Ridiculous. I couldn’t name a more trusted brand of RAM.

§cience

I turned it off from the gmail android app and as soon as I returned to the inbox there’s a notification asking me to flip it back.

The billionaires are way ahead of you

Higher education is a positional good. That means you’re not paying to learn, you’re paying to be ranked among the top X%. By definition only so many people can be in the top X%, so it’s an arms race dynamic just bidding up the price of education.

That’s also why Harvard doesn’t create a chain of schools like the for-profits. They’re not better at education. They’re selling exclusivity.

My camera can record videos of ICE abuse. Are they gonna ban that?

Tomatoes are berries. Strawberries are not berries.

I just like being able to use things I learn across Ubuntu, Debian, Arch and RHEL.

Also prefixing a command with systemd-cat and having the logs go to the journal is pretty nice. Then I don’t have to worry about rotating them.

The world is full of assholes and it’s not my job to pick a fight with every one of them.

Also, they’re giving away free software. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

I don’t know the ideology of 99.9% of the developers of the software I use. I don’t want to know it. The license is all I care about.

If you have too much time

https://youtu.be/lPVSj9rcK-E

If you want rsync but shiny, check out rshiny

Whenever someone breaks a barrier as “The first gay…” remember that they’re technically “the gayest…”.

90s kid doesn’t mean you were born in the 90s. It means you experienced your childhood in the 90s. So if you were too young to remember, it doesn’t count.

But she did review the code. It was all in one PR so her only comment was “LGTM”

Actually we have “right to try” laws for the scenario I described.

But the FDA could use some serious reform. Under the system we have, an FDA approval lumps together the determinations of whether a drugs is safe, effective and worth paying for. A more libertarian system would let people spend their own money on drugs that are safe even if the FDA’s particular research didn’t find them effective. And it wouldn’t waste tax payer money on drugs that are effective but exorbitantly expensive relative to their minimal effectiveness. But if a wealthy person wants to spend their own money, thereby subsidizing pharmaceuticals for the rest of us, that’s great in my opinion.

Eureka!

It’s not that simple. Imagine you’re dying of a rare terminal disease. A pharma company is developing a new drug for it. Obviously you want it. But they tell you you can’t have it because “we’re not releasing it until we know it’s good”.

As an exercise to remove the bias from this, replace self driving cars with airbags. In some rare cases they might go off accidentally and do harm that wouldn’t have occurred in their absence. But all cars have airbags. More and more with every generation. If you are so cautious about accidental detonations that you choose not to install them in your car, then you’re being too cautious.

I can’t agree that they’re not being cautious enough. I didn’t even read the article. I’m just arguing about the principle. And I don’t have a clue what the right penalty would be. I would need to be an actuary with access to lots of data I don’t have to figure out the right number to provide the right deterrent.

There’s actually a backfire effect here. It could make companies too cautious in rolling out self driving. The status quo is people driving poorly. If you delay the roll out of self driving beyond the point when it’s better than people, then more people will die.