Yea, I have re-read things for goals as well. I also re-read things for the mental approach it may instill for a period of time while and after reading it, to enjoy it (like you said), or to see how the perspective fits to my new mental models a few years later. Three fiction books I constantly go back to at different times are Brave New World, The Alchemist, and Prey.
I'm curious what books others go back to over time.
> I also re-read things for the mental approach it may instill for a period of time while and after reading it, to enjoy it (like you said), or to see how the perspective fits to my new mental models a few years later.
I feel my mental model actively changing. I read something last night (a great book on genetic programming) that I could feel actively unwinding an undeserved bias of a previous self and opening a new path for creativity.
Sadly, I suspect many actually do not make any real progress in developing their mental models. Some, after many years, I have the same conversations with about fundamentally the same subjects.
> I'm curious what books others go back to over time.
For me, George Orwell's 1984 & Animal Farm, various short classic stories, etc. If our learning processes are somewhat a support vector machine, I try to reinforce the ideas that originally drastically changed my internal model.
It's not always books and media either. I listened to Mao's Great Famine [1] over several days - and it's harrowing. I like to revisit foods that remind me of childhood (flashes of memory from being younger than 2), like orange & mango juice, and strawberry & banana smoothie.
I would love to see dang weigh in here just out of curiosity AND see how many people or if people are using the vouch mechanism if they can. Because this post doesn't have an insignificant upvote count and has actual conversation happening in the comments.
Don't use the vouch mechanism, it's a trap. I've had it disabled on my other account because I vouched "flame-bait" and thus I was revoked of the privileges, as dang explained to me via email, and I quote: "we took vouching privileges away from your account because you vouched for too many comments that were unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or otherwise broke the site guidelines"
The Hacker News stance of "users can flag posts, it's none of our doing" I bet is a complete fabrication, and it's conveniently used by the moderators to hide hot-button topics. Not saying that's necessarily bad, but I feel the moderation team could be a little more honest with their "censorship" process, instead of trying to convince us it's all an organic, user-driven process.
You can vouch these posts at your own risk; just make sure you toe the party line, or you'll have the privilege revoked.
> if people are using the vouch mechanism if they can
Nobody can vouch the post right now because it is not [dead]. At this point, if one wants the flag to be removed, the only way is to email hn@ycombinator.com for them to remove it manually at their discretion.
> Because this post doesn't have an insignificant upvote count and has actual conversation happening in the comments.
This isn't really relevant to the post being [flagged]. That happens when enough people click "flag" on the post. It will go to [flagged][dead] first, then people can vouch and it will drop them both, then, if more people flag it, it will become [flagged] again. It might be more complicated than that but I've seen that pattern a fair amount and I'm pretty sure the only way for a post to be [flagged] is for it to be, well, flagged.
100% serious statement here, who are you looking at on Bluesky or how? Looking at the Discover (so a general feed) my follow which would be unique to me, and the trending ALL I see is people talking about this being bad OR posts showing how everyone is saying Bluesky is celebrating. I truly do not see this celebration happening that people are saying is happening rampantly. Right now, in a private browser going to https://bsky.app/ there is 0 celebration.
(quick edit) And anyone who doesn't believe me go to Bluesky right now and look.
Here is the actual RSL website [0] and announcement [1]
"RSL is an open, decentralized protocol, based on the widely adopted RSS (Really Simple Syndication) standard, that scales to millions of websites and can be applied to any digital content, including web pages, books, videos, and datasets."
The very study you cited states in their initial summary of findings that
"The study provides the first evidence to support a widely held belief: that racially mixed
juries do not discriminate against defendants based on the defendant’s ethnic background.
While the assumption has been that racially mixed juries will not discriminate against ethnic
minority defendants, this study showed that racially mixed juries also did not discriminate
against White defendants.[0]"
Because the bias was diluted by the other jurors - from the passage on page iii, I assume the juries in the study were only 10-33% BME. The study follows your quote with:
Even though the defendant’s ethnicity did not have an impact on jury verdicts, the research found that in certain cases ethnicity did have a significant impact on the individual votes of some jurors who sat on these juries. Statistical analysis of the individual votes of all 319 jurors who took part in the case simulation showed that in certain cases BME jurors were significantly less likely to vote to convict a BME defendant than a White defendant. [..]
The report concludes that this highlights the benefits of permitting majority verdicts and of having 12 member juries. The fact that 12 jurors must jointly try to reach a decision and that majority verdicts are possible meant that more verdicts were achieved and individual biases did not dictate the decision-making of these racially mixed juries. If juries were smaller or if unanimous verdicts were required, then individual juror bias might potentially have a greater impact on jury verdicts.
It makes sense people are going to LLMs for this but part of the problem is that a therapist isn't just someone for you to talk to. A huge part of their job is the psychoeducation, support and connection to a human, and the responsibility of the relationship. A good therapist isn't someone who will just sit with you through an anxiety attack, they work to build up your skills to minimize the frequency and improve your individual approach to handling it.
I mean I don't need therapy. I needed someone just pointing me in the right direction. That I had with my therapist, but I needed a lot more of it. And with that AI helped me (in my case).
I think it is not easy to just saying AI is good for therapy or not. It depends very much on the case.
In fact, when I wrote down my notes, I had found old notes that have come to similar conclusions that I did come to now. Though back then it was not enough to piece it all together. AI helped me with that.
I'm not really sure if this is what you are getting at but it is using physical properties associated with QM to create the random numbers. Not just a mathematical model.
"This is the first random number generator service to use quantum nonlocality as a source of its numbers, and the most transparent source of random numbers to date."
Something that is nice with MoS2 and the others are transition metal dichalcogenides and have some beneficial physical properties like a natural electronic bandgap, unlike silicon.
From the way it is written it feels more like "Under Biden enough openings occurred that he selected the entire existing committee," where as under Trump they are being pushed out "“Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,” Kennedy wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. “A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science. ”"
If one goes by the ACIP Membership Rooster this seem to be the case: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/membership/roster.html Likely, the compensation scientists receive for being a committee member is not great so the committee has to be constantly refilled. Appointees to such committees are de facto apolitical because there aren't enough world-class specialists available for the executive to choose between. So the Trump team will have to choose, actual experts in immunology or loyal MAGA goons...
A clean sweep of RFK and his ilk out of power and the media is the bare minimum of what is necessary to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.
That trust was undermined by habitual liars in an effort to score political points at the expense of public health. None of the batshit-insane things they claimed were just around the corner have actually materialized.
Unfortunately, this isn't even the top five most egregious thing these people are doing this week.
I think it should fairly clear why I'm curious, as the article mentions
> Although it’s typically not viewed as a partisan board, the Biden administration had installed the entire committee.
After some degree of googling the history of ACIP I had not found any explanation and thought maybe someone here(who is actually American and maybe follows this kind of thing more closely?) would just know
Looks like there are actually some comments now that are more clarifying.
> Are you just asking questions to smokescreen for this executive power grab?
I’m just trying to understand the background. I get that this is a sensitive topic, but I’d ask that we keep things civil and give people the benefit of the doubt when they’re asking honest questions.
What I read elsewhere is that members of the committee serve a 4 year term. Since Biden's term was 4 years this means that all members' terms ran out sometime during Biden's term--so either new members were appointed by him or existing members were re-appointed by him.
I'm curious what books others go back to over time.