I can't see many dealers using dark markets above plausible personal use amounts since you get caught importing dealable quantities you are screwed, dark market or not (And the mail system will get a % of buyers). You might have a $1000 per week habit or be a $1000 per week dealer. Who's to say?
Well given that this party is funded by taxpayers, for the purported benefit of said taxpayers and their society; I do think its problematic that said party would hold such a view.
I have no problem calling out what you believe are unjust laws, but the way you did so implies some agreement with those laws from the commentor you were replying to, as well as some responsibility for those laws existing from the police that carry them out.
Calling out a commentor's statement about the police's state of mind at concluding what was undoubtedly a large project for their department doesn't effectively work as a launchpad into a critique of those responsible for the law when done through terse sarcasm that seems to target the wrong responsible parties.
They fund the ones supplying those drugs which involves a significant harm to society. Just look at people who are unwilling participants in the drug trade or those who receive funds from selling drugs to sell other things such as weapons or even humans.
(Yes, I realize legalizing local drug production and distribution would undercut the market, which is one reason why I am for legalization. But that does not excuse supporting the current cartels.)
People under influence do indeed pose danger to other people. Even the influence of alcohol is potentially dangerous in certain situations leading to incidents ranging from hit and run to domestic violence.
Even alcohol? Alcohol is the most endangering drug. Because of wide spread use (no competition because in many places it's the only legal drug), addictiveness, toxicity and intrinsic nastiness of influence it has on some users.
It's not a semantic argument. It's important to make it plain, before having a reasoned discussion, that there are legal drugs that people use every day but wrongly categorizes as "not drugs." Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine being the main culprits. Food, exercise, and social media also cause experience-shifting changes in neurotransmitters (the drugs that are always mediating your experience). It's important to get this straight before lumping things that are illegal into a poorly-conceived category.
While it is true that there are other substances that could and should be called drugs, it is not conducive to discussion to argue over definitions when it is clear people are talking about drugs colloquially. To bring up coffee serves no purpose other than to derail the comment thread - as it has.
Air also causes experience shifting changes in body. Think of the last time you went without it. Also thoughts cause multiple experience shifts during the day. Maybe we should start be controlling the air and eliminating thoughts before we get to these bigger things?
everything does. it's a question of individual context, individual biology, and what you define as "experience-shifting" + our ability to understand and measure the human brain.
I don't think this is a semantic argument. The comment I replied to was making the argument that alcohol use is widespread because it has no legal competition. This does not appear to be the case to me, thus undermining the argument.
You are right about availability of nicotine and caffeine but I'm not sure if you can make an argument that they could compete with alcohol.
I know that caffeine was a bit of competition for alcohol in the period right after it was introduced (some think that enlightenment was caused by this), but I don't think it's like that anymore.
Nicotine and caffeine are drugs but when did you last hear of people crashing cars or killing other people because they were high on nicotine or caffeine. I'm sure it's an ancillary factor and if you could investigate with strict accuracy you'd find they had a non-zero influence. But putting them on the same semantic plane as you are doing implies that people in the grip of a nicotine or caffeine buzz are little different from people who are drunk, and anyone with real-world experience knows that's nonsense. You're not helping your point by reflexively making nitpicking arguments.
I'm pro legalization for all drugs, but but I'm not going to dispute the fact that booze, cocaine, and heroin are just like cannabis, caffeine and nicotine because it just isn't true. If you don't acknowledge the reality of people's experience when making your semantic arguments then people are going to ignore you.
If someone gets off work and wants to get loaded to forget about their problems, are they more likely to get a 12-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes?
People with _______ pose a danger to other people. It is incredibly hypocritical to come down on someone for consuming LSD in their own home, but not on someone getting pissed drunk in their own home. Tens of thousands of people are killed by people under the influence of alcohol in the United States. How many people are killed by people under the influence of LSD?
Curiously I find myself disagreeing quite a bit with Larry.
> If a language is designed so that you can "learn as you go", then the expectation is that everyone is learning, and that's okay.
