slyrus

The fact that they did it in the beginning and are doing it now makes the whole “well, there was a period of time when they didn’t do this” seem like a minor footnote to the notion that “they’ve always done this”. Even though the statement isn’t strictly true, it sure seems like the cynicism is warranted now and, with the benefit of hindsight, was back then too.

Of course it would be nice if google actually added SVG support to google slides...

So you’re saying it’s legit?

Sure, that's one approach. But it shouldn't take 45 seconds to spin up a new "emacs -nw" process, IMO. There's something pathological going on.

Have they fixed MacOS startup performance yet? ISTR some post about why faster CPUs were making emacs even slower on startup. Seems to have gotten worse over the years.

2019. Somebody probably has a flow-matching/diffusion/foundation model chirality determination by now.

Same. ATS11=43 was magic back in the day.

The pedestrian not so much, though.

And Gene wrote the assembly tools that did shotgun assembly of the human genome for Celera when most folks (except Jim Kent who wrote the _other_ assembler (used by the public sequencing effort (NIH,Broad,UCSC, etc…)) said it couldn’t be done. IMO, he and Jim Kent deserve a Nobel prize for these efforts.

No, once again you've misunderstood or mischaracterized what I'm getting it. Folks can hold their beliefs with whatever sincerity they choose, but when they mix those beliefs with teaching, it becomes a pernicious form of activism. So if people are gonna try to decouple activism from teaching, they better include religious activities, doctrines, and proselytizing in said activism. That's all. Or, to put it another way, if you're gonna allow religious activities to get mixed up with teaching, be prepared for other forms of activism to be mixed in as well. To put activism grounded in supernatural beliefs/prophets/sacred texts on privileged ground above other forms of activism makes little sense to me.

What are you talking about? They whole article implies that they're gonna decouple activism from teaching. Just apply the same playbook to religion? Oh what's that? It can't be done? Ah, I see. Maybe that was the meta-point behind my whole rant after all. You wanna have religious schools? Fine. Who want (non-religous) activist schools? I guess that's fine too. But the notion that we're gonna get rid of "activism" and not touch religion in teaching/education/academia strikes me as absurd.

Fair enough. One's belief in creation myths, higher powers/beings, afterlives, etc... is not, per se, activism, but once you start gathering people on a regular basis to bring about societal/behavioral change (ya know, commandments, morals, laws based on religious ideas/notions/opinions, etc...), much less proselytizing, then, yeah, it's pretty much the definition (or at least the poster child) of activism.

The parent article is about decoupling activism from teaching. Surely religion is just a specific form of activism.

Meanwhile, there's a pretty sizeable percentage of the educational world that has inextricably tied education to religion. How about getting religion out of higher (and lower) education?