Hello, it is I the pope of vegetables. On behalf of the interests of all plants I do ordain this diet

They got all of the basic facts right and their general experience mostly mirrors my own, though in my case the majority of problems encountered apply to Wayland in general and are rarely compositor-specific. That is to say that I can usually Google “[APP]” [FEATURE] not working “Wayland” and find people from a variety of different Wayland compositors all experiencing the same thing^[1]. Maybe I just got lucky when I chose my specific compositor?

In fact, despite being on Wayland for about a year now, the only compositor-specific issue I’ve ever encountered is a broken controller configuration overlay when using Steam’s Big Picture Mode. It’s actually super frustrating because I have absolutely no idea if it’s an issue specific to my compositor, wl-roots, or something unique about my configuration. All I really know is that it works correctly if I launch Steam in a nested gamescope compositor, so it’s not a bug in the protocol nor xwayland.

Hmm… I think we’re dogging on the author a bit much here. Don’t get me wrong, they’re clearly swimming in philosophical water that’s a bit too deep for themselves, but sometimes you’ve gotta be clumsy in order to explore topics at the edge of theory.

Let’s dial things up a notch and bring Undertale (the Dark Souls of – nevermind) into the discussion. What does it have to say about branching pathways, tonal consistency, and savescum? It says: I was made for you, please enjoy me.

The game adapts to the audience – you, that is. You are weird and hard to please, so the game needs to be flexible without feeling compromised. If you want to leave hidden depths unexplored, the game abides. If you want to vivisect every last detail, the game changes to fit your desire.

It’s alchemy, of course; both magical and unobtainable, so the author isn’t strictly wrong to accuse Baldur’s Gate of falling short. It’s true: sometimes a gap in the curtains opens up and the illusion is spoilt. With that being said, I think what’s missing is the logical conclusion to the criticism: universality – despite being unobtainable – is still worth striving for. To be universal is to distill humanity itself, as great and terrible and impossible as that may be (and here you thought I was joking with that Dark Souls jab!).

Average German reaction to literally any new Nuclear plant

Source: a new plant went up in my home state and this was the comment section

Doesn’t matter as long as we arrive at our Final Destination as quickly as possible, my good fellow.

New material? How’s about this banger: What’s the deeeaal with airplane food!

Too soon?

Some cliff notes for those wondering what the fuss is about:

• In 2011, three nuclear reactors in Fukushima went into meltdown and released radioactive contamination into the environment, including oceanwater
• The facilities remain flooded with a volume of contaminated water that has been described as “500 Olympic-sized pools”
• As part of the ongoing effort to clean up Fukushima, Japan wants to eventually remove all of the remaining contaminated water
• Japan’s plan to do this involves reducing the radioactivity of the water using a filtration process known as ALPS while staging out water releases over a period of 30 years
• The main remaining contaminant in the water following ALPS filtration is expected to be Tritium, which samples show as existing within the threshold that is considered safe for human consumption.
• This plan was approved by the UN after determining that the radiological impact would be “negligible”
• China and South Korea both oppose the plan. Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for the the Chinese Foreign Ministry was quoted calling the plan “extremely selfish and irresponsible” and stated that “The ocean is humanity’s common good, not Japan’s private sewer”
• Concerns over Tritium release have been criticized, as other active reactors in the region are known to release similar levels of the substance into the ocean (e.g.: those at the Yangjiang nuclear plant), though it is also worth noting that this criticism hinges upon the assumption that the ALPS filtration process will be as reliable as early results suggest. It requires trusting that Japan will be completely diligent in overseeing their filtration efforts so that radioactive Cesium is not released into oceanwater.

Should the NVD be deeply involved in all of them just to provide the most accurate security score? That’s an impossible ask.

This is a false dilemma. If the task is truly impossible, that’s not a valid excuse to try anyway and fail repeatedly, especially if doing so causes negative externalities. Numbered scores with decimal precision are not necessary to the core functionality of a CVE database and there are plenty of alternative solutions which would minimize harm and scale more economically.

I FOUND YOU, FAKER!