It's okay if we never reach understanding or agreement on what Faulkner intended by a particular sentence (we can still grasp most of the whole). For a programming language this is explicitly not okay! This goes for ambiguity as well.
> Multiple ways to say the same thing
> This one is more of an anthropological feature. People not only learn as they go, but come from different backgrounds, and will learn a different subset of the language first.
This increases cognative load with no particular benefit.
For the former, I think Larry does not imply a post-modernist “death of the author” position: there is still an objectively correct interpretation of the code as the author intended, but it may be understood differently by people of different experience levels. For example, a map with reference to a sub can be though of as a loop that calls the sub.
With perl, the objective truth is opcodes, which are well-understood by a small group. Everyone else bases their understanding on heuristics and analogies, and the goal is to write your code to trigger the same heuristics/etc. in the reader.
For the latter, you are declaring your opinion as fact. Every language allows redundancy and variation of expression; if it truly provided no benefit, why have we not seen a popular language that only allowed a single expressive style?
> For the latter, you are declaring your opinion as fact. Every language allows redundancy and variation of expression; if it truly provided no benefit, why have we not seen a popular language that only allowed a single expressive style?
It is indeed my opinion (as prefaced by 'I find myself disagreeing..') but the premise that a programming language benefits from resembling or mimicking features of natural languages is also an opinion.
Also I should note that your phrasing of the question isn't quite correct ("if it truly provided no benefit"), something that provides no benefit is unlikely to be excluded from a language (e.g. double negatives "there ain't nothing here to see!") unless there is a clear benefit to doing so, and in fact there are times that there is.
Particularly I would draw your attention to for example more limited lexicon sets (such as those used by dispatchers, rescue workers, climbers, EMT professionals etc.). Those explicitly exclude variation of expression, since that leads to an increased risk of being misinterpretation in often critical situations. It is my inclination that while interpretation of code isn't time critical, reducing variance (e.g. a common coding style does this as well) reduces cognitive load (makes comprehension more efficient).
>However, any possible password with a standard printable ASCII character set will typically be found in Rainbow tables up to 10 characters long making expensive cracking unnecessary.
Umm what? Even assuming a limited set of ASCII i.e. Base64, on what magical medium do you suppose a 64^10 rainbow table is stored?
Any medium really. Rainbow tables are compressed (by throwing away most of the hashes). The amount you throw away determines how long it takes to crack.
For example, A rainbow table might use chain lengths of 10,000. This means that for every 10,000 hashes calculated, only 1 (really 2) are kept. Each chain ends up as a row in the table, which is then sorted. When cracking, the target hash is hashed and reversed up to 10,000 times looking through the table.
The more compression the less space needed, but longer look up. The original Windows XP rainbow table cracking CD published along with the Rainbow table paper was only ~500Mb, but was able to crack pretty much every windows password.
An md5 rainbow table for lower alphanumeric which covers passwords of length 9 is 63gb. Length 10 is 316gb. You can see where this is going. It's important to note the caveat upfront; lower case-only plus numbers. No upper case, no symbols.
That is just a rainbow table, but there are many others. By modifying the chain length, you can make the table as arbitrarily small. The example commands on that site use a chain length of 3800, but it could be raised to 1 million.
Interesting comment by Gorhill from the above discussion:
>> I thought web extensions couldn't block that content.
> I just ran a couple of tests, and I believe you are correct.
> Legacy uBlock Origin can block the network request to GA.
> However webext-hybrid uBO as per Network pane in dev tools does not block it. Same for pure webext Ghostery, the network request to GA was not blocked, again as per Network pane in dev tools.
> What is concerning is that both uBO webext-hybrid and Ghostery report the network request to GA as being blocked, while it is really not as per Network pane in dev tools. It's as if the order to block/redirect the network request was silently ignored by the webRequest API, and this causes webext-based blockers to incorrectly and misleadingly report to users what is really happening internally, GA was not really blocked on about:addons, but there is no way for the webext blockers to know this and report properly to users.
