So Facebook's point here is that their legal team is so utterly clownshoes that when receiving a warrant about burning a stillbirth they couldn't clue in that it might be about abortion. Their press release is designed to convince us that a local NE PD completely snowed this international corporate powerhouse.
a read the piece as a barking tantrum. that they, a company so magnanimously capable of eschewing everything from taxation to even cursory efforts at regulation could be tricked into delivering a very public, very negative publicity event by not a nation, but a middling state that generates less GDP than the annual revenue of meta.
It also felt like a shot across the bow for Nebraska that a correction was mentioned at all, and so tersely as im sure legislators in the state of two million were expecting business as usual.
either way this is a 117bn company that owns the eyes and ears of nearly the entire planet. piss in their cheerios and 'the algorythm' might make your next re-election a lost cause.
> What I take away from this all is that for every article about academic misconduct and p hacking there are 100 more where the peer review process (both before and during submission to a journal) caught the issues in time.
p-hacking isn't a mathematical error. It cannot be "caught" because it is not presented to referees--you slightly modify your hypotheses after you experiment based on results, or you throw out "outliers" that blow up your theory. These are things that don't even show up in a paper, they happen during the compilation of the paper.
How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.
>How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.
I was involved in the submission of >100 papers through peer review processes, none of which involved p-hacking. In fact, they couldn't have been p-hacked because their novelty did not rely on any statistical analysis, or they were preregistered with the journal.
I did have a run-in with 1 publication that I suspected involved academic misconduct (fabrication of experimental results), but it was a thesis so it did not go through the peer review process.
I have used Python on OSX for years and it is and always will be a horrorshow. Using the system Python installation is a nonstarter for many reasons, chief among them is that I don't have any interest in using py2. So then you're using pyenv or homebrew, but your vim install still thinks that it should be using the system python. And whoops, you fixed that and now virtualenv is not finding your interpreter. And etc., etc.
OSX and its tooling are just ridiculous. I have no idea to this day how macs became the premier development environment.
>OSX and its tooling are just ridiculous. I have no idea to this day how macs became the premier development environment.
Because:
(a) it's quite easy to set things up with brew, macports, and/or Nix
(b) because Python is shitty everywhere anyway, and Python isn't the be-all end-all of development work.
(c) because you get a full-featured, working, coherent, take-it-or-leave-it desktop that stops one way of endless tinkering and procrastinating available in Linux to get things "just right"
(d) because it's still a UNIX with a full support for unicy tools, not a hack like WSL or WSL2.
(e) because it has good hardware (mostly - BS keyboard-era aside) and good resale value
(f) because you get to enjoy most/all the proprietary tools you like too (from MS Office and Adobe Creative Suite, to whatever)
(g) because in 2020 Docker, remote environments, etc, make many "local dev environment" points moot anyway
I think it's more inertia than any of these things.
The entire point of this thread is that (a) is false -- see grandparent and the xkcd joke. It's not easy. It pretends to be easy, but is usually broken in some crazy way instead. Apt is also easy, but it actually works more often than not.
(c) was relevant in 2006, when the novelty of OS X was that it was a UNIX that you could actually use as a daily driver. This is what initially got developers to move to Mac. But it's been fifteen years, and all jokes aside, the "year of the Linux desktop" for developers was probably around 2012. Linux may still have issues, but they're not worse than the hoops you have to jump through to make today's macOS behave.
Trendy tech companies are still buying macbook pros for their employees because that's what's been trendy for the last decade, not because they actually ask new hires what they prefer. Practical tech companies do, and at places like that you usually see a mix of macs and thinkpads.
>(c) was relevant in 2006, when the novelty of OS X was that it was a UNIX that you could actually use as a daily driver. This is what initially got developers to move to Mac. But it's been fifteen years, and all jokes aside, the "year of the Linux desktop" for developers was probably around 2012. Linux may still have issues, but they're not worse than the hoops you have to jump through to make today's macOS behave.
I've used Linux for close to 20+ years, and Unices more, and never had to jump through any major hoops to make macOS behave.
What would those be (talking about something major, not "I can't get my favorite window manager to replace the macOS window management" -- the non-tinkering-friendliness is part of the allure to me and from what I read others too)?
On the other hand, Linux on the desktop never fails to dissapoint me in one way or another because of the need of tinkering, half-sketched apps for many things I want to do (especially anything multimedia and/or document related), driver issues to get things working (sound, compositor, 3D, bluetooth, sleep, etc), and so on. And judging from the everpresent "just use <name of another distro>" in the relevent forums, it's not something others don't have.
Thus I prefer to stick to Linux on the server and Docker, or for setups where I have investigated the hardware in advance, and only mean to use basic things (e.g. happy with just some terminals, emacs/vim, i3, and some mp3 playing).
>not because they actually ask new hires what they prefer.
Those that do found that hires generally prefer Macs. That's how they have ~ 50% of the dev surveys on Stack Overflow whereas they're just 10% of the general market...
