This is such an HN comment: pedantic, emotional, arrogant, completely out of touch with reality.
> I got a snotty response that I wouldn't be able to smell things that are in a sealed package, and I should always go by the manufacturing date printed on the package. No. You're wrong. And you're wrong about food safety, which is really not good. You go by smell, sliminess, color. The printed date is a nice guide but NOT what anyone should be using for food safety.
Did you consider that meats are sealed in store and you cannot smell it before purchasing? Going by date is fine for most areas. I also don't understand how you can be upset over "overly-patronizing" instructions but also want the level of detail for inspecting meat to include texture/smell/appearance.
> Now I've completed the food safety and "do you know what lean meat is" quiz, and I immediately go into another quiz about buying cheese. It wants me to say which cheese is hard and how to store cheese. What does this have to do with cooking a cheeseburger? I gave up.
Ingredient preparation is a basic component of any recipe. Knowing how to store cheese has a pretty obvious relationship to cooking a cheeseburger.
> It seems like a knowledge graph the way you've done it is an anti-pattern of actual cooking. You're decomposing every recipe into its ingredients and then asking arbitrary questions about each one.
It seems like if you think cheese storage is arbitrary, you do not cook for yourself on a regular basis enough to think about ingredient storage/preparation.
> I don't think a framework of focusing on ingredients in a vacuum, having people get quizzes wrong, and calling them "Junior Chef" is the way to do it.
Knowing the ingredients you're working with is the basic foundation to cooking. I don't see how someone can try to make a "Duolingo for Cooking" without including foundations... it'd be like trying to teach Spanish without defining pronouns.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads.
> It seems like if you think cheese storage is arbitrary, you do not cook for yourself on a regular basis enough to think about ingredient storage/preparation.
Eh, I love cooking and do some pretty complex stuff (including with cheese) and I think cheese storage is pretty arbitrary tbh. I would have had no clue what to answer in the example quiz question.
In Heard's case, the ACLU is creating an ambassador position and crafting the credentials for the ambassador they wish to hire (the op-ed). Knowing the level of deception they're engaging in - and not from a low-level employee but from their general counsel - how do you trust/verify any claims the ACLU makes?
You can impeach someone and/or offer up other witnesses to chip away at a liar's credibility. "Good enough" doesn't come close to describing the level of deception necessary to render our entire legal system completely ineffective.
It's a mess. Looks like that Miss Heard promised $3.5m to ACLU and $3.5 to a children hospital but didn't pay anything to the hospital and only donated like $350k herself to the ACLU. It's pretty wild when Miss Heard told on public television that she donated the full $7m to both parties (in 2018). You wonder what else she is lying about.
Sorry, I meant $3.5m for the hospital. The amount that Amber received was $7m tax free that would be split between the two, $500k for attorney fees, and ~$14m communal labilities to be paid by Depp. $7m + ~$14m + $500k + taxes is quite a lot for a 15 month long marriage
Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification! That actually makes it kind of funny. I guess there's the possibility of some kind of blackmail, but I don't think musk would let himself be blackmailed quietly.
But still, it doesn't seem like the ACLU should be involved in this.
The ACLU was trying to cash in on #metoo (which was timely, when this was published) — and published Heard’s defamation of Depp, apparently ignoring the numerous flags everyone else could see that Heard was the one abusing Depp.
But during the height of #metoo, we weren’t “allowed” to ask those questions because we needed to “believe all women”.
This seems to imply that Depp did not abuse Heard, which was not the view of the judge in the UK defamation trial (he ruled that 12 out of 14 incidents of abuse perpetrated by Depp had been proven to a civil standard).
It looks like Heard also abused Depp on at least a few occasions. But there seems to be this online sentiment at the moment that Heard is a compulsive liar and that she did not suffer abuse at all. There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary.
> There seems to be clear public evidence to the contrary.
I would encourage you to examine the evidence.
Heard’s claims weren’t critically examined in the UK — who took her statements at face value while discounting both physical evidence and testimony of others.
By contrast in Virginia, where Heard is the subject of forensic analysis, both forensic psychologists have stated that Heard abused Depp — while there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly.
There is only evidence that Heard abused Depp.
A lawyer on YouTube has been streaming the Virginia trial and posting daily recaps, LegalBytes.
> there has been zero evidence (except Heard’s wild claims) to support that Depp ever acted similarly.
I'm a bit confused about this point - didn't Depp & his witnesses go first? I'd expect the majority of Heard's evidence in this trial to come out (and be examined) over the next couple of weeks.
If she calls witnesses that corroborate what you call her 'wild claims', would that change your opinion?
We already have the witness list and know roughly what to expect. The main thing going against Amber is that we've heard from the officers that responded to a couple incidences and each officer has testified as to not observing any injuries nor any damage to the penthouse. There are also zero medical records reporting the injuries she claims to have sustained.
Her witness list does not include anyone that will refute those points and is mainly filled with people whose only account of what happened between Johnny/Amber is what they've heard from Amber.
