My recollection (apologies, I'm not able to turn up a citation on this) is that the AAP has not really shied away from gripping ideological third rails with both hands; they've taken very liberal-leaning positions on abortion rights, gun violence, trans healthcare, etc. (Of course, depending on how you look at things, such policy positions might appear either partisan or nonpartisan.) I would be surprised if Sen. Barasso were a member.
I didn’t say it was immoral, I said that canceling a grant to them doesn’t somehow reduce treatment to patients. Of course they’re going to claim that it will, because they want to be important. But the reality is that most of what they do is either unnecessary, or easily replaced. Telling new mothers not to drink during pregnancy is useful but we don’t require this particular group to do it. Anyone can tell new mothers that. Same with all the other “outreach” and “advocacy” stuff that they do.
The reality? Based on what? What specific healthcare background do you have? What, specifically, do you know that you didn’t literally learn in the six seconds you spent on their website that you seem to think has made you an expert?
I’m so, so tired of people who think that building some shitty React apps, or whatever, means they’re experts in everything they’ve spent 12 seconds thinking about.
I’m pretty tired of people who see an opinion they don’t like and immediately assume that they know everything about the commenter and their hypothetical “apps”. Ad hominem is so lame. Besides, the last app I wrote used XUL with XBL for reusable and composable widgets thank you very much.
I'd want to see the grants in question (which infuriatingly haven't been linked to yet..?) before drawing further conclusions. And I continue to be annoyed at how nudge-based so much policy is nowadays... even more so when it seems to make an impact? Otherwise, fair enough.
Personally I take the lack of concrete information as a sign that the reporter knows that this is ultimately unimportant. If it were contracts for something important then those details would be included in the story, because they support the narrative that this is a bad move.
I mean… sure? When I saw this headline I was imagining that Microsoft added a brand-new ultracomplicated format. But no, the article is solely about OOXML. Why is the blog post re-litigating a fight that LibreOffice already fought almost 20 years ago?
> Ryan Allen is a professor of international education at University of America in Southern California
What in the… what? That’s not a university. That’s not even a university system. The only sort of person I would expect to call… I don’t know, USC?… that has never observed the name of an American state university used in context in the English language.
Enormous red flags in like the first three sentences.
> IIUC, you did your homework: you made an improvement, you measured a 10-15% perf improvement, the PR was reviewed by other people, etc. It just so happens that this 10-15% figure is misleading because of an issue with the version of clang you happened to use to measure. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like a fair mistake anyone could have reasonably made. It even looks like it was hard to not fall into this trap. You could have been more suspicious seeing such a high number, but hindsight is 20/20.
Hah! Is this a Gettier problem [0]?
1. True: The PR improves Python performance 15-20%.
2. True: Ken believes that the PR improves Python performance 15-20%.
3. True: Ken is justified in believing that the PR improves Python performance 15-20%.
Of course, PR discussions don't generally revolve around whether or not the PR author "knows" that the PR does what they claim it does. Still: these sorts of epistemological brain teasers seem to come up in the performance measurement field distressingly often. I wholeheartedly agree that Ken deserves all the kudos he has received; still, I also wonder if some of the strategies used to resolve the Gettier problem might be useful for code reviewers to center themselves every once in a while. Murphy's Law and all that.
