1lint
When it comes to research publications in general, I very much prefer to hear an objective, good faith presentation of the major viewpoints, with the author taking an opinionated but measured take in the conclusion as they review the overall weight of the literature. I'm sure there are issues with this "triune brain" model, but at a certain level every model is inaccurate; the real question is whether a model is useful in its framework, and the answer has a degree of subjectivity such that I do not think it is fair to categorically reject the perspectives of opposing experts in the field.
On the other hand, we have the opposite relationship with fruits. When our ancestors ate fruits, they played a pivotal role in facilitating the plant's reproductive fitness by dispersing the seeds, at times with the excellent complimentary fertilizer that is human excrement. In this case, the plant has an evolutionary incentive to produce more nutritious fruits to encourage such human consumption.
There are a lot of "vegetables" that are actually botanical fruits such cucumbers, zucchini, tomato, etc. (note they all contain seeds). They are much better alternatives than true vegetables (spinach/kale) for juicing if you are trying to avoid sugar or somehow don't like sweet juice.
It also doesn't sound right to me to refer to liquified vegetables as "juice", when I've long thought the term refers to the liquid produced from squeezing a fruit (not to mention liquified spinach/kale sounds a bit nasty)
If we take up the author's call to action in the title and introduction to "stop growing alfalfa" (presumably by outlawing it), then the corporations that grew alfalfa would obviously just find some other crop/product through which to effectively export water, albeit less efficiently, in which case the preexisting problems still exist but are even worse.
The real question is why these farmers/corporations are using their water to grow crops in the first place, when they could presumably be selling their water to consumers at much higher retail rates.
An immediately obvious answer would be that the costs of transporting/distributing this water from the source to the consumer is greater than the profit margin, in which case there isn't even a problem to begin with.
If the issue is regulation restricting corporations from selling/distributing their water to consumers, then it should be an obvious win for the politicians to fix: their corporate lobbyists get more money selling water at higher rates, while their voters get to buy water at cheaper rates. Either way, the article doesn't even mention any regulations at issue.
>> "I guess these things would all be prevented and/or prosecuted, rather than the drugs themselves" I agree with this statement. Criminalizing hard drug use simply because it is associated with behaviour causing societal damage is not only inconsistent with the legality of alcohol use, it is also a slippery slope to justifying far more insidious laws. For example, a similar justification could be used to criminalize violent tv shows/movies/video games if the government believes consumption of such media is associated with societal harm.
The obvious solution is to simply criminalize the acts, such as theft and property damage, that actually harm others/society, rather than indirect upstream actions such as drug use. This "Oregon experiment" involves far more than just decriminalizing drug use, but also (effectively) decriminalizing many other domains of crime such as retail theft, daylight robbery, urban camping, property damage, etc. not unlike what we have here in SF.
I strongly believe the people you should be talking with are the ceo and coo, especially if as you've noted, you don't expect the convo with cuxo to go well anyways.
Put the situation straight to them as you've done in your post. From what you've described I would presume the cuxo has privileged access to the ceo (and possibly coo), so it's very important you get your points across to them to provide a counterpoint to whatever the cuxo is saying in private.
One explanation for this sequence of events is that the conference planners had since found a new compelling topic reflective of the project's direction to be covered in a keynote speech, in which case the natural topic to replace is one that discusses a "possible"/hypothetical idea. I'm sure there was a better way for leadership to handle this, in particular around communicating their intentions, but this shortcoming seems much more likely a case of incompetence rather than malice towards the speaker, given the lack of information to support the latter.
Using string templating makes the DX better without compromising UX, since users just see the rendered output. Implementing bad/nonexistent web security also makes the DX easier since there's simply fewer features to implement, but this obviously has negative consequences on UX when folks have their accounts/credentials easily stolen.
Edit for the record: these were our comments that are hidden unless turning showdead on
1 point by 1lint 2 days ago [flagged] | root | parent | prev | next [–]
If I was dismissive of programmers I wouldn't be on this site.
ESTheComposer 2 days ago [flagged] [dead] | root | parent | next [–]
That's not even close to what my comment was about. Reread it please
Anyways based on the available details, I'm surprised the police were even involved in what should really be a civil case between the rights holder and the YouTuber. I don't know if the Japanese public is safer or better off after this arrest.
I didn't write Section 230 should be reinterpreted "to mean that online content providers were legally required to have no editorial control over use provided content" as you say, or even advocate for any reinterpretation of Section 230.
Loopholes in the law should be fixed by the legislature, not by misinterpreting the law as it is written.
For example if a hypothetical billionaire acquirer of a social media site wanted to (implicitly) promote a cryptocurrency project, he could shadowban negative comments against the project, leaving comments in favor of the project to dominate on the site. At the same time, Section 230 would still shield his company from liability for those comments in favor of the project. This creates a situation in which the social media is in essence promoting the project, but in a roundabout way that shields them from liability. I can see this being especially problematic as it is applied to influencing elections.
In my opinion, Section 230 protections should come with some obligation to respect the principles of free speech.
Please elaborate on your statement above. How would you characterize the method by which cameras produce images, and with respect to copyright law, how does this differentiate camera produced images from images produced by other machines?
I understand there can be a lot of depth to photography, likewise there can be a lot of depth to AI image prompting beyond just typing a prompt, both require high degrees of skill to master. But in general, I believe these forms of image generation to entail less artistic expression than the other arts.
In fact the USPTO recently opined against granting copyright for images generated by a machine (AI model) in response to someone's prompt (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-05321.pdf). I believe applying this same standard (whether the standard is right is an entirely separate question) to photography should also preclude photos from copyright, because there is more artistic expression involved in prompting than there is in pointing a camera.
From the very limited information presented, it's not clear to me why the author would judge this offer to be a selfish act, or why this anecdote would support his conclusion to "beware offers of help".
The way this story was presented makes me curious to see the dialog (if there was any) between the author and the guy who offered to help.