> Places with a lot of background noise are bad and have a research-supported negative impact on learning. Libraries and Reading rooms work best.
This was horrible advice for me and caused my a lot of grief for many years wondering why I still couldn't focus.
Nothing against Andrej, part of the reason I hate this advice is that this is very common advice for what your environment should look like. This was advice given by study workshops at my college. I'm sure this works for a decent chunk of the student population.
Quiet places cause me to mentally drift into outer space and I just zone out.
You know what is a great environment? Semi-busy coffee shops + headphones + instrumental music. I'm able to consistently lock in for 4-5 hours. When I go back to my "nice quiet home environment" I get distracted immediately and refocusing is super hard.
Like I said, this is standard advice that works for a portion of the population, but I think this makes a ton of other people in the same boat as me feel lazy/discouraged/unfocused/stupid losers when in reality "nice quiet places" might not work for them.
I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing.
States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have always done. How they handled protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance typically.
However,
The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet, as a federal, top-down policy will:
- Automatically identify protesters
- Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't like.
- Bypass due-process.
- Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states.
- Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing to bring back a lawful resident.
Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.
I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.
The issue is not really with the difference in impact between drone attacks and other types of aerial attacks, but with the dramatic increase in scale, resulting from reduced cost and risk.
It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.
They invaded two countries simultaneously (one landlocked). Then used secret stealth helicopters to fly a hit squad into an allied nations territory for one particular individual.
I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.
Yep. Trump's taken it to a new level by targeting American citizens while they're physically in the USA, and while immigration courts were always a bad joke he's even skipping the kangaroo court and just shipping people off without even a pretense of due process or legal justification. Rather than an incremental step forward on the path of authoritarianism, this administration has taken a flying leap out the frog-boiling pot, straight into the inferno.
> Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.
I think you might have missed the point. The way I read the comment, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that this sort of power creep was inevitable. Which administration it happened under is likely an influencing factor, but to think it was never going to happen seems a bit far-fetched at this point.
> “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration.
Well, neither one of those words showed up in my comment. I said that, based on the growth of this technology, power abuse was inevitable. Not justified, not necessary, simply the natural outcome of such things as history has shown us time and again.
The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to engage in.
In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I think you could have replied something like, “Democrats did (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the topic.
The article doesn't demonstrate Obama stealing Congress's power of the purse. Can you show me an example?
I'm quibbling with implications of "there's nothing new, they're both the same".
In the article he can sign an executive order to make college more affordable, but this is using Congress's budget allocation, and powers provided for the department of education though is it not?
Trump is literally dismantling departments approved by Congress, and using the budget in completely different areas as far as I can tell. He's not simply redirecting what X department should be doing, as compared to Obama.
This is something that confused me also. I feel like this is a reasonable argument.
My only criticism I guess would be that this is unfalsifiable, so for the time being it's more productive to see if there's any possibility to explain that within the observable universe.
Similar boat. Started pretty successfully in AI/programming since I've always wanted to do that. But romance is pretty bad. I also agree about the solitary hobbies vs social ones.
Started doing sports / gym this year, and will probably continue that next year. I've thought about taking a drawing art course or cooking course.
I work as a remote software dev. Joining a volleyball league + run club definitely helped massively for me.
> Again, making connections and friends is easy. Being around the same people regularly is difficult.
Agreed, 90% of the difficulty making new friends is showing at the same place/event regularly. Remaining 10% is actually being someone people want to be friends with.
> Until such questions are answered, a God is still quite reasonable.
I'm sorry, what is the monkey typewriter supposed to prove or disprove about God?
The original post isn't even about evolution, its related to textual and historical analysis, so I don't see how this is related.
Even worse, even if evolution disappeared as a theory, that wouldn't change the truthiness of specifically the claims / myths in the bible, and wouldn't in anyway make the existence of the Christian god any more likely.
If you use their product, per their tos, my understanding is they can train on their customer data at any time. In other words, if you use their product, they automatically have license to train on your art.