> This is what I have observed, hopefully this can be confirmed by others.
Website administrators: Please do not disable everything except google bot in your robots.txt [0][1] - this is a terrible practice making our internet worse.
> I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads,
Firefox on mobile supports extensions, so you can use UBlock Origin / UMatrix. Also the built-in reader mode makes most sites a much better experience.
This is on purpose (see operator precedence rules: https://github.com/sharkdp/insect#reference). Implicit multiplication (without an explicit multiplication operator) has a higher precedence than division in order for something like this to work:
tan(15cm/3m)
= tan(15cm/(3m))
On the other hand, explicit multiplication has a lower precedence than division, so you would have to write "1/12*c". I agree that it can be confusing at times (that's why there is a pretty printer), but I don't want the language/parser to be whitespace-aware.
These things take time. Good original research does not work in the same timeframe as front end frameworks.
Edit: I feel a bit bad about this joke. I know that Front End Frameworks take time too. For example React wasn't deployed internally in Facebook till 2011 and that was after two years of research and development on it. Then it was open sourced in 2013, so that's like 4 years of development before it was ready for public use. But jokes depend on culture and the culture of HN is: "Front End frameworks: lol".
As you say, they definitely aren't uncorrelated dimensions - otherwise we would have seen ~50 pilots within one stdev for all 10 dimensions. So this simplified metaphor really isn't telling us anything about how statistics apply to students.
Somehow despite all the conversations around education in the US the education system still sucks. I went to one of the highest funded (amount spent per child) public schools in my state, and as far as I am aware it was far behind in terms of curriculum strength compared to what my parents were taught in the Soviet Union at the same age.
I mean we didn't read a classic American author till 6th or 7th grade! And if I recall correctly there were still M&M's in math class in grade 4!
The US may have an education problem but somehow the Soviet Union and China did fine years ago with out all the ed-tech snake oil.
Education is a complex matter. There are many people with OPINIONS on what the best way to teach is. These ideas are in conflict and only rarely does anyone study what really works. (rarely compared to the number of opinions - there could be a lot of studies that nobody knows about when they state their opinion)
Humans have a limited lifetime: you cannot teach all possible useful knowledge/skills in a lifetime. I limited this to useful, there is a lot of useless things that are fun to know anyway, somehow those are are interested need time to learn it for fun. I didn't define useful either: is Music/French/Algebra/Sports... useful (I can make either argument for any subject)
Why is reading a classic American author important? Reading is important in an abstract sense, but if you can understand written instructions it doesn't matter what you happened to read to get that skill.
Likewise, what is wrong with using M&Ms for learning math? a concrete example helps to learn. (to be clear, this is an opinion that I was ranting against in the first paragraph - I don't know if I agree with the opinion but I understand it enough to repeat it)
One constant in the US in popular culture is our education system sucks compared to X. We have done well over the years despite that (or maybe because of it?)
> but if you can understand written instructions it doesn't matter what you happened to read to get that skill.
Of course you are free to define useful in a way that makes it impossible to argue or to have a discussion. So let's stick to the way it is defined for the purpose of say University admission.
> Why is reading a classic American author important?
Reading difficult work earlier develops higher reading comprehension faster.
> Likewise, what is wrong with using M&Ms for learning math?
I think if by 4th grade you still need concrete pieces to understand integers or denominators of a fraction or whatever they were supposed to represent, that is a sign of a weak math education. In general concrete examples are antithetical to learning advanced math, this leads do the monkey-style ability to solve problems that are similar ones presented in textbooks, but not the ability to reason effectively about an unfamiliar problems.
I dont think PISA ratings are that useful, but it does show USA ahead of Russia and China for Reading and ahead of Russia for Science so hardly evidence that USA is worse.
> Reading difficult work earlier develops higher reading comprehension faster.
What makes a classic American author better than a modern author who writes at a high level? (Note that most popular authors don't write at a difficult enough level, but out of the thousands of books published each year some will be high enough - many authors of old did not write at a high enough level either)
Classics are classics for a reason, they've stood the stand of time and scrutiny as literature of value.
