In a sense they are, because whatever European territorial changes happened after WW2 were supposed to be the last ever and to stand for all eternity, as stated in the Helsinki Accord of 1975.
Of course, this agreement has since been violated, notably by Russia.
So, do you support a wholesale reversal of WW2-related border changes? Because in that case, your country would have to surrender Lwów and Munkács.
(And Croatia would have to give up Rijeka to Italy. And the whole Alsace-Lorraine stuff would return. And I'm not even talking about Germans returning to Czechia or Romania.)
The general trend on this forum was that anything queationing the official narrative on issues related to COVID was heavily downvoted, even if you just quoted conflicting research. Thus it was not only “specific individuals”.
Funnily enough, I am first upvoted, then downvoted to -1 for a comment that people were downvoted for saying certain things. Nobody has any counter-argument but they just downvote because they disagree. Kind of proves the point.
Revisiting The Science™ today is obviously useful for tomorrow. Suddenly dropping the issue is a bewildering position, especially from such a "pro-Science™" crowd.
Why wouldn't we want to know how effective (or not) a given intervention is? It feels like a way to avoid embarrassment.
But I'd argue that most of the lessons to be learned are not about virology or the minutiae of masks. They're about the consequences of politicizing something that's not political, of implementing drastic measures with poorly-communicated rationale.
They're of non-physicians spreading their own opinions and misexplainations (however well-intentioned) while condescending to other non-physicians that they're not entitled to their own opinions because they're not a physician. Like, what?
It would be a bewildering position, which is why nobody suggested to suddenly drop the issue or stop studying it. I’m not sure where you got that idea.
I was talking about revisiting people’s comments on a message board from 4 years ago in an attempt to re-stoke the flamewar conversations everyone claims to be against.
I have no opinion on this thread but I find it weird when people dig through others’ comment history and try to use it as an argument.
If you read the rest of that thread GP states that he was thinking of a specific different police brutality case and mistakenly referred to the George Floyd case instead. I also have no idea what he means by black supremacists there but the ridiculous part of your quote was essentially a typo by GP (allegedly anyway).
Thank you for taking the time to go through my thousands of comments. Did you read all comments or were you looking for specific keywords that match your worldview?
My views were based off of cnn and cam footage shown.
I was reading through your history. Why all the Apple hate. Did you ever recover from the botched Apple interview?
No need for perusal, just a good memory for usernames.
Apple hate? Me? I’ve got an iPhone, Watch, and a house full of Macs. Apple is by far my preferred tech company out of the big ones. I hate Apple about as much as George Floyd was killed by black supremacists.
I’m not sure how three years of CNN coverage of the Floyd murder left you thinking he was offed by black supremacists instead of a visibly white cop.
== Shame on you for trying to hide your collective cowardly actions.==
I needed a reminder on why I stopped posting here. This type of arrogant indignation is the perfect example. It completely cuts off actual discourse and makes a host of negative assumptions about others while demanding that others treat your ideas with care and nuance.
Shame on me for trying to have a discussion. Back to your flamewars!
I think they meant mortality as in the old guard that have power and use it to protect their point of view die off and are replaced with a new guard that does the same.
For those unfamiliar with how org structures work in academia/tenure... (at least, assume this is still true)
Once attaining tenure, your promotion track focuses on faculty leadership positions.
These positions are selected by a combination of administration & faculty. It varies institute to institute, but strong candidates usually have backing from both.
These positions are almost always held by tenured faculty, as non-tenure is looked down upon for historical/political reasons.
Note: You only need to please 2 types of stakeholders: administration & faculty.
Ergo, the path to promotion becomes:
- Make tenure
- Politick with faculty colleagues
- Politick with administration
- Wait for someone to die
This leads to a weird bent where your bosses (faculty) are selected for their ability to navigate political winds and say the thing that most people agree with, moreso than being disagreeably brilliant.
> What is the difference between building out a stack trace yourself by handling errors manually, and just using exceptions?
You cannot force your dependencies to hand you a stack trace with every error. But in languages that use exceptions a stack trace can be provided for "free" -- not free in runtime cost, but certainly free in development cost.
This one frustrates me a lot. Not getting a proper trace of the lib code that generated an error makes debugging what _exactly_ is going on much more of a PITA. Sure, I can annotate errors in _my_ code all day long, but getting a full trace is a pain.
Of course, this agreement has since been violated, notably by Russia.
reply