Could be. The thing is, it kinda doesn't matter; what matters is, what will result in the least bugs/vulnerabilities now? To which I argue the answer is, keeping GNU coreutils. I don't care that they have a head start, I care that they're ahead.
That's short sighted. The least number of bugs now isn't the only thing that matters. What about in 5 years from now? 10 years? That matters too.
To me it seems inarguable that eventually uutils will have fewer bugs than coreutils, and also making uutils the default will clearly accelerate that. So I don't think it's so easy to dismiss.
I think they were probably still a little premature, but not by much. I'd probably have waited one more release.
I've always thought that outlier kinds of people are very valuable.
For example - richard stallman is pedantically correct about many things regarding licenses or privacy or any number of related subjects. But nobody can wholeheartedly accept and adopt his viewpoint and behave as he does (no phone, doesn't use non-free software, etc)
Musk is similar in his promises and predictions. Nobody can wholeheartedly accept his views.
But the reason these folks are valuable are - they move the goalposts. Moving the goalposts moves the thoughts and behavior of people close to their viewpoints, and can eventually unseat the complacent middle.
imho :)
EDIT: I think nobody is immune to this. Lots of people will understand the bullshit is deep when someone comes up to them and relentlessly over-the-top flatters them. But they are likely to listen to and accept the person, logic be damned.
> Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.
If the phenomenon we are trying to study is somehow intelligent, then the observer effect will see to it that skeptics will never progress towards understanding until they're somehow "ready", whatever that means.
"
There is little benefit in continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.
"
Which is an insane thing to say and reveals her motivated reasoning.
The results have been collected using experimental rigour stricter than medical trials.
The one's engaged in motivated reasoning are skeptics like you and Randy who refuse to engage with the data because of, ironically, motivated reasoning. The data is clear. Either point out the flaws in the experimental protocols or consider you have some metaphysical priors to update.
you took amphetamine and weren't depressed suddenly? in my experience, that lasts a bit, but give it another decade or so. it tends to bite in other ways.
Going to depend on your dosages. I try to stay low and will take breaks to help reduce dependency. I actually really dislike the feeling of a high dosage and it does have negative effects at that end.
Also remember that everyone reacts differently to things. SSRIs work great for some people, but not for me. So it's worth trying different classes of medicines too but also to make sure that when having more dangerous ones. I made sure close friends knew too
reply