good answer. (edit: i wasn't being facetious, i agreed with your comment.) and for anyone complaining about "wasting time" on this issue of terminology, i'd point them to the millions of hours lost due to tabs vs. spaces debates. it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do.
Probably the same answer fits: if tabs (or spaces) is a problem for you then set your software environment to convert to your preference and convert back to the established use in the project.
Just use what's customary and get on with your life. If it's hurting you to see it then get therapy, you've lost proper perspective.
I do recognize this debate as important. My intention was more to provide a comparison point as to how much it costs to update terminology, to support my stance of setting the bar for a justified update low.
> it's not a waste of time, you just don't recognize it as important. defer to those who do.
In other words: if anyone says that something is to be renamed, do as they say. If you think it's nonsense or a waste of time, you're just not recognizing it as important, and they are.
I couldn’t find anything documented about the consequences of having schools closed, only the consequences of them being open. According to internal CDC documents, “fully reopening schools and universities remained the “highest risk” for the spread of the coronavirus”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/us/politics/trump-schools...
That article actually says it's "highest risk" according to the CDC website.[1]
> Since May, the C.D.C. website [link to 1] has cautioned that full reopening would be “highest risk,”
And from that site, we can see that it's not the highest risk among all possible ways of spreading COVID-19, it's simply the scenario with the highest risk of COVID-19 spread among 3 scenarios for schools: full reopening, virtual-only instruction, or:
> Small, in-person classes, activities, and events. Groups of students stay together and with the same teacher throughout/across school days and groups do not mix. Students remain at least 6 feet apart and do not share objects
I believe the CDC director is recommending something like that middle risk plan, and saying that the risk of spreading coronavirus under this plan is outweighed by the risks of having schools closed.
The problem is that the "public health consequences of having the schools closed on the kids" have not been defined, yet alone measured, and thus we have no basis for comparison against the fairly well-established risks of opening schools. The director is making a political statement based on hunches rather than evaluating risks based on science.
I agree that the CDC director should have given a lot more detail in his statement. The risks certainly haven't been explained to the public very well. But the experts seem to agree about the risks:
> The American Academy of Pediatrics' guidance "strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school."
> The American Academy of Pediatrics once again plunged into the growing debate over school reopening with a strong new statement Friday, making clear that while in-person school provides crucial benefits to children, "Public health agencies must make recommendations based on evidence, not politics." The statement also said that "science and community circumstances must guide decision-making."
> The AAP is changing tone from the guidance it issued just over two weeks ago. Then, the organization made a national splash by recommending that education leaders and policymakers "should start with a goal of having students physically present in school."
Yeah, the CDC is basically just saying that fully reopening schools carries higher risk of spreading Covid-19 than not doing so, which of course it does. The New York Times is carefully misleading people about this for nakedly partisan, anti-Trump ends. It's not the only bit of shady narrative-pushing in that article - notice how they also initially describe this information as coming from an internal CDC document and darkly hint that Trump might be supressing it so that he could push to reopen schools, before half-admitting that the same information has been on the CDC website since May deep into the article.
I agree. There's already so much content and trash on Youtube that it will be a huge investment to make it worthwhile, assuming you are lucky. Creating structured, high-quality course content in a field not covered well by existing courses on sites like teachable and udemy will still be hard work, but with a higher chance of success.
"We build this on the face image data of CelebAMask-HQ
[24], which contains high-resolution facial images with semantic masks of facial attributes. For simplicity, we currently focus on front faces, without decorative accessories (e.g., glasses, face masks)."
I had the same idea, but then reasoned that the network is adding specifics to the sketch, which might not be desirable if you're trying to give a vague idea of someone's appearance.
the comment was referring to failure in execution, not necessarily failure in choosing the correct approach. it's hard to argue that sweden shouldn't have been more careful with its elderly and vulnerable, even if going for herd immunity.
It's fairly impossible to say "Sweden should hav ebeen more careful with its elderly" - The measures put in place by Sweden were designed with that in mind.
That's why elderly care facilities were the first, if not only ones, to face quarantine.
However, when you have years of poor management of elderly care, and elderly care companies that refuse to heed the recommendations, there's not much "Sweden" can do in the moment wihtout severe effort.
And the politicians should have put in that severe, very expensive effort. But that would have required them to be fast, which is not a very Swedish thing. Everything is extremely decentralised and in many cases privatized.
Either the state (highest level) should have forced an intervention, or all actors should have acted responsibly. But there is too much inertia. The elderly care is so poorly managed, it was not only a disaster waiting to happen, it actually was a slow burning dumpster fire even before Covid19.
How would they do that? I think it's safe to assume right away that the companies aren't going to act responsibly, because, well, they haven't for years. So that leaves the state, and what should they do?
Not like they can push a button and invent more caretakers, fix internal routines, etc, across an entire country.
I'd love it if they could, but in general, there is going to be inertia when trying to affect change in a system that has been degrading for years, with actors actively working against those changes (in this case, companies putting profit over welfare).
It's so very, very easy to say "the state should have done something, fast", but it gets very difficult when you're trying to specify which parts of the state should have done what, to which actors and on which level.
Right, and it had nothing to do with Tegnell’s resistance to the idea of asymptomatic carriers and hence his guidance that care workers were free to go into work as long as they didn’t show symptoms.
Edit: Also, your comment basically justifies the lockdowns in every other country. Tegnell’s whole argument was that the enlightened Swedes didn’t need a mandatory lockdown because they would simply do the right thing without the government telling them. And there is some truth to that in a society that is wealthy, well educated, and highly trusting of its government. Despite that, it’s citizenry failed to achieve what Tegnell said they would.
How in the world would you expect other countries’ citizens to voluntarily do what the government was recommending when Sweden couldn’t? His criticism of lockdowns in other countries was completely unwarranted based on his own reasoning for why Sweden didn’t need a lockdown (which also, as you point out, turned out to be wrong).
