Before you get too far down this rabbit hole (like I did) for a home mail server, make sure that your ISP supports inbound/outbound mail traffic. Mine blocks it permanently, and I've been unsuccessful at getting it changed. In fact, I can't even get the tech support people to understand the traffic is blocked before it reaches my house and it's not a "firewall" thing.
> Previous commercial concentrating solar thermal systems could only reach temperatures of 565 degrees Celsius, the company said. That’s useful for generating power, but can’t meet the needs of industrial processes.
Or we could build more nuclear power plants, which have the duty cycle necessary for industrial applications. It's no wonder that the more conservative politicians seem to love nuclear more: it's a pro-business, pro-industry carbon-free energy source, unlike wind and solar (or the insane amount of batteries to make it work.
While there are many benefits to nuclear power, this quote is at odds with your comment. Nuclear power suffers a low Carnot efficiency (around 30-40%), as it has an even lower operating temperature than the criticised old CSP design. While nuclear reactors can get arbitrarily hot, practical and safety considerations limit current designs to relatively low (and thus inefficient) temperatures.
Nuclear is also less practical for direct industrial use or distributed deployment because of safety concerns, with only a few exceptional cases like military marine propulsion.
Really cool site and instructions for an automatic watch. I recently switched to a manual watch, and I think personally I prefer it more. Winding my watch is now part of my every day routine and I look forward to it.
I also calculated that each "click" on the wind represents 15 minutes, so when I wind it up and hear the clicks, I know that's time I'll spend today that I won't get back, so spend it well!
It might not have been the intention of the original poster, but "great" to me implies pretty much the opposite of minimal abstractions. But perhaps I am just burnt by experience :)
For CLI it’s true to the Go mantra. If the flags library is “good enough” why not just use it and avoid being fancy?
Besides, isn’t it feasible someone might confuse long and short options? “Is -d and —delete the same, or is -d —debug??” KISS even if it’s annoying.
As for loops, I know that they’re generally more common in Go. Another example is finding if an element exists in a slice. Most of the implementations is this stuff is just a loop under the hood in the end.
From a Java background it was strange to me because I’m used to dealing with classes and there’s always a method for this or that...
> For CLI it’s true to the Go mantra. If the flags library is “good enough” why not just use it and avoid being fancy?
Users of a command line utility ultimately don’t care what language it’s written in; having a familiar interface is a much more important goal. Since the vast majority of Linux utilities these days use GNU-style rather than Unix-style long options, it stands to reason that the latter is a better choice for users. (There are also technical advantages I won’t get into.) I know Rob Pike probably isn’t a fan given his background, but why not give developers the choice to build what they want to build, instead of shoehorning them into something they dislike? What’s the point of being opinionated here? (Edit: Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that the standard library ought to have it; however, I do find it strange that in the ten years of golang the community didn’t bother to come up with a reasonably good library for it.)
Btw, flags is very primitive and can hardly handle anything complex, even if you accept the Unix-style.
Sorry for the bother but I'm a big lost due to the lingo and the interwebs are unclear: by unix-style long options do you mean single-dash long options (e.g. `-long` being a single option), and therefore flags not allowing concatenating short options (e.g. `-r -x` can't be written `-rx`)?
> by unix-style long options do you mean single-dash long options (e.g. `-long` being a single option)
Yes.
> and therefore flags not allowing concatenating short options (e.g. `-r -x` can't be written `-rx`)?
Depending on the implementation concatenation of short options may be allowed; it certainly could be ambiguous. I'm not sure about flags (the golang package) though.
Despite having the ability to directly access memory via neural interface, thus rendering the concept of output obsolete, I still don't want to give up the Python2 print syntax.
Don't worry we will build a PC simulator on neuralOS, with a backport of linux, docker and Windows 95. That way you can run python2 in linux in docker in PCSim in neuralOS and i can play minesweeper in windows95 in PCSim in neuralOS.
