I get the motivation, but it honestly feels a bit weird to use tens of thousands of lines of python code to do something that you can just directly do in typst.
I mean, a CV is not really rocket science and there are quite a few great typst templates out there.
Point taken, but I'd prefer 200 lines of rocket science that I understand and control over 60k lines of (cleanly written and documented) rocket science.
(Although admittedly both plain typst and this project are still way less complex than LaTeX.)
It's always nice to see products that cater to the best users can be instead of the worst.
Personally, AI for writing is in the same corner as the other pathologies you've listed (popularity counts etc), so it's not for me. But some folks will see that differently.
I hear you, and I share a big part of that opinion on AI writing. From the feedback I got from some folks before, it seemed to be something many were interested in, which is why I designed it to be very aid-like, and less to generate content fully from scratch and post automatically: essentially spamming.
I am not very sold on the AI tool and am very open to removing it with more such opinions!
Yeah, it's been 5 years (almost 6) since python 2.7 stopped receiving security updates, but it does still run on modern OS's.
Looking at the list, I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't more CVEs for python 2.7, but if you're only running it locally or on an intranet I could see letting it ride.
I'm with you regarding the argument, but want to nitpick:
"dismissing" a politician sounds like an easy fix but we probably don't want hyper-polarized dismissal wars where politicians are "shot down" immediately after being elected. That's why there are other mechanisms such as not re-electing, public shaming, transparency fora etc. ... we need to work on strengthening those, the accountability and transparency.
It's a difference in differences design, using individual-level test scores and de-seasonalized data (p. 13). Their wording is:
> Y_igst is the outcome of interest for student i in grade g in school s in time period t, HighAct_s is an indicator for high pre-ban smartphone activity schools, D_t is a series of time period dummies (t = 0 indicates the first period after the ban took effect), δ_s is school fixed effects, and θ_g is grade fixed effects. In this setting, β_t are the parameters of interest, reflecting the difference in the outcome of interest between treatment and comparison schools for each period, with the period before the ban serving as the omitted category, holding grade level constant.
To me some modeling choices seem a bit heavy-handed, but I'm not an economist and could not do better.
what it means is that this paper shows probable causality and models a lot of interesting features. it is most definitely not flawed.
i think the tough thing is that 0.6 percentage points gain for the average student is quite small. it's actually less than you gain by studying for 1h for the SAT, which is probably about 0.9 percentage points, depending on how you interpret college board's research (it recommends 20h of studying). that is to say, if students studied one fucking hour for the FAST, they would probably get a bigger benefit on it than all the time they get back not looking at their phones throughout two years of school.
so whatever cell phone use (1) in school (2) causes, it causes a small effect on test scores.
you would have to pick some other objective criteria, for example mental health assessment, for maybe a larger effect, or seek a larger treatment, perhaps a complete ban of cell phones period, to observe a larger effect.
You have to admit that it's quite clever how they approximate phone use:
> Our identification strategy relies upon our ability to calculate school-specific measures of smartphone activity that we can attribute to students, rather than adults in the building. To do so, we use detailed smartphone activity data from Advan between January 2023 and December 2024 that we link to LUSD schools using point-of-interest coordinates.13 In particular, we focus on the average number of unique smartphone visits (pings) between 9am and 1pm on school days (a common time frame that elementary, middle, and high schools in LUSD are all in session during school days) in the last two months of the 2022-23 school year (right before the ban took effect) and the first two months of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years.14 To disentangle student activity from the smartphone activity of teachers/staff, we subtract the average number of unique smartphone visits between 9am and 1pm on teacher workdays (in the same school year) from the same average on regular school days.
Reading this I could not help but think of compliance and treatment safety for self-managed dosing.
It's evident, for example, that drugs such as Paracetamol (Tylenol for you Americans) should be dosed by body weight in children. To make life simpler for parents, they are given age and/or weight brackets, sometimes along with upper thresholds (e.g. mg/day).
This of course means that lighter children are comparatively over-dosed and heavier children under-dosed compared to a median.
The problem is - I think this works pretty well as a safeguard against dangerous over-dosing (i.e. liver toxicity etc.).
Now how would we turn that advice into a gradual dosing recommendation? We can use mg/kg body weight as is done e.g. in antibiotics. But that carries the potentially fatal risk of miscalculation, and some parents might intentionally overdose over a wrong risk perception.
