FastAPI, not a language, but a very good python library, if somebody wants to read the story

The independent YouTube would have done the same really.

Does it require internet at any point to activate/check the key? If so it’s the same with extra steps.

Yeah, I spoke with the guy a bit more, he’s a total nut job. I guess for an external party night be fun to read, was painful to try to explain. At least there’s testament to his madness, so if somebody feels the first comment seems reasonable, can read the rest to rethink that.

I’m not sure why you have such obsession with apples, but clearly it’s not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like “that’s a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that”. In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.

I’ll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.

Please don’t forget to post the mandatory “haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!”. Won’t be seeing that notification though.

This reinforces my point that medicine is not a science being conducted by scientific method. It is being conducted through authority, and using terminology of the church (like good faith / bad faith) to steer clear of logical criticism.

That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up… and all that to check a random fruit?

I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say “it’s on an ancient book!” and “somebody who followed it lived to 100 years” but they don’t have to prove it.

Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?

I haven’t said you can’t, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that’s a proper study, you want a proper justification for it. Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful? else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges? For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated. On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don’t just say “I’m going to check on the fridge”. It’s not impossible, it’s just not the most likely scenario so it’s far from your first guess.

What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.

No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation. If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that’s because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don’t say at random ‘why not apples?’ and then mobilize a team. You don’t have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?

Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.

I haven’t said the opposite. Just that there doesn’t seem any reason to test for apples.

Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.

I’m sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It’s really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying “big pharma bad because profit”.

Can’t say I enjoyed the conversation, but I’m done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.

No, not missing the point. Your comment shows I’m right on point.

This kind of studies is not something a random person, or even a trained nurse, can do on their spare time. You couldn’t just give apples to some people and look a week later for results. You need control group, you need to account for extra factors.

And before the experiment you need to have a reason for it. Can a drug that works for other coronavirus work here? Some compound that has the opposite effects mitigate the symptoms?

Why would even check “apples”? They might consider a component that exists on apples, but why apple itself? Unless there’s an external event that correlates apples with a result, it’s a bit weird.

Natural sciences without scientific method are not science. If you don’t test and validate the hypothesis, you’re just making things up. Without it, I can say apples cure baldness and blame big pharma for not letting this being published.

That last example is extremely bad and reeks of bad faith argument. Eating apples, as with fruits and fresh produce in general, has been tested multiples times and some of it’s benefits measured.

There’s already a general consensus that they are “beneficial”. A study that says “apples are good for you” wouldn’t add anything unless they are good in a way that wasn’t known before. For example, do they have a different and unknown impact in people with a specific condition?

Of course if the study doesn’t have any real study behind and just says things like “apples are good because they are fruits” then it can be labeled as pseudoscience.

The problem is that proton needs to translate direct X to Vulcan, but Apple doesn’t allow Vulcan, it has to be their own thing, Metal.

So it’s a lot of work for valve and fully dependent on apple not screwing them.

Might be due to my instance, but I see downvotes. Not nearly enough as it should have after reading the article though.

It is a moral imperative to pirate EA, Ubisoft and Nintendo.

One side changes on EULAs.

Hardware that requires a proprietary service to work.

Not only they are bad ideas, but the incentives are horrible.

I could see the point of prisons if there was “warranty”. If a person guess back to jail, the first sentence was useless and the prison should be financially punished. You’ll see then how quickly therapy and quality job trainings are implemented.

That is called the Streisand effect.

They just said “send to scraping, can’t be reused”. The cost of those laptops is around the weekly cloud compute cost of a team member, we are taking a rounding error in the company finances, so they just won’t care.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V

My company is going to scrap hundreds of laptops, some new models with less than a year of use, because it’s upgrade season and it’s “too risky to give away”.

I was begging then to let me keep mine, paying. I already have access to all my data and it’s 9 months old.

Nope, to the bin.

Not English native here, please don’t be too harsh for asking this.

I’ve heard male very often as noun, and doesn’t seem to have a negative reaction. Is one “generally” considered worse to use than the other?

If you don’t mind, why the “ofc”. Are the others considered bad? I think I enjoyed the most “So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish”, the fourth.

I think all were very good, but I read them so long ago that I have them a bit mixed up.

The 6th I couldn’t finish.

Who’s going to take this as legal advice and name a project Apple?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/15sDygDQWBd8J9kUA