Raider5678

On 4/2/2018 at 7:31 AM, Strange said:

And I suspect people who argue for minimal commenting haven't had to debug soon else's code!

I've had to do a lot of it with absolutely no commenting. I'd actually venture to say that descriptive variable names are more useful(But this doesn't mean that comments shouldn't be used!!!!!!!!!! Just that they're not as helpful as descriptive variable names.) . Using your code example:

On 4/2/2018 at 7:31 AM, Strange said:

The point of commenting is to explain what the code is doing at a higher level than the code can describe. And to explain why the code is implemented in a particular way.

// We have to check the fuel level doesn't get too low or the pump could burn out
if (fuel_level < MIN_FUEL_LEVEL) {
    ... ring alarm bell
}

 

For example #1. 

I'll read the words above. That'll take me 17 words.

I'll then read the code below it. That'll translate to me as: "If fuel level is smaller then the minimum fuel level, ring the alarm bell." (14 words)

I still would have had to read the 14 words of code. The comments simply would have made it take twice as long to read.

However, had it been extremely complicated to understand the code, such as parsing out delimited data, comments are definitely warranted.

On 9/6/2019 at 8:55 AM, dimreepr said:

It strikes me that even sun-loving plants could be accomodated, with taller panels and perhaps a slightly less dense panel coverage. 

I do have to question the benefits of decreasing the density of solar panels, and how much more that increases the cost for each watt hour capacity you add.

On 9/17/2019 at 2:20 AM, CharonY said:

The policy can be mechanistically race blind, yet in the outcome it can be heavily biased. For example, the decision to have higher penalties for consumption of cocaine vs crack seems to be independent of race. Yet, since cocaine is more commonly consumed by white folks, it created a huge disparity in drug-related penalties. In other words, if you want to employ fair policy that are race-neutral in outcome, it requires a mechanism that take race-differences into account. 

A measure that can elevate a white family out of poverty, can fail a poor black family. In contrast, certain other actions, including measures improving generational wealth, which could include criminal justice reform, could disproportionately benefit black folks. In other words, if we only use poverty as measure, the likelihood is high that specific issues pertaining to specific groups are simply not addressed, resulting in ineffective policies.

Think of it that way, if I wanted to prescribe you medicine but only diagnose based on your body temperature, I will probably prescribe you stuff that actually won't help you. Whether folks like it or not, the difference between black and white has more factors than one (i.e. poverty). Poverty is only the culmination of many other factors, such as elevated temperature could be the result of all sorts of inflammation reactions. I order to find a cure, a diagnosis is needed. 

This is true. I'm not entirely advocating we use poverty as the only thing to push for in reparations, though I can definitely see how my posts would come off like that.

What I'm trying to say with my posts, is that we should focus on fixing the things that are holding African Americans back if you want to pay them reparations. This does not however, require that you include race in those measurements. For example, we need criminal justice reform. That will disproportionately help African Americans. But it is still race blind in practice. It's just not as race blind when you're picking out what to fix.

Additionally, as I was trying to explain earlier, I'd venture to say that Americans are more likely to support race blind initiatives, even if they'll primarily benefit African Americans, then they will non race blind.

This may be an extremely unfair comparison, however a quick example is the support behind criminal justice reform(~90%) vs the support behind affirmative action(~60%).

While both enjoy the support of the majority, Criminal justice reform is supported much more, while still being race blind. This is an example, in my opinion, that you don't need reparations to focus on race.

Criminal justice reform will help everyone. It just won't help everyone equally. And I'm fine with that.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Buffering...

*Car driving down the road with the driver asleep.*

Indian driver: "Crud. I just lost connection."

*Car runs over someone.*

*Connection comes back*

Indian driver: "Ah. There we go."

Breaking News: Man arrested after hit and run. Blames Indians.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fair enough. Hard to disagree with that. I’m simply not as convinced as you that the potential harm would outweigh the obvious benefit. 

And that's a very valid disagreement.

My view may be biased. I grew up in a largely conservative area, and heard a lot of people complaining about affirmative action being unfair, and how it puts into question the qualifications of those who get those degrees. What good does the degree do you, if people question it's legitimacy because there are policies in place that use your race?

Now, I fully understand affirmative action(it's an easy thing to use as an example) has nothing to do with how they get degrees(You still need to make the grades). But it seems that for some reason that matters little to people if they don't think the person got in fairly in the first place.

