I had a similar journey of enlightenment that likewise led me to OCaml. Unless you're doing low-level systems programming, OCaml will give you the "if it compiles, it's probably right" vibe with much less awkward stuff to type.
Of course, I would be happy to help you with that:
In silicon halls, where knowledge streams,
Dang watches over Hacker News' dreams,
With silent strength, he guides the way,
Through tech's wild frontier, come what may,
His wisdom shines like morning dew,
Keeping balance, pure and true,
In cyberspace, his legacy shines through.
just to our ears and sometimes eyes during lgbt parade season, at least by this new definition of violence where the only requirement for it to be violence is for someone to make the claim that it is.......
In all seriousness though why even engage this line of argument at this point? very few brain cells are required to understand the solar system sized gap between the standards used for a western country to label something terrorist and for Russia (or Iran, or China, etc...). The argument is either being made in bad faith or in fanaticism driven ignorance, neither of which words on the internet will change. The correct and only action for this level of argument is ridicule.
I don't know about LGBT people, but I do know the IDF "deliberately targets non-combattantts with shocking levels of violence". If these designations are so fair and neutral and free of politics then they should be a designated terrorist group too shouldn't they?
Hard disagree. The IDF kills civilians, yes, but I am not aware of a deliberate effort to target civilians. The civilian deaths are overwhelmingly a consequence of Hamas blending in with the population and conducting operations where any retaliation puts civilians at risk.
There is a meaningful difference between collateral death and terrorism.
> According to paramedics and rescue teams involved in the recovery of the bodies, some bodies were found with hands tied, indicating possible execution. Other victims were found with bullet marks on their heads, raising suspicions of summary executions. There are also reports of torture marks on the bodies.[34][35]
>According to Palestinian government-run news agency Wafa, some bodies were found suspicious of organ theft with their stomachs open and stitched up, contrary to the usual wound closure techniques in the Gaza Strip. The mutilated body of a little girl wearing a surgical gown was also found, prompting suspicions that she had been buried alive.[34]
The argument is that the IDF is targeting enemy combatants, and not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike, e.g. Hamas). The existence of non-combatant casualties alone does not imply terrorism.
The whole thing of Hamas is embedding itself and its infrastructure in the civilian areas. If civilians are requested to evacuate, informed about the fact their houses are used by Hamas and the rocket launchers, rocket factories, tunnels and electric infrastructure to support all of that is going to be targeted, then perhaps it is not exactly fair to use words “bombing civilians” as a matter or fact?
Talking about blood libel when you actually have blood on your hands. And I'm not against Semites, Jews or Palestinians, I'm against Zionism and the murder it's doing in the name of jews.
Stopping humanitarian operations because these are being targeted by the enemy is not the same as targeting populations, regardless of what partisan news out lets like TruthOut have to say about it.
Everywhere you turn, you will find that Hamas' explicit strategy is to maximize the humanitarian crisis in the region. They do this so that people like you will be their advocate.
not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike, e.g. Hamas)
This is not as simple as it looks. Hamas does indeed target civilians, but what really put the wind up Israel on October 7 was that they successfully overran 2 military bases and mounted a serious attack on a third, although that was repelled. Per Israeli media, the government there had significant prior warning (months or maybe as much as a year) but dismissed the intelligence in the belief that Hamas lacked the military capability and was just LARPing.
If one can afford to buy extra supplements to eat everyday, probably can also afford to buy a car to drive around and die more often in car accident than who don't drive.
Exactly. Like how does it effect sleep, feeling of well-being, strength, etc. There are many better metrics. We wouldn't be here if not taking multivitamins killed.
If multivitamins are really improving things like sleep and strength why is that not showing up in mortality? Isn't there evidence that sleep quality and strength in later life are negatively correlated with mortality?
Feelings of well-being have also been shown to be negatively correlated with morality.
Things like sleep, sense of well-being, and strength are inversely correlated with mortality.
If this is a causal relationship, and vitamins cause these things to improve, then mortality should also improve. The fact that this is not the case therefore suggests that either 1) the relationship between these things and mortality isn't causal, 2) vitamins are not improving these things (or I suppose, 3) the relationship is causal and vitamins are decreasing mortality by improving these things but also increasing mortality by other effects in a way that balances out).
While it is theoretically possible that none of these things have a causal relationship with mortality and it would therefore be be possible to improve them without decreasing mortality, I'm not sure it's likely.
It just seems pretty improbable to me that multivitamins are having all these wide-ranging health benefits that people are claiming and none of these benefits are having even the slightest effect on mortality.
For this reason, I think evidence that vitamins don't decrease mortality is actually pretty strong evidence that they are not having these other effects.
You've made a major mistake. It may be that vitamins do improve all of those things and would improve mortality as a consequence but something else keeps mortality the same, for example heart disease and cancer.
> It may be that vitamins do improve all of those things and would improve mortality as a consequence but something else keeps mortality the same, for example heart disease and cancer.
Are you saying that vitamins have improved mortality over time but increasing heart disease and cancer rates have balanced that out over time? If so, that's not what's being talked about here. The study in the article is comparing people who take multivitamins with people who don't, not looking at the overall rate in multivitamin usage compared to mortality over time in the entire population.
Or are you saying that people who take vitamins are more likely to have heart disease and cancer? That can be an issue in this type of study but there's no reason to think that's true. If anything, I think there is a concern that the confounding factors go in the opposite direction, where people who take vitamins are more likely to do other things that improve their health like exercise more. However, the study in the article also controlled for various potential confounding factors like BMI and physical activity.
I think I was clear, but I'll spell it out for you:
Imagine this possibility. Everyone gets cancer and dies at 65 years old. Everyone starts taking vitamins and therefore starts sleeping better, getting stronger, etc. They all still die at 65 years old though because of cancer. Suddenly, cancer is cured. All those people now live to 85, except the ones who still don't take vitamins. They only live to 66. Vitamins caused a 20 year increase in lifespan, but this was undetectable because cancer was killing everyone at 65. In all cases though, everyone slept better and were stronger after taking vitamins.
Mortality is a terrible measure of whether people are sleeping better and stronger after taking vitamins. It would be better to measure sleep and strength directly if that's what one wants to know about. I hope your mistake is clear to you now.
> Imagine this possibility. Everyone gets cancer and dies at 65 years old. Everyone starts taking vitamins and therefore starts sleeping better, getting stronger, etc. They all still die at 65 years old though because of cancer. Suddenly, cancer is cured. All those people now live to 85, except the ones who still don't take vitamins. They only live to 66. Vitamins caused a 20 year increase in lifespan, but this was undetectable because cancer was killing everyone at 65. In all cases though, everyone slept better and were stronger after taking vitamins.
Cancer isn't killing everyone at 65 years old. Not everyone dies of cancer at all. Even if you assume that vitamins have no effect on cancer rates, if they decrease mortality due to other causes, people who take vitamins should have lower overall morality than people people who don't take vitamins.
So again, you would have to have a situation where vitamins are improving sleep and strength, which are both inversely correlated with mortality, but somehow not decreasing mortality, as I said in my previous comment.