What we would need is something like an exponential risk curve, indicating a "safe zone" and a "danger zone" while highlighting some critical threshold. This again would need to be age/weight-specific.
Do we think parents would be deterred from giving a kid too high of a paracetamol dose? I'm not so sure, especially over time.
So in the end, I think that in some cases (especially with self-administered dosing) round numbers and sharp thresholds may work well to mitigate fatal risks, even while increasing nonfatal risks.
First, many people are ... let's politely call it arithmetically challenged. They won't understand how to compute the amount and then obtain the correct dose. A chart or a table might have more success than a formula, no matter how simple the formula.
Then again, the dangers of paracetamol overdose aren't high (and I would think it's less for children than for adults). It's typically only needed for a few days. Perhaps that's where the stress should go: stop as soon as you can.
Right, the 4g/day number is the amount that should be safe for any relatively healthy adult (minus whatever is making them take the medicine). I should hope it isn't too close to the number where you can cause permanent damage.
It's become fashionable to fearmonger about it lately, but I agree, it's safe to assume the makers wouldn't tolerate the liability that would come with a single extra dose above the given instructions causing that kind of harm.
> Paracetamol is the most common cause of liver failure in the US.
This is also a bit misleading, it’s the most common cause of acute liver failure which is overall quite rare in developed countries. The most common need for transplants are still by far progressive chronic liver diseases leading to cirrhosis.
Yeah I’ve noticed that a lot of cold/flu remedies that have potential for drug abuse have huge amounts of acetaminophen adddes such that if you took both the flu medication and some tylenol, or you took multiple medications you’d be risking killing your liver. I worry that this is intentional.
What you are implying would work great in a world that had prioritized education. We don’t live in that world in America for sure unfortunately.
> The statement is a popular anecdote from the 1980s, illustrating a widespread misunderstanding where many consumers thought that a 1/4 pound burger was larger than a 1/3 pound burger because the number "4" is larger than "3". This led to the failure of a new third-pound burger campaign by the fast-food chain A&W.
Depending on location doctors will frequently come into contact with people who are illiterate, as in unable to write down their own names on a piece of paper. They still need care and it cannot wait until society has been fixed.
Sure, most of us stay in system 1 (heuristic) most of the time.
But I think it's wrong to assume most people are incapable of serious, thorough thinking. Parents around the world correctly dose medication for their kids all the time, and they mostly do this completely fine.
The key is that people are clever when they both can and want to, and some communication regarding drugs is not well-designed to alert them to want at the right time.
https://www.awrestaurants.com/press/press-release/101921-aw-... ("In the 1980s, A&W tried to compete with the immensely popular McDonald’s Quarter Pounder by offering a bigger, juicier ⅓ Pound Burger at the same price. Unfortunately, Americans aren’t so great at math. Confused consumers wrongly assumed that ¼ was bigger than ⅓ (You know, because 4 is bigger than 3) and the whole experiment went down in history as a huge marketing fail.").
Let's suppose arithmetic is a solved problem and only consider manufacturing and distribution.
The major barrier to self-managed dosing, even if you want to do it properly, is that there's a huge difference between one pill and two pills. And trying to cut pills in half (if even possible for a particular pill structure) often makes very uneven halves (which is a problem for day-to-day variation even if a consistent "10% more than half" dose would be fine).
I have seen dose differences of ~10% to be ignored between brands or over time, so that's probably safe-ish to ignore (certainly much better than the current 50%-if-lucky-else-100%). But counting out 10 pills is certainly a pain; realistically, aiming for a 5-pill typical dose would be more reasonable.
My impression from looking at OTC costs is that the bottle costs more than anything, so manufacturing probably isn't the bottleneck. A side-effect of the current "one pill" mindset, in conjunction with expiration dates, is that low-dose pills are generally not available in higher counts, but there's nothing fundamental about this.
Are there any "delayed/gradual release" concerns that get worse for many small pills rather than one large one? If so, is it really more significant than the wrong-dose problem?
Acetaminophen/Tylenol/Paracetamol and many similar drugs are indeed dosed by weight in the hospital but as sibling comments say, this is likely too complex for parents.
In the hospital, a formulary likely carries pills of different medication amounts, so a nurse can readily administer the correct dose - which a parent would struggle with.
I mean, a CV is not really rocket science and there are quite a few great typst templates out there.
reply