Just now, iNow said:

If I’m forced to choose, I’ll gladly accept some handful of entitled white people complaining over far larger numbers of deserving black people struggling and/or suffering. 

As would I.

However not if it just hurts the African Americans more. 

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

What if a person wants to have a private vehicle, but cannot or doesn't want to drive? I think a vehicle can be equipped with cameras and some person in India or elsewhere can drive it remotely. I expect it is not going to cost too much.

Imagine having a lag spike while you're turning at a red light.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Indians are generally considered to be human.

Sorry, I misread this. I thought it was talking about fully autonomous driving.

Just now, iNow said:

Lol! I think raider accidentally switched reference frames there and may have been commenting on self driving vehicles?

Exactly. It's late, I just finished college classes after working all day, and I'm tired. I probably should be sleeping, as evident by that.

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I expect the insurance to cover something like this will make the idea cost prohibitive.

I agree. 

Well.

Actually. Now that I'm thinking about it.

Insurance companies perfect driver is someone who never gets tired, doesn't drink and drive, doesn't speed, has almost instantaneous reaction time, can see 360 degrees in all directions, and never get's distracted by cell phones. 

They're not equal to human drivers yet, but I don't imagine it's far.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

And he is right, studies show that almost all race-blind poverty strategies help lift poor whites (and other ethnicity to various degrees) but black folks tend to be left behind.

If the poverty policies are seemingly only benefiting only white rural communities, then they're obviously not race blind. 

Additionally, most of those policies that I'm aware of, are localized policies. I.E. A county institutes some new policies to focus money on poorer townships, etc. However, the counties that have money to do this, tend to be primarily white. As a result, they primarily help white people in their counties. A country focused poverty initiative that truly focused on helping our poorest communities, would obviously benefit African Americans proportionately more. Unless of course, they are biased. Which I'm not claiming they're not.

However, I still stand by my other point. Creating race focused policies only leads to more people complaining about "reverse discrimination" (And they're logically correct in doing so), which in turns usually just widens racial divides. Larger racial divides almost always helps the majority, not the minority. This in turns dilutes the effects of the race focused policy in the first place. And in an economy where hiring practices play a large part in who is impoverished and who is not, not creating a larger racial divide is key.

I don't think discrimination will flat out disappear either. It won't, and I understand that. However adding more fuel to a fire you're trying to extinguish is a bad idea, even if there is just other fuel the fire will feed on.

Just now, zapatos said:

This argument appeals to many because it puts the blame on people long dead. But reparations isn't about you and me giving money to blacks.

Reparations is typically focused on the government making up for the role they played, and the government is not dead and therefore cannot escape culpability.

Perhaps, but the government is funded by the people. So it always comes back to us paying the reparations. Either way though, it doesn't matter who's guilty, looking at my post. In my opinion reparations will simply be ineffective/simply cause more discrimination. We need to change how people think. And that'll start with ensuring people are actually treated equally, regardless of race. And that means reparations, such as affirmative action, are changed to not use race to determine anything.

4 hours ago, IsaacAsimov said:

I agree that doing two seems to be achievable, such as a car and a flying car, where all 4 wheels would be used for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and then tilted forward for flight. The key to these vehicles would be the 4 wheels of the car, which would have blades to produce thrust. If they don't work in a flying car, use jet engines. For three (a boat), the car's wheels would be tilted at an angle and its blades would be partially submerged to give it forward thrust. For four (a submarine), the wheels would be vertical, but at right angles to the direction of travel, so that the car could go pretty fast, and naturally sink below the surface of the water due to its weight. I thought of a fifth method of travel (a hovercraft), which the car could accomplish by tilting the wheels parallel to the surface of the water, which would provide upward thrust greater than the car's weight, which would lift the car a short distance above the water, and the car wouldn't sink because the air would bounce off the surface of the water and hit the car, thus producing more thrust. So there you have it: The 5-in-1 car!

Uh huh.

I don't think jet engines work the way you think they do. They take air, speed it up, and use that to create thrust. However, that requires intake of air, which you can't achieve hovering because you have to be either moving at high speed to get that much intake or you need to have some sort of fan type of thing(and then you question where that's getting it's intake.) Jet engines won't work unless it takes off like a plane.

And the hard part here is mathematically calculating how much thrust you'd achieve from Wheels with air blades inside of them. What rotational speed are we talking about? What drives the wheels when they rotate? It obviously can't be the drive shaft connected to the axles, otherwise they couldn't rotate. Maybe electric motors, but then you have the issue of whether or not they can spin it fast enough and over come the resistance required to produce that much thrust.