Putin lied as naturally as he breathed

Table 3 and Table 4 aren’t combined because they assessed different regions of interest. The tables don’t contradict each other, because they don’t even include the same ROIs:

Presented in Table 4 are ROIs that were assessed in only two studies and show significant SMDs between the ADHD and control subjects.

As for the heterogeneity, the paper notes which ROIs failed to remain statistically significant after correction. The Prefrontal region is not included this list:

Although frontal gray and white matter and premotor ROIs show substantial SMDs ranging from .59 to .75, they also show statistically significant levels of heterogeneity, indicating rather variable results across the two studies in each meta-analysis. Due to the lack of power for the meta-analyses in this table, we need to interpret these results with caution. For example, the measures of intracranial volume, frontal lobe, right amygdala, and the splenium using the O’Kusky et al. (1988) method failed to remain significant after correction for multiple comparisons.

As you say, the studies aren’t golden, but that’s why I picked a meta-analysis. To be honest, if I knew I was going to be held to such a high standard, I would have just kept my mouth shut!

I’m posting a source for my original claim: “we can consistently visually identify an ADHD prefrontal cortex in brain scans”. This is not the same as a source which proves that brain scanning is able to identify/diagnose ADHD itself. The order of operations is reversed, because the only way to diagnose a disorder like ADHD is through observation of symptoms, not physiology.

To be clear: what I claim is that you can compare brain imaging of an average individual (oxymoron notwithstanding) diagnosed with ADHD against the brain imaging of an average individual not diagnosed with ADHD and visually see a difference.

Source for this claim, w/ attention to table 4: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.06.011

All of the scientific literature that I have ever read on the topic has strongly stated that there is no way to identify ADHD from brain scans or anything like that

Identify =/= diagnose. You also cannot diagnose ADHD with a genetic test, despite genetics being a strong indicator. I alluded to this by following up with “when reduced volume is observed”, but you’re right in saying that it would have been less misleading to state directly that brain scans are never in and of themselves used to diagnose ADHD.

Also, no, any situation you describe wouldn’t be diagnosable as ADHD, one of the requirements of an ADHD diagnosis is that the condition is present from birth.

If we’re talking DSM-5, the criteria is actually that the onset of symptoms occur by 12 years of age. Even if you take the DSM-5 as gospel, it’s entirely possible for a 6 year old to experience a traumatic brain injury to the prefrontal cortex, heal from the initial trauma, continue to demonstrate symptoms, then receive an ADHD diagnosis. You might call that a misdiagnosis, but I don’t see much of a difference if the symptoms and treatment are the same. There are also recent studies which explore the development of ADHD secondary to traumatic brain injury in adults which I think could eventually warrant further broadening the diagnostic criteria.

Well, technically it’s a disorder which can emerge from any number of different causes. Yes, generally ADHD emerges as a developmental issue, but you could arrive at the same physiology through sufficiently specific neurodegeneration or brain trauma and these things would still be diagnosable as ADHD and even effectively treated using ADHD medication.

Saying that might seem like a stretch, but consider the fact that we can consistently visually identify an ADHD prefrontal cortex in brain scans. When reduced volume is observed, it’s even possible to predict to some extent the symptom severity by how much appears to be missing. For several decades of research, the precursor to the modern ADHD diagnosis was even called “minimal brain damage”.

This graph, correct?

It doesn’t seem much closer to the blue Paris Accord goal compared with any of the other graphs in the same article, as far as I can tell.

As for India, I don’t see how beating a goal of **+**25% emissions with +20% is any cause for celebration. I actually agree with you and the article when you say that they don’t need to be held to the same standard as fully developed economies, but in that case we probably shouldn’t be talking about them at all when it comes to meeting emissions reduction goals.

I’m not anti-China. I’m just pro-clarity.

When someone says “China has absolutely not met the Paris accord goals” and you respond “New York times reported China is ahead of pledges”, it creates the impression that you are correcting the former statement with a contradictory source. The source is not actually contradictory, however, because it explicitly affirms the original point.

