gromneer

generally i trust the moderators on this forum and i have witnessed instances where they act fairly. i am apt to believe you are acting in good faith, but you must acknowledge that the praise "islam being kept in check" is inflammatory. which in this context is barely even anodyne language for "muslims kept in check". i didn't start this.

go fuck yourself i dont see your fake umbrage being directed at the parent comment that initiated. more probable that you simply hate muslims and typify muslims defending themselves as "religious war" and those oppressing and mass slaughtering muslims as them "being kept in check". you are swine and i have nothing to be ashamed of from you.

I don't have a horse in the race. I don't even know what financial statement analysis is. But it worries me that a novel reliance on these models for traditionally skilled labor jobs will turn into a dependence. These models use the built up experience of human practitioners to achieve similar results. But if a dependence grows, then there will be no more skilled human practitioners to further develop improved skills and knowledge for these jobs. Calcifying the skills in time.

I really dislike the moral panic against Chinese manufacturing. It always comes from a particular brand of Americans. A specific kind of cultural group in America are trying to socially engineer less demand for Chinese goods. Here's the bottom line. Markets respond to material demand, not to political advocacy. Manufacturing may or may not return to the United States. But if it does, it won't be because you smacktalked Chinese goods.

I wish our civilization made these future med tech advancements every day. Sadly only rats benefit from our greatest medical achievements from cancer cures to limb regeneration.

i am not assessing the truthfulness, the reasonableness, the correctness, or the veracity of the claims made in the article in any way. i simply do not care because the claims are purely subjective, untestable, unmeasurable. it is an opinion piece and one that is dulled out ad nauseam in the programming world today. enough to be annoying now. one opinion for another.

getting tired of the underhanded shilling for c and procedural style programming. the people doing this still pretend they are the underdogs but their point of view is over saturated.

i don't like people who spam "well ackkktually" and make it so entire categories of phrases need to be eliminated to appease their neurosis.

need archive. not subscribing to this genocide instigating propaganda rag.

Are there enough tables and documentation to train a model off of?

Informative comments like this is the reason I go to the comment section before reading the article.

> Also when this person says the subscript "denotes the order of the measurement" I'm trying to figure out what kind of order he's talking about.

I hate that the most when reading papers. Authors trying to sound abstract and academic, but only accomplishing being frustratingly vague. AUTHORS YOU STILL HAVE TO INSERT THE SUBJECT INTO YOUR SENTENCES FOR THEM TO MAKE SENSE.

I'm so frustrated at this aspect in research papers more than anything else. You must disambiguate. Use absolute descriptors and do not use relative descriptors. Don't tell me to look right, because I'll look left. Use absolute descriptors! "then after spinning the prism the light cone blah blah blah" SPIN!? SPIN IN WHAT DIRECTION????? LEFT?RIGHT?! LATERAL? UP? DOWN???? How fast? How slow? You imagine all of these CRITICAL ASPECTS in your head when writing such ambiguous sentences, but the reader cannot read your mind.

So "computer, enhance!" is now real?

The XY comic has done irreversible damage to stackoverflow.

They aren't magically "objective" because they used the passive voice. It's a performance.

I disagree because it isn't possible for language to be precise on it's own syntactic merit. There is meaning and there is context and the biggest problem with research papers is that the context of many statements in the paper are incredibly ambiguous. The reason for that is that the papers are trying to be "concise". Context can only be disambiguated with more statements. You must eliminate potential interpretations that a reader could make.

"Spectrum sharing in an “apple-like” or a fixed set sense is not a coexistence. ". What does that mean? Coexist? Who knows, the author thought they were being precise, but they understood the statement they made with a head full of context that gave it precise meaning. As readers, we can only scratch our own heads as to what that context could possibly be.

Bully nations must never be allowed to successfully weaponize starvation. Giving in to sanctions is tantamount to negotiating with terrorists. A terrible precedent to set.