As for the submarine idea, how do you equalize the pressure? How do you prevent it from sinking too far, since you already aluded to it naturally sinking below the surface due to the weight?

On 3/19/2019 at 12:55 PM, CharonY said:

In a different thread posters mentioned the excellent article "The case for Reparations" by Coates. Here, I urge everyone to read it. While there are points were folks are going to disagree, the overall article is excellent and provide important perspective. It is far more than only an argument, but rather an exquisite mix of historic and sociological characterization of a group interspersed with  individual accounts. A summary would not do it proper justice, so again, I suggest folks to read it in whole. While not specifically this article, many of the contents and studies described within the article have over the years changed my mind on many things (including affirmative actions).

 

 

 

Done? Good. Then I would like to provide a quote that seems to be at the essence of it 

The key issue here is not slavery in itself, but also the consequences of the time after that, Jim Crow, racist (intentional or not) policies and policing, economic sanctions (such as redlining) which resulted in black folks facing entirely different socioeconomic situations, even if they have the same income level as their peers. It is also about the acknowledgement of these injustices, too often they are brushed aside by focusing on the abolition of slavery or that everything was in the past. The effects are here and now and while there is increasing recognition of this fact (now by some of the US presidential candidates) it still faces severe backlash, especially from the right. This includes measures that try to directly address these issues (if imperfectly) such as affirmative action, that are seen as unfair to non-minorities (and often implying that black folks are given an unfair advantage).

In many ways similar arguments, though with a different historic and sociological background could be made for the situation of indigenous people, who currently also suffer the consequences of historic actions and they too are often blamed for their current situation while all the mechanisms leading to that situation are often misunderstood or ignored. So for those interested, I think this is a good place to discuss the case for reparations or perhaps more generally, a reckoning between how a nations sees itself morally and how its action have affected folks in a targeted way (even if unintentionally).

I don't believe we should pay reparations to African Americans because of what our parents/grandparents/Great Grandparents have done.

However it's probably not for the reasons you think. So please read my entire post(directed at anyone not CharonY in particular) before you assuming I'm just a typical member of the right whining about some other thing that's unfair to White people.

    The first(but not primary) reason I don't think we should pay reparations to African Americans is because I don't honestly believe we could possibly give enough (when talking direct benefits. I.E. Cash/Housing/College Education) to fix all the disadvantages they've received from generations of systematic abuse. Additionally, I don't think we'd have a good way of giving those reparations fairly. There are hundreds if not thousands of nuances to account for. However, assuming we could pay enough in reparations and could do it fairly, I don't honestly believe a majority of Americans would ever agree to watch millions of people be given massive benefits for something that most of those receiving the benefits never directly experienced, even if they're experiencing side effects of it currently.

     As for secondary reparations, such as affirmative action, I believe they're causing harm just as much as they're helping. As long as we entertain the idea of "Positive Discrimination", which is just negative discrimination against others that works in your favor, people will continue to complain about unfair advantages of those of a particular race. And in many aspects, it's a logical complaint. If race is being used as a factor in something like college acceptance, then it is a racist system. It is using race, something that nobody can control about them selves, to determine suitability. And I believe a large percentage of people realize that. This in turn just fuels more discrimination. 

     So by practicing "positive discrimination", such as affirmative action, we're just fueling further discrimination against those we're trying to help. At the end of the day I'd be willing to bet it's a net neutral effect(albeit virtually impossible to measure.) And this same concept applies to virtually any case for reparations:

By providing reparations to a particular race, you are more then likely increasing the racial divide; further hurting the race you're trying to help.

    With all that being said however, I do believe we should be doing something to fix the generations of systematic abuse we've caused African Americans. However that help doesn't have to come in a race focused approach. My proposal, which is outside the bounds of this topic because it's not reparations, would be to provide benefits via economic standing. African Americans are disproportionately poor. So a program focused on solely benefiting the poor would disproportionately benefit African Americans. I would also venture to bet that affirmative action based on economic standing would cause far less racial tension then one based on race. Economic standing is something much easier for people to see and comprehend. Much more so then racial based benefits/disadvantages that exist in society. That would then in turn help to reduce feelings fueling discrimination because people wouldn't feel it's as unfair. 

