To me, "calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns" and "referring to someone at work using a name you know is their spouse's pet name for them" would fall into the same category. I find it hard to view any of these as anything other than Dick Moves. I do have an unusually strong loathing of globally-inconsistent rules, though, which probably makes me more prone than most to generalise the rules along this axis (whereas you believe that they should not generalise past a particular point).
Re Harry Houdini specifically: I think it would have been reasonable, yes. Lord Buckethead does it. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to stand as Borat, and people voting for Borat would be voting specifically for Borat, not for Sacha Baron Cohen. If elected, I would expect Sacha Baron Cohen to rule to the best of his ability as if he were Borat.
Can you explain what you mean by "folkish"? I googled and got very little except this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkisch_movement but it seems to be only based on a literal translation from German.
For those wondering the bottom line, it is interesting preliminary research on a small pool and I expect will be quite interesting as it progresses.
"The lab has tested their new technology on 1,488 WiFi-video pairs, drawn from a pool of eight people, and in three different behind-wall areas, and achieved an overall accuracy of 84% in correctly identifying the person behind the wall."
This article is by a pediatrician, not a physical therapist or a subject matter expert. The article basically consists of the author pointing to some studies on the subject and concluding that there's not yet definitive, decisive evidence as to the long-term benefits of standing desks. Anyone who reads about standing desks knew that already. And, as someone who is known amongst friends and colleagues for using one, I've had numerous cases of people saying "Welp WhompingWindows, your standing desk is pointless, I saw a buzzfeed article about how a single study from North Dakota State said they're not great."
The title of this post and the the title of the article are not justified. The author's take-home in the final paragraph is that standing is not exercise, but standing desks may help those with back or neck pain and some people just prefer it. So, really, there's no evidence here to support the "Overrated" claim in the headline.
Like every post I see on standing desks, or anything with a controversial/contentious set of studies/proponents, each writer can select whichever set of studies from the vast array that conforms to their viewpoint. Those studies that disagree with the final conclusion? Better point out potential confounders, non-causal links, selection bias, etc. Drag out the usual methodological suspects to invalidate an opinion you don't agree with. It's easy to straw-man, though it's also easy to go to the discussion and just copy the authors' own assessment of their studys' weaknesses.
This happens all the time in science like epidemiology, you're not an epidemiologist if you haven't made a dozen complaints about an article's methods before considering its ramifications. Even Einstein - despite the evidence to the contrary, he could not accept some of the quantum-mechanical conclusions that his work helped bring about.
"Mental health workers" includes "drug and alcohol rehab workers" and, as the submitted article shows, drug or alcohol addiction do increase likelyhood of violence.
By including people with addiction problems you've skewed the stats.
EDIT: I mean, even the paper you cite says:
> Because serious mental illness is quite rare, it actually contributes very little to the overall rate of violence in the general population; the attributable risk has been estimated to be 3 to 5 percent, much lower than that associated with substance abuse, for example. (People with no mental disorder who abuse alcohol or drugs are nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to report violent behavior).
Here is a nice article about the creation and evolution of BASIC: Fifty Years of BASIC, the Programming Language That Made Computers Personal: http://time.com/69316/basic/
An excerpt from the article: "Once upon a time, knowing how to use a computer was virtually synonymous with knowing how to program one. And the thing that made it possible was a programming language called BASIC."
By the way, I have preserved an IBM Logo interpreter, a GW-BASIC interpreter, and a QuickBasic compiler from my childhood days here: https://github.com/susam/dosage/tree/master/langs. These three tools has played an important role in my life because these tools got me interested in programming.
Logo showed me how simple and elegant programming can be. The fact that it produced cool visual effects was a bonus. For example:
REPEAT 10 [REPEAT 360 [FD 1 RT 1] RT 36]
Logo gave me a brief taste of functional programming even though back then I did not know the term "functional programming". I discovered the same simplicity and elegance later in Lisp about 15 years later. After all, Logo can be thought of as a dialect of Lisp without parentheses that controls a turtle.
GW-BASIC introduced me to procedural programming language. It was fun but I was unhappy that I could not produce .EXE files with it. Somehow .EXE files felt more real. Being naive, I would rename .BAS files to .EXE files hoping that it would somehow make it a standalone executable. Finally, I found the holy grail when I found QuickBasic compiler which could compile .BAS files to .EXEs. This experience taught me the difference between source code and machine code.
The whole point of my site is to allow anyone to "create your own SouthPark." The animations are crappy, you can use cutouts and gifs and everything is spritesheets that you can rotate/scale/position.
There are a lot of animation platforms on the web, but I think SuperAnimo is unique. Everyone else focuses on "explainer videos" for your business, or "whiteboard animations." My site is for fun. It's also my favorite project to work on so hopefully someday I can work on it full time.
I've not read the book version but "How Buildings Learn" is one of my favorite things ever (a great case-study for looking outside of software for lessons that can apply to well...software).
Stewart Brand (of Longnow fame) produced a really lovely 6 part series for BBC in the late 90's and they are on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/brandst/videos -- highly recommended (Warning: there is a very loud and obnoxious beeping during the first 10 seconds or so)
A look at "the evolution of buildings and how buildings adapt to changing requirements over long periods" -- replace buildings with software and you’ve probably got a best-seller from Pragmatic Programmers!
Re Harry Houdini specifically: I think it would have been reasonable, yes. Lord Buckethead does it. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to stand as Borat, and people voting for Borat would be voting specifically for Borat, not for Sacha Baron Cohen. If elected, I would expect Sacha Baron Cohen to rule to the best of his ability as if he were Borat.