davitz

"This claim leans heavily into anthropomorphizing non-human things, and that is very rare in rigorous science. Therefore I suspect this is not an accurate representation of rigorous science."

1. Is clear and valid reasoning

2. Is clearly conveyed by the part you mentioned

3. Presents a straightforward reasoning tool people can apply more generally to help them identify cases where scientific results are likely being misrepresented. Exactly the kind of tool that someone can adopt to become better at applying critical thinking in their life.

4. Is much more useful in a broader set of circumstances than the more specific arguments that appear later in the comment to further deconstruct this specific case.

I mean, he's walking through his very solid reasoning for why the headline fails the sniff test, despite being a factoid that is frequently repeated through many channels by many people.

People talk all the time about how we need to strengthen critical thinking skills in the general public. Outside of formal training, this is what that looks like: a culture of publicly explaining the thought process that leads you to question something that many others have accepted without question. The knee jerk reaction of criticizing such statements as rude or overly negative is a big part of why these skills have such a hard time spreading, since people who have the skills feel it's not socially acceptable to share their conclusions.

So the person you first replied to said:

"I'd argue a pedophile ring isn't as important as stopping an environmental collapse or making sure the entire population has access to Healthcare. The irony being the 1% a responsible for all of them"

Again, they don't say that it's a bad thing that this is gaining traction, just that they agree it would be nice if it happened for something more important. They even make a point to note, just as you did in this last message, that many of the same people are behind all of these problems.

And the key thing to note is that they are themselves responding to someone jumping down the throat of the OP which is why I felt it necessary to address the issue from the top since that forms the foundation of everything that followed.

The comment that sparked this line of discussion was:

"I am all for it... but I wish people would get this passionate about healthcare, the environment, education, housing, and all the other things that are suffering in our society."

Not deflection, not discouraging the pursuit of this issue, just wishing for a better world where we could get this kind of traction on issues that actually materially affect most people.

"... expecting them to care about others is a losing game."

Ignoring the fact that many of them are personally impacted by the issues mentioned, I agree, but someone taking a moment to mourn a better world that could have been is pretty normal and human, and just doesn't seem to warrant the backlash in this thread.

I'm glad that the MAGAs finally found something that made them start to question if they're being conned, and I relish seeing so many people pouring gas on that fire. But I also agree that it would have been nice if it could have been something more impactful that sparked that reaction.

Establishing clear priorities doesn't mean that you can only do one thing, it means that if circumstances require you to choose one thing over the other, you have a well reasoned framework to make that decision even if you really want both things.

Also no one was saying, "we need to stop being mad about Epstein so we can focus on healthcare" they were saying "it's a shame that people didn't get as mad about healthcare as they did about Epstein when it's clearly the higher priority problem". It's actually them advocating that we should do more than one thing, and that the fact that we're only doing one thing is made even worse because it's the thing that's lower priority.

Three years? The last time I used pickle was for a school project over a decade ago and even then these vulnerabilities were clearly laid out in the documentation, and it strongly advised against using it for any serious application. The only reason I kept using it in the project is precisely because it was a school project, and I knew the application would never be used in any production context worth attacking. Watching the ML community enthusiastically embrace pickle in the time since has been very amusing to say the least. Honestly I'm surprised it only seems to be catching up to them now.

Or just revise the law to state that international copyrights will only be enforced if they are held by Canadian trading partners in good standing, and that the only prosecutable violations of those copyrights are those which have taken place during the most recent contiguous period that that partner has been in good standing.

That way we don't need to keep updating the law every time a trading partner starts/stops acting up, and other trading partners won't need to worry about impacts to their IP. It will simply be baked in that every time a trading partner unilaterally breaks a trade agreement with us they will in effect be granting amnesty to every Canadian citizen who ever breached their copyright in the past and creating an open season on their IP within Canada until they can reach a new mutually acceptable trade agreement. Honestly this should be a standard practice for many countries.

Well it does seem to be talking about the global 1% which is known to include a pretty big slice of the population in relatively wealthy places like the US. The more exclusive 1% that people usually talk about is the US 1% or the 1% of another specific country.

Keep in mind that 1% of 7 billion people is 70 million. And estimates for the number of billionaires in the world look to be under 3000. In addition, most estimates for worldwide median individual income are under 3000 USD per year.

Taking all that into account, 140k sounds pretty reasonable as a boundary for the global 1%.

I've seen iPhones default to taking photos in HEIF before. So that could be happening and then the crop could be covering it back to jpeg or another note common format.

If that describes OP's situation they can try this: https://www.macworld.com/article/231501/how-to-disable-heif-and-hevc-formats-in-ios.html

Edit: Actually, looking back at their screenshot it's clearly android

Looking at my own Android camera settings, it looks like there's an option to shoot in Raw so maybe that's messing him up somehow.

Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/84u5n1BTpWQ

Go for it

He's free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn't obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn't owe you anything.

Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.