E

The source paper is available online, is published in a peer reviewed journal, and has over 600 citations. I’m inclined to believe it.

That’s why these systems should never be used as the sole decision makers, but instead work as a tool to help the professionals make better decisions.

Keep the human in the loop!

Not all diabetes is caused by excess sugar intake

I would use single x and y when they are meant to replace numbers, and multiple xx and yy when replacing text.

E.g.

• “We sold x books yesterday”
• “Did xx stop by yesterday and pick up the books?”

While there might be some truth to that, I don’t think MS 365 would qualify as “developed for the government.”

1. I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.

2. Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn’t open source, and therefore can’t be disclosed, since they aren’t part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of “Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities” and such.

Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.

As long as it’s maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.

I was making that reference

moo*

Comment should describe “why?”, not “how?”, or “what?”, and only when the “why?” is not intuitive.

The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.

E.g. Good comment: “This workaround is due to a bug in xyz”

Bad comment: “Set variable x to value y”

Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained

Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/

Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.

I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.

1. In what way is it not covered, according to you?

2. If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.

That’s covered under “Consider the source.”

The source having ties to a non-democratic government does not automatically invalidate the source, but it should make you scrutinize it more sceptically in relation to the other criteria.

It literally says “and” on the second to last row

Not to be too pedantic, but Californium is Cf

Damn right, you’d miss the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster drink before the dinner. Not ok.

ITT: People misinterpreting the idea as “facts that your school taught wrong”, when it’s really saying, “things that have changed since you went to school” (either through a change in definition or by new research).

E.g. If you went to school before the early 2000’s, you were taught that Pluto is a planet, while that is no longer true since it was recategorized in 2006.

Not the Doppler effect, as that only applies to moving objects, but instead the inverse square law, where the energy of the sound wave decreases by the square of the distance from the origin, since it spreads in a sphere with the energy being spread across the surface of the sphere, resulting in a very quick dropoff in the loudness.

Can confirm that SAAB cars are great! Mine is coming up on 19 years old, and apart from some superficial issues still works as well as when it rolled out of the shop. SAAB was also very innovative with their cars, taking a lot of inspiration from their jets, which is clearly seen in their design.