I wish people stop with this glyphosate in food. The traces we cand find aare in small quantities and even if you eat the same quantity of lead, you should still be fine.
The issue with glyphosate is the volatility, the fact that it stay in the ground, it can be absorbed through the skin (hence bad for farmers and people living near farms) but at least in europe, the quantities you can ingest are too small to endanger you. The fact that the main arguments of anti-glyphosate is this flawed argument, lobbies can easely convince the legislators that this argument have non-scientific ground (obviously) and should be ignored.
One argument for SVD is the low reliability (as in results fluctuate with repeated experiments) of word2vec embeddings, which hampers (qualitative) interpretation of the resulting embedding spaces, see: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C/C16/C16-1262.pdf
The closest equivalent I can think of is scikit-learn [1], which also gives you a unified way of using many different algorithms. I wouldn't say the two are really equivalent but both are excellent and a joy to use. One major difference is that, as far as I know, caret is mainly a standardization wrapper for other R packages' functionality, while scikit uses its own implementations.
Well, this is going to be an unpopular opinion I'm sure, but a lot of Sub-Saharan African countries seem to be shuffling Health and Human Services off to Western countries to handle, while they use economic aid for more "corrupt" purposes.
On the one hand it is always good to help people in need (especially children), but on the other hand, since it is just "given help" and not infrastructure development -- it tends to just kick the can down the road a little further.
Worse, sometimes aid even helps to stimulate corruption and economic imbalance that keeps many of those countries trapped in a borderline desperate cycle.
Here is an older, but still relevant, Wall Street Journal article that discusses the predicament from an economic standpoint[1].
Development aid also undermines democracy in developing countries because the elites focus on pleasing foreign donor organisations, rather than being accountable to their own population.
There is also a tendency of aid to destroy local economic structure, as the local producers can often not compete on price with free aid.
If you look at countries that managed to develop (e.g. South Korea or China in recent years), then they all did it without substantial involvement of foreign aid.
It is interesting to reflect on why development aid is so popular in the developed countries despite its obvious failures. Here are some reasons.
- Development organisations serve as levers of soft power. (If you
give us XYZ, we'll fund your railway/sewage treatment plant/school).
- On-the-ground workers of development organisations are convenient
sources of information and can often be used to supply false IDs for
spies, military operatives and the like.
- Multi-national companies regularly support development aid, because it's
good and cheap PR.
- Aid organisations are lucrative sources of income for their senior
staff in the developed world, and they well-oiled PR machines to
keep the funds flowing, and mute criticisms.
> Development aid also undermines democracy in developing countries because the elites focus on pleasing foreign donor organisations, rather than being accountable to their own population.
Of course, it can be good to undermine democracy, when the majority of the population support e.g. female genital mutilation or burning witches.
I'm wondering that myself. If we can't find a reliable place within the continent of Africa to produce this anti-venom then something is seriously wrong.
Similar punishments are prescribed by the Old Testament, so not specific to Islam. Luckily religion was replaced as a moral and especially legal guideline in "the West" thanks to the Enlightenment and the French revolution.
> Similar punishments are prescribed by the Old Testament, so not specific to Islam.
Saying that is ignoring the hadiths and the sharia which describe in great details all the aspects of the life of a Muslim. There is no such thing with Christianity. There are no "christian tribunals" describe by the bible. Islam is closer to Judaism in that aspect. The bible doesn't cover in great details all the aspects of life of a christian. Furthermore the new testament is clearly a new covenant incompatible in many aspects with the first one.
The parallel (but in the opposite direction) with the New, potentially peacefuler(1) Testament replacing the older, bloodier one, in Islam is that the "newer" Quran verses (and in the same book specifically proclaimed to be "more true" even if "all are true") are actually those calling for Jihad and the "unbelievers" (original: Kafirs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir or mushriks, depending on the verse) to be "slayed" (and variants). The original term for the "newer verses are more true" principle (also known as abrogation) is:
> I regularly write static methods and test them with JUnit
Implementing mock objects which return "unexpected" results is impossible with static methods.
The standard 1 interface + 1 impl pattern in Java is just so that the Proxy.newProxyInstance can create a decorated or mocked object for testing.
So you can test the methods directly, but you can't write failure-inducing methods (like a connect exception throwing one) which test the methods which use it.
