Barring it being a joke, the first question is unhelpful and likely a jerk move. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.
The second question seems like the type of feedback that would usually be fine. People's skills and knowledge don't always overlap. What is crazy complex for A may not be for B and what is crazy complex for B may not be for A! And that doesn't have to have anything do with A or B being smarter. A might not know SQL and B might not know pandas. But sometimes it really does make sense to move some code from SQL to pandas or vice-versa (assume for the moment that both SQL and pandas are already in the tech stack). Some people find it simple to write in object oriented style and others in a functional style. What makes more sense to do is not always obvious. So the question could be a good one. If the suggestion is bad, explain why it's bad. If the suggestion is good, maybe consider if it's worth doing at current point. If it's somewhere in the middle or there's no time, acknowledge and move on.
Same here, interacting with people makes my performance on all sorts of mental tasks drop much faster. 5-6 hours of meetings, and worst case I don't want to do anything else, best case I still need to go for a walk and another 30 minutes on top of that before I'm back to average coding skill.
On the flip side, even for coding I don't love, I can usually grind out 9-10 hours at fairly high productivity; I usually won't because I have other priorities to balance but I can. If I find what I'm working on really interesting, I can do 12 hours at high productivity.
For work, I try to have 2 days a week where I put most of my meetings so that hopefully at least 1 or 2 days of the rest are high productivity.
The link you posted says that the original rat park researcher's own graduate student was unable to replicate the original experiment when he tried reducing the confounds. That seems like the most favorable possible situation for a replication to me. It also says that one confound was that morphine consumption wasn't measured in the same way between conditions in the original experiment. That seems pretty bad to me. Linked article also mentions that other researchers have had trouble replicating the results fully.
Rat park doesn't consistently apply to rats, so why should its results be considered particularly informative about humans?
Has someone done a much better study on rats since then? Significantly larger N, always taking measurements the same way across conditions, genetics carefully controlled or at least measured? I'm not an animal behavior researcher, so I'm sure there could be other things important to handle.
Rats are certainly more similar to humans that flies are, but that doesn't mean any particular study is informative about humans.
Just saying, since neither humans nor rodents typically live in cages, maybe rodent experiments would be more predictive of human behavior if they weren't forced into living in small cages.
Safer depends how much cow manure is eaten vs how much glyphosate.
Although cow manure also has various microorganisms in it so if you got really unlucky with the wrong type of even one of those in the manure a little bit of shit could make you very sick (edit: as you point out, but my point is eating more shit exposes you to more of these on average).
Don’t eat shit or drink 1000x or 1000000x doses of something that’s safe at 1x people.
no idea where glyphosate exposure sits but even if it’s safe at normal exposure, don’t just drink it ok?
That's the point, though. From the article, the urine of 80% of the people was laced with glyphosate. It's not about a single ingestion but about it building up in the body.
Dose dependence is still a thing for long term exposure. There’s a lot of crap in urine. Knowing someone is pissing something doesn’t mean it’s toxic. We already know they’re exposed because they eat it. There is very little new information gained just by knowing people urinate it. You’d need to know how much of it they urinate compared to the amount they are exposed to and for how long to start figuring out if there is a long term build up. And even if there was no long term build up it may or may not be long term toxic. Like drinking alcohol. There is no long term build up of ethanol in the body but long term consumption of enough alcohol is still dangerous.
The dose makes the poison. It’s possible for a chemical to be perfectly safe if ingested in low quantities but dangerous in extremely high quantities. The duration of exposure for the same dose matters a lot too. Drinking glyphosate could be a much larger acute exposure so it’s perfectly reasonable to say it’s safe as normally used but not want to drink it. For example, you need trace amounts of copper to live, but very large doses can damage the liver. You’d need to take actual measurements to determine at what dose glyphosate becomes dangerous, and compare that to actual use. The whole “I could drink it” thing is just bullshitting, but so is the reverse.
> Drinking glyphosate could be a much larger acute exposure so it’s perfectly reasonable to say it’s safe as normally used but not want to drink it.
It's a short video. But, you are commenting without even having watched it.
The executive said that glyphosate is so safe that it is safe to drink. When the interviewer then said that they have a glass of glyphosate and asked if the exec would like to drink it, the executive replied, "No. I'm not stupid." He said that twice.
No. I did watch the video before I posted. Thus the last sentence of my first post about drinking it (or not) being bullshitting in both directions. You are the one not reading or understanding.
Different chemicals have different dangerous doses. What’s your point? I specifically said that I don’t know what the toxic dose of glyphosate is. My point is whether or not you can literally drink a highly concentrated version of it doesn’t tell you much.
this is outdated thinking. LD50 is a measure of poison in testing, but since then it is acknowledged that there are cumulative over a lifetime effects, there are endocrine disrupting effects, and there may be effects from small doses that tip balancing systems in the body significantly.. those are from memory, not a specialist here.
Alcohol has cumulative effects too. The long term effects are still dose dependent. My point is you can’t just eyeball it by being like “well that guy bullshitted then refused to drink it”. You need to do a bunch of hard work taking measurements. You know it’s not super toxic as typically used or huge swathes of people would be keeling over dead. But it could be long term toxic at the doses a farmer or landscaper is exposed too. It could have small absolute effects on everyone that could be detected in mass population statistics although that’s much much harder to untangle.
There are parts of Chicago that are really nice, but also parts that are notably worse than the “bad” part of most cities. A lot of the area around UChicago itself was very sketchy compared to any other university area I’ve been to. This was about 5-10 years ago. Maybe it’s improved since although I’d be surprised. It’s not random happenstance that people who have never been are more likely to be afraid of Chicago than New York nowadays.
That was my impression. Beautiful city, shining buildings, and then you walk a few blocks too far in any direction and you're in a very rough, very rundown poor-seeming neighborhood. There was a very clear line demarcating the areas. As opposed to, say, New York, which is nice but a little grimy everywhere.
Not a critical point here, but typically gestational diabetes is treated with diet, exercise, and drugs like metformin. The same for type 2 diabetes. It’s best to avoid using insulin when possible because insulin dosing is fairly high risk. People who require treatment with insulin mostly have type 1, and there’s currently no other option.
If you're using Linux, I would recommend using TemporaryFile instead of NamedTemporaryFile. It takes advantage of the O_TMPFILE flag, which guarantees that the kernel will clean up the file for you when the process exits:
It's better than relying on your application to clean up the file for you. With application-level cleanup hooks, you're still vulnerable to a resource leak if the process gets a SIGKILL or crashes or otherwise ends before your hooks run.
Does this even work? The documentation states that one should not rely on TemporaryFile having a name. Otherwise why would NamedTemporaryFile exist?
For the rare occurrence of sigkill before cleanup, I think your /tmp has ample of space to keep a few more kb until the next reboot. Servers running tests probably restart more often than desktops nowadays, when wrapped in containers.
The second question seems like the type of feedback that would usually be fine. People's skills and knowledge don't always overlap. What is crazy complex for A may not be for B and what is crazy complex for B may not be for A! And that doesn't have to have anything do with A or B being smarter. A might not know SQL and B might not know pandas. But sometimes it really does make sense to move some code from SQL to pandas or vice-versa (assume for the moment that both SQL and pandas are already in the tech stack). Some people find it simple to write in object oriented style and others in a functional style. What makes more sense to do is not always obvious. So the question could be a good one. If the suggestion is bad, explain why it's bad. If the suggestion is good, maybe consider if it's worth doing at current point. If it's somewhere in the middle or there's no time, acknowledge and move on.