This is by design. If "fake news" is the threat of the day, you need only paint your target with the "fake news" label and nukes will be launched against it. Babylon Bee leans conservative, and when those who cloak themselves in hard-left rhetoric are in the crosshairs of ridicule, they tend to retaliate hard, with whatever means they have to hand.
This is not a matter of targeting as much as it's a matter of people falling for satire and not having the ability or resources to tell the difference. If it was really that easy to "launch nukes" against a site, then something like Snopes as a whole would be ineffective.
> when those who cloak themselves in hard-left rhetoric are in the crosshairs of ridicule, they tend to retaliate hard, with whatever means they have to hand.
That's complete nonsense, and not a partisan or "hard-left-only" reaction. The right also tries to de-platform the left, if you're trying to make "fake news" a partisan issue, you're contributing to the problem.
But the left has home court advantage: the sympathetic ears of upper management at Facebook, Google, Twitter, and most of the major news outlets without "Fox" in their name.
Snopes chose to target, among other things, a Babylon Bee article talking about how CNN bought industrial laundry equipment to spin their news. The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway. It's a strong indication that Snopes is engaging in the culture war as an interested party. It's not a good look for a supposedly disinterested fact checker.
You make too many assumptions. The snopes article on this is two paragraphs long and puts little effort into debunking, as it needs little effort. But for whatever reason, people ask them to look into it. For other reasons, people like you seem to think this diminishes snopes. It doesn't.
I think poor satire is to blame for being buried, not snopes. When the lines are blurred between misinformation and satire, and a relatively unknown satire website with an obvious agenda produces articles that walk that line, maybe they have it coming because simply put, they aren't very good.
> Actual headline: "Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News"
What line does this walk? Things that are even physically possible and things that are not? I just can't believe Snopes dedicated cycles to debunking this.
Thankfully it got some press and they changed the label to "satire". I can't tell exactly when because the snopes link has been excluded from the way back machine (for whatever reason).
But a lot just turns on being juxtaposed against a prerequisite belief that's not universal. If you don't share that belief, it won't be funny to you. That doesn't (necessarily) make it bad satire.
Sure, and I'm trying to be objective but I believe my assertion is universal. If your content is poor, your return is poor.
Perhaps the publication should look inward, not outward, and realize the lines between misinformation and satire are paper thin. Somehow, and perhaps its branding, The Onion manages to maintain humor and absurdity with very little room for interpreting it's content as anything but satire.
The Onion is, literally, fake news regardless of whether one finds them funny or not. The question is whether people think it's true not whether they think it's funny and that's the only decision being made by a fact-check.
Different standards were not applied. Where are you getting that from?
Forum users posted the article from BB asking for it to be debunked. They haven't posted a request for articles from the Onion and that's likely because the Onion is well-known enough for people to know it's satire.
> because a false rating leads to being buried by Google and Facebook
If Facebook and/or Google punish a satire site for having articles marked false by a fact-checker, that's a problem with Facebook and/or Google for responding improperly to fact-check of satire, not a problem with the fact-checker, which is doing exactly their job.
> Asking for someone or something to be investigated isn't necessarily a de-facto innocence excuse.
It is for a fact checker if what is produced is a honest and accurate fact check of the claims presented. It may not be for the questioner if they are trying to game a system where third parties do dumb things based on what fact checkers do, but that's a problem with the questioner and the third parties, not the fact checker.
If a fact checker can't (or chooses not to) distinguish satire from news, it very much is a problem with the fact checker, regardless of Facebook or Google's over-reliance on them (right or wrong).
At the time, (until ~Feb 2019) Snopes fact checkers for Facebook were separate from the sites traditional authors. They would have known exactly that what they were doing resulted in blacklisting.
> If a fact checker can't (or chooses not to) distinguish satire from news, it very much is a problem with the fact checker
When Snopes does a fact-check of a claim whose original source is satire, they clearly identify both the source and the satirical nature, so whether or not one were to agree with your hypothetical, it doesn't seem applicable to the actual situation being discussed.
> At the time, (until ~Feb 2019) Snopes fact checkers for Facebook were separate from the sites traditional authors. They would have known exactly that what they were doing resulted in blacklisting.
