I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
The first book I read on Java managed to explain "public static void main(String[] args)" by the end of the first chapter. It wasn't a long chapter, either.
I don't like Java, and the excessive boilerplate is a big part of that opinion. But it was never nearly as arcane as some people here are making it.
“the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’”
People complain about this all the time (“free speech zones”) but it’s been the law for decades.
What does a reasonable restriction make is up to the court to decide, not cops, and definitely not some federal agency.
There's a lot of precedent too, I'm sure.
So yeah, there's no real way to know ahead of time if any protest is or is not legal or legally impeded.
That's not the case with continental law where it's defined ahead of time.
I think the ACLU’s advice (which I linked to) is pretty clear about how to organize a legal protest. Sometimes the goal is to get arrested, but if you want to avoid that, then it’s not hard to do.
When the STL became part of the standard library ( http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html ), there was a question of how to handle algorithms that sort containers, or that perform a binary search, or in some other way, need to know whether “a” is less-than, equal-to, or greater-than “b”. The algorithms have to work on primitive types, and user defined types as efficiently as possible. They eventually decided to only require a function for “less-than.” And if “a < b” returns false, and “b < a” also returns false, then “a” and “b” are considered equal.
There are times that doesn’t work, so documentation usually has a footnote that (1) certain algorithms require a partial ordering and not necessarily a total ordering, and (2) to use those algorithms, you must implement less-than, but any other comparison operator is ignored by the algorithm; instead, less-than is used to figure out greater-than and equal-to as needed. This was considered better than requiring programmers to implement a collection of comparison operators, and trusting those programmers to make those operators act consistently with each other (e.g., never say that “a” and “b” are both less-than and greater-than each other).
The spaceship operator seems to address this specific case ( https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0515r0... ). According to Herb Sutter (note that his name is on the proposal), “We added the C++20 spaceship operator to the language, but we also applied it throughout the C++ standard library and that made the library specification nearly 20 pages shorter — a net reduction” ( https://herbsutter.com/2020/12/ ).
Way back when I actually perused through quite a bit of Stepanov's STL code and stumbled on that very thing, the comparison operator semantics. I remember thinking it very clever of him to approach it that way and it hadn't even crossed my mind at the time that it might lead to some kind of undefined behavior. Thanks for pointing out such an interesting tidbit!
Maybe "doesn't work" is the wrong phrase. Usually, it does what people expect (except that the library ignores any "operator==" or "operator!=", which surprises people who went through the trouble to define them). And depending on what "operator<" does, it's possible for distinct values (a.k.a., not-equal values) to compare "equal." So to avoid confusion, people start using phrases like "equivalent" instead of "equal." But usually there's no real confusion: if you sort a list of strings by length, nobody's surprised when "hello" and "green" compare "equal," even though they have different contents. Everybody realizes that they have equal lengths, not equal contents.
For anyone else who forgot this or is unfamiliar with why / how it "works":
> #define isNan(X) ((X) != (X))
> Works by exploiting a unique property of NaN (Not a Number) values in the IEEE-754 floating point standard: a NaN is not equal to itself. In other words, if you compare a floating-point variable to itself and the result is false ((X) != (X)(X)!=(X)), then X X is NaN.
That was my first thought, too. I guess the condition's name is pretty memorable.
It's been almost twenty years, so it shouldn't surprise me that new research means that people who died in the past maybe could have survived longer if we had known better. And, of course, Jordan was going to die some day. But I certainly wish he'd had more time.
Another example of this is the famous mathematician David Hilbert. He came down with pernicious anemia in 1925 and suffered permanent damage, so much so that in the words of Eugene Wigner, "was hardly a scientist after 1925, and certainly not a Hilbert".
Today, PA is easily treated with vitamin B12 injections.
When I lived in North Carolina a few years ago, it was common for local private companies to get a contract with the state to run offices that issue license plates, while only the state ran the offices that issue drivers licenses and everything else. The private companies are highly regulated. They can’t charge whatever price they want, and I’m sure they get the plates from the state. They really just handle the paperwork.
I personally had better experiences getting license plates than getting drivers licenses. But they are very different transactions, and issuing license plates seems much simpler to me. And I had good experiences getting a drivers license in smaller towns; the only time I waited for hours in an NC DMV was in a large city. And I would choose that experience again over the California DMV, or the Nevada DMV, but not the New Jersey DMV (which they call the MVC).
The argument is always that a private mail company would deliver mail to the cheapest places first (like the American Letter Mail Company did) and the US post office would get stuck with the unprofitable mail. But that could be addressed by just requiring any mail company to deliver to all addresses. Instead we have a law that just requires companies charge more than the post office.
I thought the same thing. Maybe the point of the story isn’t “we were surprised to learn you had to synchronize access” but instead “we all thought we were careful, but each of us made this mistake no matter how careful we tried to be.”
The Black Death occurred when European medicine (at least for diseases) was still rudimentary. Plague doctors had pleasant-smelling herbs in their masks because that seemed like a reasonable defense against the disease. Leaches and bloodletting were common treatments ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism ). Later, there was something of a legend regarding Four Thieves Vinegar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thieves_vinegar ).