Reading level of the material aside, I think it's more valuable to read The Catcher in the Rye than The Hunger Games because of the subject matter and impact on popular culture.
Classic literature is genre defining and gives you appreciation for the art of novelization.
It's hard to gain an initial appreciation for reading if you don't enjoy the reading you do, which is a good argument for the bestseller list, but it's hard to gain any depth of appreciation without understanding it's roots.
You might say you like hip-hop because lil-yachty made your head bounce on the radio, but without listening to N.W.A. you can't really say you understand it.
> I went to the highest funded (amount spent per child) public school in my state, and as far as I am aware it was far behind in terms of curriculum strength compared to what my parents were taught in the Soviet Union at the same age.
This is because just pumping money into failing schools does not magically turn them around. There is little correlation between per capita secondary education spending and student outcomes.
All else being equal, schools with substantial numbers of special needs students will have much higher expenditure per pupil because they are so disproportionately expensive.
Of course funding per pupil isn't correlated to outcomes. Funding per pupil normalized to their levels of needs and preparedness might be.
Funding works strangely in USA public education. Schools in any given district seem to have a "hull speed" when it comes to money.
Once a certain amount of dollars are actually reaching the class room, adding more dollars will simply see most of the additional funds absorbed by hiring more administrators, prestige projects like sports facilities, "classroom technology" projects etc.
To detect this limit, simply check the level at which teachers begin paying for school supplies for their students from their own pockets and then back it off about 10%.
You don't know many teachers. The system consumes a little bit of teacher's altruism as a raw material, converting it to extra money for those other things mentioned. Too much and turnover becomes too high so they seem to carefully feel out to edge. You can shear sheep over and over but skin them only once.
Every public school teacher I've ever known (including the several in my family), from rich districts to poor, end up buying basic supplys for their students because they can't get the district to provide them. Its all very 20th century soviet. I've know teachers who waited six months for light bulbs before finally going to Home Depot and buying them themselves.
In the Northeast US, you'll generally see the best performing districts have a lower amount spent per child than the underperforming districts.
The underperforming districts will have higher property taxes (as a result of the higher education cost). This generally leads to parents seeking to move to a different school district for financial and educational reasons.
In education, at least, more money does not equate to better students, but instead, more mismanagement.
This definitely needs a citation. It might not have significant correlation either way, but I cannot find a reference for the former (some cursory googling [0][1]).
Special education students are more expensive to educate than bright students.
You give a gifted student a $100 book and let them get after it.
You give a troubled behavior student with multiple LDs a full-time ed tech at $30k per year salary minimum, or whatever else is required, by federal law, to fulfill their IEPs.
Ugh, I didn't stop to consider the special education component (and its cost). That's my bad.
This reminds me of a similar theory in regards to affluent towns with low taxes that have minimal social programs, that "export" their elderly to nearby cities with higher taxes but have programs such as Paratransit and Meals-on-Wheels.
I question whether students are ready to read classic authors before middle school at the earliest. Perhaps one can read Huckleberry Finn as an adventure story before that, but is that more than surface familiarity? Don't know about M&Ms, though.
Anyway, as I say again and again: there isn't one US education system. Within the District of Columbia, a populous but geographically small area, there are practically if not legally speaking six or seven at least: public schools, magnet; public schools prosperous; public schools shaky to desperate; parochial schools; private schools; charter schools. And within the parochial, private, and charter school worlds there are considerable differences.
I see a lot of Russians and Chinese emigrate to America to bring up their children. I dont see any sending their children back to get the "superior" education there.
What if I as a parent don't want my children exposed to chocolate (to not form terrible eating habbits)? Not to mention that it's not JUST chocolate - it's a complex mix of chemicals engineered in a lab with a goal to be the most profitable for the company (while children's wellbeing is nowhere near the list of goals). What's wrong with using vegetables or fruits?
Because obviously people buying a few pills of ecstasy or a tab of LSD are a serious danger to society and should be taken of the streets. /s