From the article:

involves these nine principles:

    Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
    Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
    Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
    Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives.
    See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
    If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
    If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
    Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

This isn’t news. It’s already at 15%, which they finally say at the end of the article.

It’s interesting to read the swiss perspective: https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/usa.html

They bury the 200 billion investment in the FAQ but then say that “A third of this will be invested by the end of 2026, based on projects already in the pipeline.” So it sounds like they get credit for existing projects, which are roughly on the order of 200 billion in 5 years.

Ha, you felt this so strongly that you reported it for being “painfully accurate”.

This would not make you happy then: https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

Or this: https://apnews.com/projects/polling-tracker/

I guess I can’t please everyone.

I would like the community to be a place for respectful discussion so in general that’s how I try to moderate.

This community is my first experience being a mod so I’m sure there are better ways to do it.

Thanks for the update!

No worries, thanks for updating

Rule 2 is that the entire thought must be in the title.

Would you be able to update the title?

Rule 2 is that the entire thought must be in the title. Also, be mindful of rule 3, no politics.

Would you be able to update the title?

I have never looked into the details of an OCR, but if it’s a classifier it should give the it’s confidence in being a 1 or L so you can start with the low confidence characters.

I know a few people that are trans or on a similar journey. I never thought any of them had an agenda, they were just living their lives.

One of them came out publicly while I was working closely with them. They sent out an email informing everyone what their new name was, what their preferred pronouns were, and it included an FAQ with some links with more information. It had to be a super scary thing to do but they understood that it’s something new for a lot of people, myself included, and they were happy to talk about questions people had. People were very welcoming. Of course there was some office gossip but it all quickly died down and it never came up again (that I heard). No agenda, just people living.

If a co-worker had continued using the trans person’s old name, yeah I’m sure that would be harassment. Not respecting someone’s wishes for themselves is typically harassment (at a minimum).

I think this is the origin: https://xkcd.com/356/

Cows are smart. Sheep are very dumb. IMO

Yeah that’s a helpful perspective to hear

I don’t love the second half of this post, it seems like bait to bring out the worst in people, but so far all of the comments seem to be keeping things civil and avoiding the bait.

Thanks all.

Lol that’s a nice catch

Edit: maybe “peer at eFrance” or something that makes more sense in french.

This post was reported for stereotyping against Japanese people. Stereotyping is probably always a bad idea so I’ll remove it. I’m always open to feedback.

Hell yeah, peertube has the video: https://peerate.fr/w/2ktPxQgBvDHdHWzogVTRvH

Thanks!

Rule 2 is that the complete thought should be in the title.

How about something like “Lemon juice comes in a lemon shaped bottle, but why is a floppy still used for the save button?” Or “what icon will replace the floppy for the save button?”