your food, and when you pay. They don't pretend to be your friends or whatever. You're there to eat; they're there to serve; the relationship is understood. They also don't ask for tips and will usually not accept it if you try, unless you're in a touristy area, BECAUSE THEY ARE FAIRLY PAID AND FIGHT TO PRESERVE THAT RIGHT. And I say this as someone who tips 50-100% when I go out.)
Whether any one specific patron tips with it in mind, the incentive is still there in general. Sometimes people have bad experiences, and they don't tip better than average. Sometimes they have good experiences and tip well. The wait staff aren't stupid, and they're there to make money. Of course there's an incentive.
Yea, but why can't we correct this with modern technology? All the old reasons have more or less disappeared with shipping and computation. All the remains is greed.
Yea, that's my point: the reason is greed (and narcissism, self-delusion, etc). That's the only explanation I can think of: folks with privilege and power not only can't imagine a better world, they straight up prefer a hobbesian one where they can claim to deserve being on top.