I think the only statements saying that they don't train on their customer data is from their CEO, but unless they encode it in their tos, that doesn't really matter.
Had a decision earlier this year to buy a Tesla vs a dumber car. 2019 Silverado I think has the best middle ground on terms of "smart" tech that is still easy to repair and doesn't sell my info to insurance companies.
By the time you get to 2019 and the GM T1XX platform the entire drivetrain is as complex as any modern vehicle: AFM/DFM, VVT, E85, Active Thermal Management, Start/Stop, 10L80/90, dynamic stability, etc. In other words, once it starts breaking down out of warranty, repair is uneconomic: non-dealer shops and owners don't have the tools, can't get affordable parts and aren't qualified to do the work, just like all other modern vehicles.
The last years that GM trucks were actually easy and cost effective to repair, but still relatively "modern" (decent PCM, effective air bags, standard anti-lock, etc.,) were 1999-2006 (GMT800) and 2007-2014 (GMT900), the former more so than the latter. Any professional mechanic can successfully repair almost anything on the vehicle and parts are readily available at reasonable cost.
Mid-2000s era car technology seems to have been the sweet spot across most brands for technology improvements while still having practical serviceability and maintainability.
I'd agree with that timeline with regard to US domestic truck platforms, which famously lagged cars in complexity by about a decade. A lot of 2000's cars definitely do not qualify.
The notion of a "sweet spot" is valid. All the classic safety and reliability problems were solved, yet the vehicles (again, truck platforms) are tractable in terms of service.
I don’t think manufacturers are purposely making the cars harder to repair - they have to meet stricter and stricter fuel and air quality standards, so need more and more tech to squeeze out more /same performance while burning less fuel, or burning more thoroughly.
Sure. This is all self evident. Understanding the motivations of manufacturers, however, yields little value: the products they're making now are post-warranty disposable, despite the staggering cost and whatever intent manufacturers might have.
All of this has produced amazing ICE engineering. GM's base model gas truck engine, the L3B, is making 325hp from 166ci under 27psi of boost. Such ratios tell you everything you need to know about the long term fate of that drivetrain: there is zero margin for error, because everything is operating very near the limit of materials science and the capabilities of advanced manufacturing. When it fails, shortly after the warranty expires, fixing it will not be economic.
If you know the vaguest thing about the topic he is talking about, you will know that he frequently omits critical context in order to get clicks. I am guessing that is what you mean by “mostly talks sense”
There’s an effect (forgot the name) when you read an article about your area of expertise and think it’s awful. But then you read something you don’t know in the same journal and its okay. Are you sure that’s not the case here?
I mean, I don’t watch Louis and blocked him due to my non-interest and him being populist-ish with auditory, but talking this way about him is too much, imo.
Hasn't the number one thing anti-biden people have been saying is that he isn't fit for office due to his mental state?
Its bizarre seeing them flip to calling this a coup as if biden stepping down is suddenly an illegal/unconstitutional thing.
I consider this "concern trolling".
They said for 4 years how he's barely mentally there / can barely speak / not fit for office, and then when the Democratic party pressures him to step down, they go all surprised_pikachu_face.png.
Are the same people saying both things? “Anti Biden” people are a wide swath of Americans and not required to agree with one another on any specific point.
This was horrible advice for me and caused my a lot of grief for many years wondering why I still couldn't focus.
Nothing against Andrej, part of the reason I hate this advice is that this is very common advice for what your environment should look like. This was advice given by study workshops at my college. I'm sure this works for a decent chunk of the student population.
Quiet places cause me to mentally drift into outer space and I just zone out.
You know what is a great environment? Semi-busy coffee shops + headphones + instrumental music. I'm able to consistently lock in for 4-5 hours. When I go back to my "nice quiet home environment" I get distracted immediately and refocusing is super hard.
Like I said, this is standard advice that works for a portion of the population, but I think this makes a ton of other people in the same boat as me feel lazy/discouraged/unfocused/stupid losers when in reality "nice quiet places" might not work for them.