That was unfortunate, but incidental. Larger companies certainly can do the cost-benefit analysis that cancels out those losses if they plan on being around in 10 years.

For most mammals, everything is so similar...including responses to stimuli like light, sound, temperature, pain, pleasure, even predictive behavior (knowing when they have done something to provoke a human response) that the same principle leads me to believe it's likely they have a very similar experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljLlpOAGRsQ

Why you decided that was a claim is your own bias talking. I was pointing out the relevant section. You've tried to raise something that isn't the issue, nor is it a sensible question as you undoubtedly realized (But even so).

Every human in an experiment is a human subject. Glad we got that out of the way.

The issue is what an IRB is looking for in evaluating the ethical feasibility of an experiment.

> Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical

> I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.

That's because it's your opinion. Seriously, go tell your local Target or College Bookstore to stop playing with the wall colors because there is no disclosure AND they make money off of it.

Fountain soda ph6.5 to ph8.5 and is a suspension

The differences are stark.

I see this repeated, but arguments like "You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects." are not sufficient nor is "it's arguably the most important software on the planet". These viewpoints are not agreed upon or codified anywhere that would affect an IRB decision.

"human subjects" qualification -> https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... (et al sources)

The notable history of outrage in some communities (did this make the evening news anywhere?) that has been created, may influence future decisions, at best.

"Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd.

Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws providing greater protection for freedom of speech." - https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-...

Someone will always be apologizing wrong for some. Some interpretation of what harm there was, is not necessarily the same as my interpretation. There are too many ways to construe what harm there was or may have been according to others to satisfy everyone addressed. This is an efficient wording that doesn't explicitly satisfy your (and many people's) specific issues out of "the community", which illustrates the point.

I think you have a flawed set of beliefs. Good luck with whatever.

Maybe you meant academic degree.

> But they are what they are.

Still not clear on what that means. Recognition of expertise? They are that.

> The convention is not to use the title “Dr.” on the basis of an honorary degree

Again, by those aforementioned.

Dr. Phil - philosophy

Dr. Drew - medical doctor

Dr. Laura - physiology (honorary in tradition and culture from a tiny college)

Dr. Ruth - education

Dr. Oz - medical doctor

M.D. or Physician means what you think "Doctor" means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/702.404

Legally, it depends on the very lenient existing laws of the land to determine if you are prohibited (or default allowed) to be referred to as a doctor when you receive a doctorate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026525/ (mentioned US and CAN)

In that vein, there are discoveries, studies and experts that occur or develop outside of universities. This is the source of an honorary degree. Famously, others have been given various degrees for effort and demonstrated competence (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Joel). People who scoff at honorary doctorates are elitists, at best. Those who do not accept that expertise can be cultivated excepting through anything other than standardized processes understandably believe that no other process is legitimate despite the fact that there are narrow and wide fields of study for which there exists no framework.

There is some truth to the observation that age unfairly plays into academic accomplishment insofar as someone younger could not be granted a teaching position or honorary degree, even if they demonstrate comparable knowledge. Part of the leeway is due to a passion or commitment to topics that can only be demonstrated through a life-long pursuit of knowledge and criticality.

https://www.clements.com/sites/default/files/resources/The-M...

was it this one?

I have a checklist I've been building which is purely based on my experience and is subjective. Appearing on the checklist makes teaching someone else more difficult and looks bad for the language in general.

I believe the ecosystem is part of the language. You can't do much without running into npm if you use node but you can avoid it if you just use JS - are they separate? I treat them so. If you aren't a general purpose language being used as a general purpose language, that's partially the language's (including ecosystem) fault. eg don't make a UI with erlang.

* Language has a toxic ecosystem - node

* Language makes it easy to do the wrong thing - node, js, PHP, lua, Perl (notice no Python)

* Language makes it hard to do the right thing - node, js, PHP, Perl, erlang, Python, Haskell, Java

* Language is based on an esoteric design principle - erlang, Haskell, lua (meta-things)

* Language which is internally inconsistent - node, js (floats, time, etc), PHP (bifs), Java (type system)

etc. I think there's plenty of languages which have problems and few seem to be shoring them up because we still don't have a consensus on how dynamic typing should be implemented, so we build upon the sand of flawed languages and argue about triviality.

That isn't the premise. It's the premise of how it got there for a straightforward example, but doesn't avert the filter questions (regardless of how it got there).

Ironic. You've claimed multiple things. For each case, in the face of conflicting evidence, deflected to argue about another detail.

Decades later, I'm surprised that languages aren't changing to make programming less boilerplate and more convenient; eg nested comments, single type multi-var declarations and assignments. As a matter of interest, he generates a compile error in a small function at ~51:05 in his own language.

He doesn't think memory safety is important (13:25 "I don't give a flying toss...") but is going to be adding the runtime bounds checking (~56:50 "It's not hard to add...") in the future for arrays only? This is probably a good idea, since he thinks Rust is overly careful.

At about the hour mark, before his enthusiastic "clever pointer tricks" segment, I checked out. I'll see if this goes anywhere after he's made some tougher tradeoffs.