one of the Lemmy developers is a hardcore communist,

To be clear, they roleplay as a “hardcore communist”, whatever that is. Its not any different than how billionaire sycophants with no access to capital make statements like “I’m a capitalist” while working minimum wage jobs.

Having a high-paying software engineering job while enjoying the social safety net that a liberal social-democracy provides, does not one a communist make.

lol wut

Super game.

and keybroad

Representation matters. Being correct matters.

The orchid you showed is not a vanilla. That is a staged shot with some other random orchid. The one I showed is from one of the many many Vanilla vines that I grow. They are not remotely the same.

The flower in the logo is very clearly a Plumaria.

Look if you dont know fuck about shit when it comes to flowers and plants, thats fine. But maybe don’t have an opinion then. However if you name your OS after a plant, and then proceed to butcher its presentation, you should be prepared for push back.

No they dont.

Not even close.

The flower in the logo is a radially symmetrical five petaled flower, with overlapping petals in a whorl. A vanilla flower is a bilaterally symmetrical three petaled flower with a fused labellum/ and column. They look nothing alike.

The Vanilla flower picture I posted is from April and is literally growing on a Plumaria (which the logo obviously is). I’m going to walk outside and edit this response and add a picture from that Plumaria.

Ok. So why are we having what looks like a plumaria flower to represent a vanilla OS?

Do you need a picture of a vanilla flower?

They’ve got an abstract that covers this in short as the first paragraph.

and I dont want to waste time with vanity publications/articles

This is an interesting sentiment. Almost all scientific publications undergo peer review, so this is the primary filter for keeping “crap” out.

I’m interested where you got the idea that people are doing or publishing scientific or research material for “vanity” purposes. Where did you hear about this or decide it was a thing?

And don’t get me wrong. There is PLENTY of crap out there. And do you know how to know it is crap? You read it. You read the entire god-damned thing and you understand and interpret, and read between the lines of what they did in their experimental design. The gaps they left in their methods or statistical analyses that weren’t obvious to the referees. You have a suspicion that its too good to be true and you spend time with that suspicion and their material, maybe even ask for their data, and you work out why you have this suspicion. You ideate, obsess over it. You think about it in the shower, on your bike, while grocery shopping. You harass strangers on the bus with the issue. You learn simulation theory and monte carlo to see how reproducible the result was. And eventually, you break through. Eureka! You’ve done one science.

There is no faster way (other than simply developing experience, knowledge and improving by doing the thing). You need to read the crap too so that you can understand why its crap. Seeking a faster way is to miss the concept entirely.

The process is the point. There is no where to go; there is only chop wood and carry water.

She’s talking about art here, but I think Sarah Andersens comic makes the point:

MMmm.

No. Don’t do this unless you want wildly wrong results. Summarizing a scientific paper and extracting its key conclusions using a GPT is not a trivial thing. It might work for faking your way through an undergraduate level project, but its fundamentally antagonistic towards developing real understanding. There is no replacement for just reading the paper and its citations until you understand it. Even if a GPT can summarize a scientific paper (and I have volumes of data to show they can’t with out significant guard rails) reading or memorizing “just the conclusions” is a great way to fool yourself and others into thinking you understand something. You have not done the thing if you do only this thing. If you want to truly understand it, there are no shortcuts.

Google scholar is probably your best starting point. Just throw in the search terms you are interested in and start clicking and reading. Its free, and is a pretty complete archive.

The biggest issue you’ll get into is that many papers are behind paywalls.

To get around that (and you morally should) you have two options.

Step one option a:

The first and easier is to go onto scihub and see if someone has uploaded the paper: https://www.sci-hub.st/

Step one option b:

The second is to make an account on research gate, track down one of the authors, and just straight up ask them for a copy. They’ll almost always send it to you. If you can’t find them on research gate, just throw their name into the google and they might have a lab or professional email you can track down.