>was relevant in 2006, when the novelty of OS X was that it was a UNIX that you could actually use as a daily driver. This is what initially got developers to move to Mac. But it's been fifteen years
My anecdata for this is that I bought a MacBook in 2020 for precisely this reason. I am not a programmer, mostly my use case is bioinformatics and processing large datasets. Native terminal is better than WSL (although WSL is good now) and macOS is much more reliable than linux ever has been for me.
Not in any logical sense (e.g. violating any Logic rule). They just cover different use cases.
(b) makes the "macOS is particularly bad for development because I found Jupyter/Python deps difficult there" argument moot, as messed up Python dependencies are the case in Windows and Linux as well.
And (g) says that Docker and co has superceded manually setting up Python environments for many (not necessarily all or even most) devs, mitigating concerns about managing multiple local versions different deps/libs/language versions to work with different projects (since you can now do that in different, isolated, virtual environments which are mini-OSes in themselves).
So (b) basically amounts to: "It's not macOS which is makes Python deps shitty, they are inherently shitty".
And (g) basically amounts to: "Since Docker and co make local development dep issues mostly obsolete, even if macOS was bad at local deps, it wouldn't matter as much today anyway as virtualization levels the field".
And of course, with the field levelled by (g), if you go for virtualized dev envrironments, you still get all the other benefits like e, f, c, and d.
> I have no idea to this day how macs became the premier development environment.
I've been editing a tutorial one of my coworkers wrote that targets new Python users on Windows. From my findings, the grass is not greener.
Granted, geospatial Python is somewhat of a mess, but a lot of tools I have to use are somewhat messy forks of Unix tools (looking at you, pyenv-win) with tons of incompatible extensions. For development, Windows is the exception because you can transfer just about anything from Linux to macOS.
On my Mac, I can easily install all of the Python packages I need without needing to install Visual Studio, pipwin, anaconda, etc. I have bash/zsh as my default system shell. Maybe it's easier to native Windows users, but bash/brew is a much better combination than anything I've found in Windows.
WSL is a step in the right direction, but it still feels secondary. If a first-class terminal experience existed on Windows, I have a strong feeling that it could be the premier development environment, or at least closer to Mac.
Maybe I'm using it wrong, but it definitely hasn't been made clear on how to use it right.
> I've been editing a tutorial one of my coworkers wrote that targets new Python users on Windows. From my findings, the grass is not greener.
Maybe check the other other side (Linux) - I found the grass is greener there - at least for Python (and programming tools in general). I'm very comfortable on the command-line, and moving from a pure Linux environment to OS X & brew felt like a huge downgrade, followed by random annoyances that remind you you are using inferior, non-GNU utilities:
$ ls my_dir -l
ls: -l: No such directory
Really - Mac OS? I know its minor, but that's just user-hostile and it happens every few weeks; I can't get over it.
What do you do if you want to add extra arguments when your cursor's at the end? Navigate back near (not to) the beginning? I usually just put them at the end, as almost every program I've used supports it. I add extra arguments after running commands constantly; after pressing up to get it back, you're at the end.
>What do you do if you want to add extra arguments when your cursor's at the end? Navigate back near (not to) the beginning?
Yes. In most shells it's trivial to go back by a word (e.g. skip in front of the path with one shortcut).
That said, this happens so rare that it's not even something that ever registered with me as a problem. I know what arguments I want for ls. And if I don't it's usually some bizarro infrequent flag that I have to look up how it's used anyway.
And other programs where it would be actually useful don't allow it anyway (having flags after the "main" argument). Git, for one.
> Well, you can switch to another ls in 10 seconds by "brew install gnutools" or some such.
I did - but I never remember to type "gls" instead of "ls" - if I were that mindful, I'd always put in the flags at the start, where the BSD utils expect them. As sibling comment noted, trailing flags usually happens when I run a command and decide to amend the flags by up-arrowing and typing. A typical result is "ls -al my_dir -tr" when I realize I want to sort by mod date, post-facto.
I've been using GNU utils 95% of the time I've used Unix(-like) systems: I expect "ls -al my_dir -tr" to work: it's 2021 - recognizing flags isn't rocket science.
>>>> I've been editing a tutorial one of my coworkers wrote that targets new Python users on Windows. From my findings, the grass is not greener.
I've been using WinPython for a few years. It's the closest thing to "just works" that I've found, and non-programming colleagues have been able to install it successfully.
Because it works almost like an isolated "container," it's also possible to test your code on a clean install of WinPython to make sure it will run on someone else's computer before you share it.
I don't know the technical difference between WinPython and a true container, but you can have multiple WinPython installs on one machine, and they don't interfere with one another, or with a pre-existing mainstream Python installation on the same PC. So you can share your stuff without worrying about screwing up someone else's stuff.
My parents asked me for some money the other day, but I told them to pound sand--if they wanted my help they should have made me sign something before they gave me all that free room and board. Suckers!
The phone numbers are linked to searches. You think people searching for "Chinese government oppression" on Dragonfly are going to have long happy lives?