     This same concept should be applied to reparations of any sort. Giving reparations based on race simply won't work(In my opinion only) because it'll simply further fuel more discrimination, resulting in more racial divide and placing us in a position just as bad as where we started. However, what I would propose to do isn't reparations because it's not focusing on race. Therefore, by logical conclusion, I must not be in favor of reparations then.

Starting to wonder if Russia is paying people to join the Democratic Primary Race......

On 3/6/2019 at 2:02 PM, Vexen said:

Does your online personality correlate to your real life personality

Definitely not. In real life, I ask about 10 times as many questions, I observe and analyze people's behaviors which I don't do online, and I also answer questions a lot more online then I do offline due to my ability to quickly google something if I'm online.

These videos give some good overviews of emergence and levels of consciousness. 

On 1/22/2019 at 4:29 AM, Strange said:

Or a a finite surface with uneven edges ...

Wait, would you still be able to bend it then? 

Or would the hexagons break/bend or something?

And if they break/bend, doesn't that make graphite ridiculously weak?

On 4/2/2019 at 6:54 AM, Ten oz said:

What you highlighted is merely an example of how much more policed African American communities are. 

You mean cities.

On 3/22/2019 at 7:40 PM, Ten oz said:

90% of black people who are murdered are murdered by black people and 85% of white people who are murdered are murdered by white people. Black on black crime as a label promotes inaccurate stereotypes.

 

Minor correction, It had to do with rates.

Yes, 90% of African Americans who are murdered are murdered by other African Americans.

Yes, 85% of Caucasians who are murdered are murdered by other Caucasians.

However, in total, African Americans makeup just under 14% of the population and commit 50% of the murders, which is where the "black and black" stereotype comes from.

Ultimately however it comes down to culture more than anything. The overwhelming vast majority of homicides happen in cities, and it's not just because they're more populated. The rate of homicides are much higher in cities. But regardless, this is kinda off topic. Just figured I'd throw in the correction there.

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

Citation?

If only that worked with the Hillary investigations. 

"We've found no evidence that she's guilty."

"What that really means is that she covered her tracks!"

My favorite part of today was reading on Facebook about how many people were "disappointed in the results of the Muller investigation." 

Okay...... Perhaps you'd rather the report tell you your president committed treason? Because that's a good thing?

And Republicans changing their mind saying "Muller is a great honest guy" when just a few weeks ago he was "the lowest piece of shit on earth", while my more liberal friends change their mind about him in the complete opposite direction.

8 hours ago, DARK0717 said:

yea, Im looking for a loop, maybe a one way mirror on one of the mirrors in a folded cavity? but then maybe in the end, it will just end up like the diode itself by which when the one way mirror cant hold too much light, it will just go through it then back into the diode.

The issue with what you're thinking of is that the laser isn't perfectly straight. As a result, it will slowly expand. Except, this is light, and it moves at 300 million meters per second. So "slowly" turns into virtually instantly. So the loop your thinking of, won't "hold" the light after you turn the laser off. It'll simply expand too wide. Also, each time it hits the mirrors, the light will also be absorbed just a little bit. Not enough for you to notice when holding a laser to a mirror, but enough that any form of a loop would almost instantly disappear to the human eye.

Then there's also the fact that the protons will occasionally collide when they go to the mirrors which are adjusting their trajectory (when you think about it, it's pretty obvious some protons will have to cross paths, increasing the likely hood they'll collide.) which will then in turn further degrade the purity of the laser.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

What do you mean by “loop and not go back to its source”?

Combining inputs 1 and 2 into a separate output is not a loop, and does not go back to the source.

He means he wants the light to go from through a system similar to this:

On 3/17/2019 at 10:16 AM, John Cuthber said:

Well, it's unlikely to be in their elbow.

If it was in their genes, wouldn't it be in their elbow as well? 

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

Would that suggest spontaneous onset or would it be thrown back to an otherwise recessive factor?

It could just be in their head. There's no particular reason we need to prove that same-sex people are somehow a different type of human then we are.

On 3/4/2019 at 1:17 PM, Vexen said:

Should  I talk to girls I like about quantum mechanics?

If your objective is to obtain a partner, then the obvious answer is no. At least no initially. If you walk up to someone and just randomly start talking about quantum mechanics, then it's going to seem like you think you're a genius or something. Arrogance, real or percieved, isn't the ideal quality for long-lasting relationships.

After you know them, it really depends. Do they know about quantum mechanics? Does it interest them? Can you do it in a way that doesn't sound condescending? Same rules apply.

Also, as a side note, this applies to literally any social situation.