Just a sample of her claims thus far:
> Walked across a tile floor covered in glass shards from broken bottles and wine
> Sexual assault with a (potentially broken) wine bottle
> Thrown across a room by the neck
> Beaten on top of a bed so forcefully as to have broken the timber bed frame
Yes — that’s why I’m watching the trial: to see the evidence.
Though, Heard’s case has already started: the second forensic psychologist was hired by Heard and called as her witness and Heard herself is currently giving her testimony (which, watching it in full I find unconvincing and in conflict with evidence already presented).
> When Heard failed to pay up, Doughtery said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce.
It doesn't really specify what the ACLU said or did to get that money. I'm curious what those methods were and if Depp (or Musk) were aware of the ACLU's involvement or the pay to play relationship between Heard and the ACLU.
In Depp’s case, he paid the first $100,000 of the $7M divorce settlement directly to the ACLU — and she flipped out and demanded the money go to her, rather than directly to the charities she pledged it to: the ACLU and a children’s hospital.
Heard never donated the balance of her divorce settlement she publicly pledged.
Omicron is the dominant variant so you have to throw out all data prior to Nov 2021. When I use different age groups in the link you provided, the numbers imply a pretty small sample size. No deaths since Nov among 39 or younger, strange nonlinearity for 40-59.
Not the study from Reuters that I linked, but another with a specific definition of "vaccine effectiveness":
During the proxy omicron period, we found a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62 to 76), a finding that was supported by the results of all sensitivity tests. This measure of vaccine effectiveness was significantly different from that during the comparator period, when the rate was 93% (95% CI, 90 to 94) against hospitalization for Covid-19 (Table 2).
The Swiss data seems pretty conclusive in favor of my point, as it includes the omicron wave. Also, see the recent nyc hospitalization data, which includes the entire omicron wave (now fading): https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data. Note, this raw data understates vaccine efficacy as a relatively high proportion of vaccinated individuals are vaccinate with rather than for COVID.
Not sure why the age bracket point is relevant unless you think the vaccines have different relative efficacy within different age brackets for omicron - that was not the case for prior variants.
> The Swiss data seems pretty conclusive in favor of my point, as it includes the omicron wave.
1. You can't use the entire range back to Jan 2021 to calculate current vaccine effectiveness and 2. if you use data from Nov 2021 (Omicron start), the Swiss data presents non-linearity that suggests small sample size/incomplete data.
> Also, see the recent nyc hospitalization data, which includes the entire omicron wave (now fading): https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data. Note, this raw data understates vaccine efficacy as a relatively high proportion of vaccinated individuals are vaccinate with rather than for COVID.
It understates vaccine efficacy or overemphasizes omicron severity. At this point, we have enough data from regions with varying vaccination rates to conclude that it's the latter.
> Not sure why the age bracket point is relevant unless you think the vaccines have different relative efficacy within different age brackets for omicron - that was not the case for prior variants.
I selected age brackets for time ranges during Omicron wave and the spikes suggest small sample sizes. Small sample sizes can't be used to draw any conclusions from re: vaccine effectiveness.
It really is not a disputed claim that 2 shots do not provide much protection over the baseline for Omicron. Hence this post submission with Pfizer launching an Omicron-specific shot...
> It understates vaccine efficacy or overemphasizes omicron severity. At this point, we have enough data from regions with varying vaccination rates to conclude that it's the latter.
Compared to what? Their pricing is in-line with the previous Intel models and are a huge upgrade in performance. For some tasks, you have to look at a desktop configuration for comparable performance (at a much higher price).
> I got a snotty response that I wouldn't be able to smell things that are in a sealed package, and I should always go by the manufacturing date printed on the package. No. You're wrong. And you're wrong about food safety, which is really not good. You go by smell, sliminess, color. The printed date is a nice guide but NOT what anyone should be using for food safety.
Did you consider that meats are sealed in store and you cannot smell it before purchasing? Going by date is fine for most areas. I also don't understand how you can be upset over "overly-patronizing" instructions but also want the level of detail for inspecting meat to include texture/smell/appearance.
> Now I've completed the food safety and "do you know what lean meat is" quiz, and I immediately go into another quiz about buying cheese. It wants me to say which cheese is hard and how to store cheese. What does this have to do with cooking a cheeseburger? I gave up.
Ingredient preparation is a basic component of any recipe. Knowing how to store cheese has a pretty obvious relationship to cooking a cheeseburger.
> It seems like a knowledge graph the way you've done it is an anti-pattern of actual cooking. You're decomposing every recipe into its ingredients and then asking arbitrary questions about each one.
It seems like if you think cheese storage is arbitrary, you do not cook for yourself on a regular basis enough to think about ingredient storage/preparation.
> I don't think a framework of focusing on ingredients in a vacuum, having people get quizzes wrong, and calling them "Junior Chef" is the way to do it.
Knowing the ingredients you're working with is the basic foundation to cooking. I don't see how someone can try to make a "Duolingo for Cooking" without including foundations... it'd be like trying to teach Spanish without defining pronouns.