But they did eventually connect plague outbreaks to rats, and killed the rats in the name of public health.
Today we have very effective antibiotics, better knowledge of the body to offer supportive care, and even knowledge about how the plague is transmitted so we can have more effective public health actions.
What debacle? That masks only reduced transmission by about 30% and not 100% and a large statistically illiterate portion of society didn't understand that 30% reduction is better than 0% reduction?
The debacle of failing to convey the concrete reality of aerosol transmission and failing to convey the concrete reality of masks that gape at the sides (“surgical masks”) fundamentally and obviously not protecting against aerosol transmission while masks that don’t gape at the sides (N95/FFP2) fundamentally and obviously and provably do protect against aerosol transmission.
The thing with the masks is exactly the same as if public shopping efficiency authorities had consistently put out the large-scale message that “bags” work to carry groceries but conflating mesh bags with non-perforated bags; Yes, mesh bags do tend to get upwards of 30% of the objects you purchase to your home. There’s an underlying insult to common sense and people are actually not stupid.
Likewise, I would add "obviously": I have never seen "obvious" used to describe anything which is obvious, only things which are not.
The phrase "common sense" is even worse, as about half the time it points to claims that are in fact false.
So, in this case, surgical masks: you say it's "obvious" they're not good enough and compare them to a mesh bag. Perhaps they are that bad, but it's not obvious, and "common sense"* suggests to me that surgeons, who are necessarily working with unwell and often immunocompromised people, will desire something that doesn't let one of the surgical team put a random bacterial mix into someone's new kidney when they sneeze.
* I am aware of the irony; and yes, despite this I can also name a famous example where surgeons collectively were very wrong
Indeed!: The case with surgeons continuing to use masks which only serve the function of arresting kinetically emitted saliva droplets when they could be using masks which afford much greater protection against a categorically wider range of complication-inducing pathogens is part of the debacle.
I chose my words carefully. Those are actually the right words.
It is plainly obvious and indisputable that the academic record shows a swath of scientifically acquired data on aerosol transmission and masks-which-do-not-gape-at-the-sides. This basis would have informed a completely different approach and result to public health authorities’ education and emission of sensible information to raise common sense to an ethical standard, if public health authorities operated… non-debacularly, to choose a word.
I guess they linked germs to bad smells (e.g. miasma) and figured out good smells might counter them. It's a pity they hadn't invented essential oils at the time.
Who was advocating for leaving your nose out? We used to make fun of the morons we saw doing that.
Frankly, I’m sad masks aren’t still more of a thing. I don’t want to wear one all the time, but if you’re sick and need to be in a public place, throw one on out of consideration for your peers.
Years ago, I read a roleplaying book ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkworld ) that had a throwaway comment that many ancient civilizations had decent medical care for injuries, but good care for disease was much less common. Ancient Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Mayans, and others mastered various forms of surgery. They even recognized that some materials (such as silver staples) were better for closing wounds because they would be less likely to get infected.
But disease was always much harder to understand. It's usually hard to tell if somebody got better because of treatment, or because they were just going to get better ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch ), and (sadly) if everybody got the same treatment, it wasn't always obvious when the treatment killed people ( https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-e... : George Washington died because he received drastic treatment for a sore throat; including having a doctor remove about half of the blood in his body. People at the time didn't realize that the treatment was the problem, they just believed that sore throats were incredibly dangerous ("George Washington then called for Tobias Lear. Lear recorded that Washington told him, '... I believed from the first that the disorder would prove fatal'")).
I honestly once thought it would be cool to have a TV series based on the Knights Hospitallers, but realized they’d just be bleeding people in every episode (different time period, same idea: https://smbc-comics.com/comic/chirugeon ). Our understanding of germs is very recent. The 1896 book “The Chemistry of Cookery” ( https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53458 ) says “I should add that this germ theory of disease is disputed by some who maintain that the source of the diseases attributed to such
microbia is chemical poison, the microbia (i.e. little living things) are merely accidental, or creatures fed on the disease-producing
poison.” That is, even at the end of the 1800s, whether bacteria caused illness was still disputed.
During the black death, the people did the best they could with the knowledge they had. But we can do better with the knowledge we have, and that's easy to prove based on comparing modern recovery rates to what they were in Europe in the 1300s. It would be depressing if medical science hadn’t improved in the last 700 years.
Actually I may have a theory on why this is so annoying. Most people in Western countries are used to not haggling, and hate dealing with haggling for the two B2C products that are frequently haggled for, cars and housing, and frequently come out of the transaction feeling ripped off. And now Uber is trying to apply a faceless unilateral "take it or leave it" haggling process.
Yeah sure, but Joel Spolsky does point in this article how it pisses consumers off. And I think this sort of algorithm "pure" price discrimination based on mind reading how much the consumer is willing to pay is much more annoying than doing it by having cheaper and more expensive options.
reply