alexithym

> I know I should be paying attention to the meat of the matter

Yes, maybe you should :P

No, you're not the only one who feels that way

The 737 isn't really designed to fly longer international routes - it's mostly used for domestic short haul flights. However, the international market is absolutely gigantic, especially the Asian one, and not being able to fly 737s in countries other than the US would be a godsend for Airbus and a tremendous blow for Boeing.

Well, Trump is the President. On the list of people worth fact checking, he's probably at the top.

Also, they are fact checking other people - for example, they've fact checked Chinese politicians tweeting propaganda about COVID starting in the US.

This was an unnecessarily aggressive comment, and the tone with which it was made detracts greatly from the intended message.

I agree that people could benefit from an understanding of both, but I'm finding it hard to see how the actual body of scientific work could be improved by incorporating religion in any way.

I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't make science itself dogmatic.

I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.

Because we are human, science in practice will always fall short of perfect adherence of the scientific method. However, the fact remains that the two are fundamentally different, because one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn't.

It's incorrect to compare science to religion.

In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma.

Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.

"CodeGuru’s machine learning models are trained on Amazon’s code bases comprising hundreds of thousands of internal projects, as well as over 10,000 open source projects in GitHub" - from the article.

I'd like to believe that this was a culture failure isolated to a single fulfillment center, but that seems like a convenient way to absolve Amazon of guilt.

At the end of the day, it's Amazon's responsibility to enforce a safety culture in each and every fulfillment center, and failing to do so is inexcusable.

This is much less irrelevant to HN's core purpose than the plethora of other random articles that can be found at any given time.

Personally, I fail to see how the article was inflammatory. The author clearly took pains to avoid demonizing either side of the discussion that was being highlighted, something which is markedly rarer in the current day and age.

> If you don't push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about.

The issue with this position is that it assumes a defined line of consent which is generally shared by both parties. However, one of the main theses of the article was that the very definition of consent itself can been so radically altered as to make this a strong assumption. For example, one definition of rape presented in the article ("Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated") doesn't care at all about whether the woman consented, verbally or otherwise.

Anyways, that doesn't matter. The reform described by the article is for the purposes of a more fair investigative process. Not one tilted towards the accuser, not one tilted towards the victim, but a fair process. Would you not also agree that a fair process is a desirable goal for any society?