You still think it's better to have "limited access"?
That was a real question, you absolute weirdo. I am just flabbergasted that you and they have such disregard for human life that they consider participation in its oppression to be an intellectual exercise. You are sick.
I do because I very much doubt this is going to be unique to Google. Again, it depends on where you draw the baseline.
I also think its much harder to censor very broad and general set of ideas than specific issues. I think the resulting general improvement in access to information will result in a more educated populace and improved quality of life and people will want more and demand more of their government.
Your suggestion is that someone who did a degree specifically in machine learning at Harvard would be less likely to be defending their discipline out of a sense of ego?
Not merely a suggestion; I'm stating outright that when someone's career (both the value of an acquired scholarly degree and the earned income within the field) depends on a field being regarded as a valid specialization, that person is going to put effort into reinforcing that perceived validity.
> Why does WoW allow you to run scripts in your chat window? Who needs that functionality?
The "chat" window in WoW is more like a shell interface/CLI than a pure chat window and it's been that way since the inception of WoW. The mod system is loosely dropped on top of it: basically add-ons in WoW amount to bash scripts.
It's a pretty hacky system that seems like it was made to add modding capability as quickly as possible during development. The fact that such an integral system has never been rewritten isn't hard to believe.
I can buy that -- but wouldn't they still at some point want to make the main chat window for the game into some kind of safer wrapper around the bash prompt?
This is coming from someone who doesn't play WoW; is it common for a mod to expose custom commands in chat or something? Or are mods maybe using it as a buffer to send commands?
I guess if they're detecting and popping up a warning prompt, but they're not willing to get rid of the prompt and just always escape the input, there must be some stuff out there that utterly depends on players clicking "allow". That's baffling to me, but I am often baffled.
> is it common for a mod to expose custom commands in chat or something?
Yes, it's quite common for mods to expose custom commands, although these are not raw Lua functions but rather "slash commands", e.g. /foo
Other than for messaging/chat, the chat box can also be used for various commands for actions your character should perform, e.g. /wave, /target, /sleep and the game also has a built-in macro system that lets you combine several of these into a "macro" that you can then execute by pressing a single button. But these are all "safe", i.e. they don't eval raw Lua code.
There are some WoW quest-tracking websites that will sometimes give you little snippets of Lua to execute via /run that will e.g. query the game about whether you completed the given quest, but in general normal users shouldn't need to use /run, it's more of a feature for mod developers.
Are you serious? There's a better way to work together to take risks and tackle problems that are too big for individuals, and it's called "government": the original corporation that won't sell your grandmother to a meat company for a quarter.
And if you should want to pursue something on a large scale that is not currently trending in government or social circles?
Space is maybe the clearest example of the problem with governments doing anything outside of creating a playground for innovation. 1969 was probably the greatest single government led achievement. We put a man on the moon, having only first put a man into orbit in 1962 and any object into orbit in 1958. That was when space had the government's full attention both as a possible means of weaponization and as a soft power victory of communist powers [ironically] aiming to show the resolve and capability of capitalist nations.
But that same story also shows the downsides of government dependence. Today, nearing the 50th anniversary of putting a man on the moon - we're severely struggling to try to send a man around the moon. And in fact no human would ever leave low Earth orbit after 1972. We not only stopped progressing technologically, we actually and literally technologically regressed. On top of this regression, government never has much of any motivation to cut costs or improve efficiency since they're short term public 'servants' who are just spending other peoples' money. Because of this costs became insane. After all was said and done the Space Shuttle program ended up costing more than half a billion dollars per launch.
At the risk of being tautological, corporations let people pursue what people want to pursue. Governments, by contrast, pursue what governments want to pursue. If you don't like what the government's pursuing you can try to influence votes, lobby, or 'raise social awareness' but in reality it's generally going to be about as effective as pissing into the wind. By contrast, anybody can start a company and start making whatever they want to. And indeed maybe SpaceX would be the proper epilogue here.
Enter corporations. Elon Musk wanted to send a greenhouse to Mars. The costs were unacceptable. It made no sense to him why a rocket that cost on the order of tens of millions of dollars in materials would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to contract. And indeed it didn't make any sense. So he started a company and changed it. Now costs are down by nearly an order of a magnitude, SpaceX is one of the world's largest supplier of launches, and it's looking increasingly likely that the first person to leave our orbit in nearly half a century won't be doing so on a government rocket, but on a privately built, privately funded, and privately launched rocket.
Of course SpaceX would never have been able to get to where they are without governmental contracts and assistance, so I'm not proposing anything like anarcho-capitalism, but rather that government should is the one that provides the sandbox - the people are the ones that build as they choose.
Modules and functions in Python have a __name__ attribute. If you've used Python for scripts, you've probably written `if __name__ == "__main__":` at some point, which is the module name for executed scripts, whereas imported modules get their proper name.
Similarly, Python basically keeps track of "proper" names for proper functions, but can't/won't do so for lambdas.
