28 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2022
  2. Jan 2022
    1. If students were given a tablet for school, they will never pay attention in class.

      slippery slope: this sentence is labeled as a slippery slope because the author is leaping to an extreme hypothetical outcome by assuming that if students are given a tablet then then wont draw their attention to class.

  3. Oct 2021
    1. One example is a program that amounts to a whitelist for VIPs on Facebook, allowing some of the users most likely to spread misinformation to break Facebook’s rules without facing consequences.
    1. Also the problem becomes even worse if you multiple api/resource servers and have to decide in each load function which credentials should be exposed to which server.
  4. Jul 2021
  5. Mar 2021
  6. Feb 2021
    1. More often than not, the expression ‘taken to its logical conclusion’ serves to point up the absurdity of a piece of reasoning we come across.
    2. I need a holiday to get over a holiday
    3. I wish there were no Mondays
    4. The golden standard I suppose is set by the rhyme: There is a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. Of course, fixing it requires the use of the bucket at some stage, and so the loop closes.
    1. # Returns a new relation, which is the logical union of this relation and the one passed as an # argument. # # The two relations must be structurally compatible: they must be scoping the same model, and # they must differ only by #where (if no #group has been defined) or #having (if a #group is # present). Neither relation may have a #limit, #offset, or #distinct set.
  7. Nov 2020
    1. Important caveat: in the combined expression, if the middle command has a non-zero exit status, then both the middle and the rightmost command end up getting executed.

      I don't think that is surprising, is it? Since && and || have the same order of precedence. So I think this is more of a clarification than a caveat.

      I think this is just because:

      a && b || c is equivalent to: (a && b) || c (so of course c gets evaluated if (a && b) is false (that if either a or b is false).

      I think they just mean, in this case:

      bedmap && mv || fail

      if mv fails, then fail still gets executed.

      Easier to see with a simpler example:

      ⟫ true && false || echo 'fail'
      ⟫ false && true || echo 'fail'

      Better example/explanation here: https://hyp.is/-foxmCVXEeuhnLM-le_R4w/mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls

      The caveat/mistake here is if you treat it / think that it is equivalent to if a then b else c. That is not the case if b has any chance of failing.

    1. The potential problem: if second_task fails, third_task will not run, and execution will continue to the next line of code - next_task, in this example. This may be exactly the behavior you want. Alternatively, you may be intending that if second_task fails, the script should immediately exit with its error code. In this case, the best choice is to use a block - i.e., curly braces: first_task && { second_task third_task } next_task Because we are using the -e option, if second_task fails, the script immediately exits.
  8. Oct 2020
    1. When I say that my experience is that it means it's time to split up your components, I guess I mean that there tends to be a logical grouping between all the things that care about (for example) sqr_n, and in Svelte, logical groupings are expressed as components.
  9. Aug 2020
    1. This is all well and good when we’re talking about buying decisions, but what if I were to say, “Should we go to war in April or in May?”

      In addition to avoiding biases, we also have to be aware of logical fallacies too! False equivalence, etc...



  10. Jul 2020
  11. May 2020
  12. Mar 2018
    1. argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)

      Everytime I hear Trump say "trust me", I think of this.

  13. Feb 2016
    1. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

      This seems hackish. It seems to me the Democrats have a very clear solution to this issue and would love to put it to rest. The Republicans, however, won't allow it.