It's literally something that helps maintain a physical aspect associated with a person's gender. Granted, hairloss can happen to anybody, but baldness is highly predominant towards the male population.
Because who cares? There are any number of mathematicians out there, why put so much value on one "thought leader"? I just find HNs obsession with knowing what one particular person thinks odd. It's a consistent reoccurrence.
I guess if that's how you feel about it, more power to you. The day I get away from almost all tech will be a good day. Also I get that TSA sucks but I don't think they deserve the vitriol you're throwing.
> It’s one thing to be upset and angry about capitalism and businesses.
Right, we should all continue grumbling about it for the rest of our lives as law and government intended. Nothing will change and the meat grinder will continue churning. Imo, this line of thinking of "they're angry and upset in a way that upsets me!" is easily exploitable towards complete inaction.
Also I'm so sorry but having sympathy for effective oligarchs? Come on. Wishing their death might be a bridge too far but at best these people deserve ambivalence, not pity.
You would be surprised how many people have no idea what "machine learning" means (not even technical definition but just as in the field). I'm working on a PhD in an adjacent field and basically have to tell people I work in AI for them to have any semblance of what I do.
My only problems with Podman is the lack of up to date repos across systems, the fact that the latest raw binaries are managed by a maintainer out of the goodness of their heart, and that the VS Code extension ecosystem for managing pods is not integratable with the existing Docker stuff (and the replacement extensions are woefully underdeveloped).
Otherwise it honestly is great and preferable over Docker.
Exactly my point, hence why at least from the learning side it works well towards making something that is actually correct. What I was aiming at is that too often people teaching this stuff get lost in the weeds without any clear motivation for what is actually being taught.
As an introduction to the topic it functions very well though. It doesn't matter whether it's valid or not. In fact, I would say that diving immediately into the validity of some bullshit independence assumptions and other nonsense is where you lose most students (it definitely lost me).
I think flawed examples lead to a great way of scaffolding towards the "true" nontrivial answer in a teaching setting at least... I am still exceptionally bitter at how I was taught and forced to learn stochastics and it was very much through a purely theoretical, proof driven, abstract lens with very crappy examples that were more of an afterthought... because of course the theory is all you need to make sense of it!