Step two:

In terms of how to comprehend? My recommendation, if the paper is English language, is to start in the upper left corner of the first page, and read from left to right in a clockwise descending manner one line at a time, until you get to the lower right corner of the page. This can vary depending on the number of columns on the page, but will generally work. If there are any sections you don’t understand, all scientific papers will have citations you can look up to get further explanation on a given subject. For each citation repeat steps one and two. Continue this process recursively until you comprehend the material.

And the point of the last couple of lines really is the point. There is no replacement for comprehension and understanding other than to read the material over and over again, to look up what its referencing, and to keep trying and working on it and digging until you do get it. You can find some youtube videos and lectures for some understanding, but even these aren’t replacements for the conversation which is what actual publications represent.

Its work to understand research.

She said on Drew Barrymore’s show that its her Mom’s laugh.

It is a bit of a tic though. Who cares. She’s 1k better than Biden would have ever been in terms of beating Trump, so its fine.

The most important thing is that she needs to court some demographics. She needs muslim voters in the upper mid-west and she needs black women in GA and NC. If she picks Shapiro, and he can deliver PA, thats the ball game.

So Kamala is kind-of known for her somewhat awkward/ inappropriate giggle laugh.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4626161-vice-president-kamala-harris-laugh-criticism-advice/

I think its kind of a dumb thing to be critical of and both Biden and Trump have far more annoying speech idiosyncrasies. But her giggle laugh has also happened at some weird and inappropriate times.

Does any one here, working in IT, have a sense for how “on-going” this issue is expected to be? Is this something that is largely going to be resolved in a day or two, or is this going to take weeks/ months?

Learned flash in the 90’s to make terrible games.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2020/minnesota/

Minnesota 2020.

Dems up by 10, and polling 15 pts ahead of where they are polling today.

Dems only won MN by five points on election day. Anything close to a tie in polling for Dems is an L.

Yes. It’s a correct statement to say that Dems have to have to claw things back to win MN.

MN Polling: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/minnesota/ MN polling at a toss up (keep in mind Trump almost always outperforms his polling).

Another fun one, Jersey is now a swing state: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/new-jersey/

I’m just saying the same things over and over again

Yeah. You keep just repeating the same patently wrong, historically inaccurate characterization of Obama’s campaign. The discussion was about idealism and how it sells in-terms of getting elected. My central point, is that it absolutely does sell, even its just the trappings. You run as a progressive idealist, like Obama did or like Sanders did, or based on just lift and shift the progressive platform like Biden did, and you catch W’s.

You want to win an election as a Democrat? Either run on a progressive platform, or at least paint yourself that way in your campaign.

The idea that you can win as a Democrat running towards the center isn’t supported (at least since Clinton).

I think you are muddying the water between campaign/ candidate Obama that misrepresents the fact that he campaigned as a progressive idealist, and it worked to get him into office. His platform was a very progressive platform that he did not govern to; this has been brought up repeatedly as an issue with Obama and was brought up when he was campaigning for a second term.

I think it’s utterly disingenuous to present the Obama 2008 campaign as anything but a campaign focused on progressive idealism even if it was more of a show than how Obama ultimately governed.

Correspondingly, Bidens 2020 platform was maybe the most progressive platform any president has run on since Jimmy Carter, and it was a horse trade that got him Sanders voters and effectively the election.

I just to be clear, you are arguing that Obama didn’t campaign as an idealist?

Not how he governed, but his 2008 campaign. You know, the one where he delivered the famous acceptance speak “The audacity of Hope”. You know, the campaign with these posters:

Your saying this wasn’t a campaign based on idealism?

Not how he governed to be clear, where I agree on your evaluation of Obama’s alignment; but his 2008 campaign.

Obama didn’t win 2008 on centrism or being against gay marriage. He won 2008 in spite of those things.

Its all here my dude. Documented for all to see. As is the gaslighting, lying, cult-like behavior that you’ve been engaged in.

I won. History is and will be on my side.