They literally have a graph showing their paris accord goal as of now, where they as of now, and a 1.5c goal. They and India are ahead.

That is excellent. I’m very pleased to hear this. Perhaps you could share that graph next time instead?

EDIT: Content warning for the next reply in this comment chain: it contains a prank image featuring pig genitalia and feces. If you’re on desktop, the image is hidden within a collapsed spoiler toggle that you can choose to expand if curious. If you’re on mobile, please know that spoiler tags are not well supported in most apps yet, so this is your opportunity to stop scrolling if you happen to have issues with the described content.

deleted by creator

… did you link the correct article? It seems quite critical of China’s emissions?

None of the world’s biggest emitters – China, the United States, the European Union and India – have reduced their emissions enough to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

Over the past two decades, China’s emissions have surged as the country has developed economically at a breakneck pace. Mainly because of its reliance on coal, one of the highest-emitting fuels, China now accounts for almost a third of all human-caused greenhouse gases — more than the United States, Europe and Japan combined.

Granted, the article says that China’s emissions are projected to peak in 2025, but that still means emissions are estimated to increase every year for another 3 years. They have not (yet) actually reduced their annual emissions, let alone achieved anything close to net-zero.

According to projections from Climate Action Tracker and other monitoring organizations, China’s emissions are nearing their peak, years ahead of when China’s government had pledged to reach that goal. Analyses show China’s rate of emissions neither growing nor declining from now until 2025, before gradually dropping off. China’s peak will occur at a far lower per capita emissions level than countries like the United States.

The goal that China has beaten, it would seem, is their own internal peak date goal. It’s good that they set and kept a goal, but keeping an internal goal is not the same thing as keeping the Paris Accord goals. The Paris Accord represents the bare minimum for avoiding a climate catastrophe and should continue to be the primary bar which we measure countries against.

So, this is a question with a cultural and legal element. Legally speaking, it is possible in many U.S. states to be fired for no reason – the employer does not need to explain themselves when asked for a cause^[1]. This is to say that it’s perfectly legally possible in (many) U.S. states to be fired for a reason so petty as a customer complaint – whether or not that was the official cause notwithstanding^[2].

With that being said, employers aren’t compelled to fire their own employees in response to a customer complaint. From a management perspective, it’s generally very inefficient to fire someone because you’ll then have to cover their hours and find/train a replacement. For that reason alone, it’s already rare in most industries for truly petty firings to happen. Unfortunately, this rule of thumb gets totally flipped in low-training industries whenever there’s a surplus of bodies in the labor pool. As a manager, if you’re able to replace a burnt-out and/or below-average worker by the end of the week, why wouldn’t you roll those dice?

Even then, it’s not exactly a daily occurance even in settings where these conditions are common… with one big exception. When it comes to businesses which serve “regulars” (e.g.: hotels, restaurants, grocery stores) there exists a certain type of individual who expects that their complaints will have the power to get people fired. This variety of power-starved person tends to exclusively patronize establishments where they feel taken seriously. Such establishments deliberately choose to indulge these sleazebags because they’re potential “whales” – people who, if handled correctly, will be worth much more money than the replacement cost of the staff they cause to be fired. These firings are basically performative in nature and have nothing at all to do with something the employee could have controlled.

Even if all of the operating systems were playing on a fair & ideal field, I do not think Linux would come out as the clear winner.

The Linux ecosystem is stakeholder owned. That is to say that design decisions are made by experienced users for experienced users. Whenever an ergonomic tradeoff exists between ease of use and expressiveness, ease of use loses. New users sense this and feel implicitly unwelcome. It’s the original sin of open source software as a whole, really.

I don’t necessarily take this state of affairs as a bad thing, but it does lead me to think that the dominant OS software will always be a commercial product of some variety. It doesn’t necessarily need to be a proprietary greed-fest like Windows, but at the very least the top-level stakeholders of that specific project need to be directly motivated by user adoption. AOSP (aka: Android) would be a decent example of something like this working in the wild for an open source project (Google attempting to claw back control notwithstanding).