The thing I learned that surprised me was in the fine print of the one of the sample labels. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but I hadn't realized that there was such as thing as Taiwanese grown cacao! https://damecacao.com/cacao-plantations-taiwan/

We're in rural Vermont, but not particularly remote. Amazon is the same for us, with a minimum 1 week quoted delivery time. And it's not because it actually takes that long to get to us, since Walmart is reliably 2 day. Prime used to be 2 day delivery, like Walmart still is. Amazon has just decided to deprioritize rural northeastern delivery, and just don't ship it out for several days. Even random Ebay sellers using USPS are typically faster. This doesn't make Amazon useless, but it's definitely not my preferred place to buy from anymore.

> They put out a big sign each year saying "We Have Chicks!!!" which means they have baby chickens, ducks and turkeys.

They also sell bees in season, although I think you might have to preorder.

The flip side is that Alsup (the judge who wrote the opinion) is probably the smartest district court judge we have when it comes to technology, and one of the people I'd trust most to come up good decision.

He's a treasure, and my instinct is that he got it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alsup

Because for the vast majority of the books, Google doesn't have the legal right to license those scans. It would be legal if the books were out of copyright, but despite the connotation of "rare books" those generally aren't the books we're talking about. Further, in the cases where Google didn't destroy the original of the book they scanned, their scanned copy may be considered infringing under the new standard, so Google doesn't want call undue attention to what they have.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49256725

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Is it correct that Russian officially uses a semicolon (;) to separate time elements, or is this just a translation error?

> : (semicolon) for separating the elements of the time of the day (‘day’, ‘minute’, ‘minute and second’);

The example right below it seems to make clear that it's just an error, but then I wondered if the use of a regular colon (:) there was somehow the error instead.

What you are calling a loaf is actually a "slice". You might cut a loaf into 10 slices, each 10 cm x 10 cm x 2 cm thick. So you the question you are asking is how different people cut a "half slice" of 10 cm x 5 cm x 2 cm. I've never considered cutting a half slice the way you do it.

Personally, if I want a half slice, I would cut it the way you do for a full slice, and then afterward cut it in half while it is laying flat on the cutting board. Then I'd just leave the half slice sitting next to the uncut portion of the loaf.

I'd never cut a half slice the way you show in F, because I almost always want my slices to be the same thickness rather than tapering in thickness from one side to the other. While I wouldn't have cut it the way you do, I prefer your final result.

Abstract

Some organizations remain adaptable across centuries while others struggle to evolve and ultimately fade into irrelevance. Only a handful of theories can explain this extraordinary adaptability. We test two competing theoretical perspectives in imprinting research: Liability of aging suggests that older organizations are at greater risk of disruption by modern technologies, but older organizations can also repurpose their imprinted structures and processes to their advantage in a process termed exaptation. To resolve this contradiction, we analyze Catholic religious orders and their monasteries. They represent the oldest extant organizations, were founded in various historical eras, and are facing contemporary challenges posed by digitalization. Our quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the orders with historically decentralized imprints show higher adaptability in embracing digital innovation. Our results confirm that long-term adaptability is increased in organizations whose imprinted decentralized logics provide a propensity for exaptation. However, these long-standing organizations are also more wary of the negative effects of digital disruption and appear to shield their organizational core more strongly. We contribute to imprinting research by shedding light on the intricate relationship between historically imprinted organizational logics and contemporary organizational practice and highlight the often-underappreciated importance of exaptation for long-term adaptability.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332...

(I'm not sure why it was marked that way, but I vouched to bring your comment back from auto-dead. I glanced at your comment history, but don't see any clear reason for this.)

As to why he now has this on his blog? I also cringe when I read it. I presume someone told him he should self-promote more, and this is his lame attempt to do so. He's almost certainly the most cited person in his department, but it's entirely possible that none of his colleagues actually know this. Cut him some slack. Self-promotion is not his strength. He's a nerd's nerd, and not a marketer. I'll mention to him that his attempt here might be backfiring when I'm next in contact with him.

Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.

The page above that has more info and other stories: https://www.jessamyn.com/barth/

"The more direct inspiration for me was an email from Stuart Russell in September 2020 to Alexander Koller and I about our ACL 2020 paper".

It's a good article, and worth reading. But somehow I also have enough trouble understanding how she would make this error that---in the inverse of the fluidity argument---I start to doubt her the rest of her logic based on one silly irrelevant grammar mistake.