That's perhaps an argument as to why Snopes should have refused to fact check for Facebook on ethical grounds but, having been employed to do so, it's not a reason they should not have fact checked all claims put before them.
Though social feed including reshares of satirical sources as news is an increasingly important source of “news”, so I’m not sure there's a problem here besides Facebook lacking sufficient AI to distinguish when a story (whether in original presentation or resharing which can alter context and reach less-familiar audiences) is likely to read as news vs. satire by the recipient and only apply any penalty from negative fact check results in the context where it would otherwise be seen as news. This isn't the pre-web (or even pre-social-media) environment where a publication reaches mainly people familiar with it's nature and actively seeking it out, and that's particularly true when the venue is specifically Facebook.
> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers
Have you been away from the internet for the last couple of years? There is literally nothing on the internet so fantastical that it won't be posted to social media stripped of context and believed by somebody.
Snopes doesn't de-platform anyone. Your beef is rightly with Google or Facebook.
Snopes labels things that are false as false. This includes many or most satirical articles. Given the number of times I've told someone that a thing is false and had to provide a scopes link before they would even start to believe me, I'm very grateful for snopes.
No, it's not. Every single one of those articles stems from a post on their forum where it's been requested. They regularly pick them based on their popularity in the forum. As long as they're consistent with that, it's completely possible to address these specific instances.
It's not a filter for bias and no one has claimed that it is. It's a filter for whether or not to address the content of a claim. Popularity is absolutely a reasonable filter for that and that seems to be what Snopes is using, regardless of politics, satire, or otherwise.
> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway.
An actual Congressional representative fell for an Onion article titled "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex".
> "I was kind of on the fence in the beginning," says the made-up person, Marcy Kolrath, in the article. "But after a couple of margaritas and a ride down the lazy river they've got circling the place, I got caught up in the vibe. By the time it was over, I almost wished I could've aborted twins and gotten to stay a little longer."
Our congressmen are as dumb as toddlers. What else is new? The parent probably should have specified that no person with a brain could be fooled by such articles. That would have ruled out politicians like this congressman.
>The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway.
Or a geriatric toddler whose has long since lost his capacity for abstract thinking due to dementia, and would be easily confused by Rudolph Giuliani pedaling ridiculous conspiracy theories that stroke his ego about Russia having nothing to do with interference in the election, if you know who I mean.
> Articles like this do not make them neutral. They are only designed to make them look neutral.
Are you asserting, then, that the stories about left-wing idiots are true, but the ones about right-wing idiots are false? I'm honestly curious. Are all of the linked Twitter accounts secret false-flag trolls?
Not at all... Just that there's a great deal of nuance that goes into many of these Snopes articles that is designed to flip the question so that it might be answered in a favorable way.
Just covering an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean it's covered in a neutral way.
They're all things that someone actually thought was real. For example, they quote multiple Twitter users who apparently believed that U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said "If Israel is so innocent, then why do they insist on being Jews?" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/omar-if-israel-is-so-innoc...
It seems disingenuous to act like Snopes is targeting right-wingers specifically. There are gullible idiots everywhere on the political spectrum.
Edit: Someone is downvote-brigading every post in this thread defending Snopes. I would honestly like to hear what you think is not factual about my comment.
You don't have to be left or right to fall for this sort of stuff. However, to assume the right is targeted does demonstrate a low opinion of the right.
This can be done easily and without jail breaking on any iPhone with tools such as Charles proxy (provided they don’t do certificate pinning). They work by having you generate, install, and trust a profile which includes a root CA.
Somewhat surprising fact about most PostgreSQL deployments is that most of the frequently accessed tuples will fit into RAM and it handles this usecase really well (to the extent that people who don’t know any better do not see any issue with LIKE ‘%whatewer%’ over 100M tuple table, it just takes 1.5s, so what...)
They are infamously aggressive. There is ongoing debate about the wisdom of keeping extremely aggressive dogs as pets, so the dog comparison isn't really a good rebuttal.
