I would recommend unvarnished Buddhism, not mindfulness in a pill that is being taught by these crazy apps. Buddhism teaches mindfulness in the context of wisdom and morality, not just mindfulness. Moreover the word itself is a horrible translation of the Pali word “Sati” which means “remembering to be aware of the state of your mind”. The key is “remembering to be aware”, not just “awareness”.
You can become aware on your own by accident. In fact a lot of us do that. Remembering to be aware means there is a muscle memory that does automatic mental state check, there is an intention behind this state check.
To give a more concrete example, we have a single Angular app. The app has two areas, one where the user can search for records using free text while another where the user can create or update records. Our source of truth is a Postgres database where all updates and inserts are sent using a microservice. The data flows from Postgres to Elasticsearch using SQS in AWS. The Angular app then queries Elasticsearch using a different microservice. So essentially our command domain model is separate from our query domain model.
But we only hear about it when less than 1/5 of that amount _might_ be sacrificed for human health. Stinks of agenda.
Also, without context, is 500,000 a lot of sharks? How many exist in the wild? How many are needed to have a stable population? If we don't cull millions of sharks annually, what effect would that have?
And what is "shark" in this context, anyway? There are dozens of fish species, at differing levels of endangerment, colloquially referred to as "sharks".
Everyone has an agenda. I don't see an agenda of conservation of our ecology as one we need to resist. Especially when their conclusion at the end is not just "Save the Sharks", but a hope that we will research other possible ingredients instead of just running with the first working prototype.
Many agendas masquerade as "conservation of our ecology" when they are none of the sort and produce no results or even the opposite of what they claim.
The fact that you like it is no reason to not look at what's behind it.
agreed but the article says that nonanimal sources are more expensive than sharks. so research isn't what's needed, but rather (arguably) things like state provided incentives.
Why do people think that humanity collectively has the same concept of ethics? What is good and bad? You seem to think every human is on the same page of what life is
On pure utilitarian grounds, sharks are all carnivores who kill thousands of other animals over their life in horrific, painful ways.
That doesn’t mean that there’s not environmental reasons to justify shark conservation. But from the standpoint of animal suffering killing apex predators is almost certainly a net good.
The opposite has been shown to be true. For example, see the effect of wolf reintroduction upon biodiversity. They keep other populations in check which themselves would overall cause harm.
Look at the situation in the Scottish highlands. The entire landscape has changed beyond all recognition because of the loss of apex predators (wolves, bears). The deer population is massive, and it prevents forest growth and regeneration, and results in a landscape devoid of its natural biodiversity. This isn't just bad for the environment, we also suffer from related problems such as the spread of ticks spreading Lyme disease.
The same has happened with whitetail in the eastern US, and a lot of people around here are still foolish enough to get upset with the DNR when they do a cull. That the resulting venison goes to homeless shelters seems not to move these weepers over Bambi; presumably, in their coldly rational utilitarian calculus, the life of a deer exceeds in value that of a human, at least once the human's circumstances have been far enough reduced.
Yes, I'm making fun, a little. I think that's fair in this instance. Someone who has taken the time and thought to identify utilitarianism as a philosophy on which to base consequential decisions has I think no excuse for not having likewise studied ecology, and the modern history of the human role in ecosystems, to at least the minimal extent required to recognize that ecology is really complicated and humans don't understand it nearly so well as we like to think we do. When we behave as if we did, we break things that very often can't be fixed.
> The same has happened with whitetail in the eastern US, and a lot of people around here are still foolish enough to get upset with the DNR when they do a cull.
These people don’t understand that we have to manage the environment we created (removal of predatory animals that eat deer) and part of that is harvesting deer to prevent mass starvation from lack of winter food. I’d bet if you showed them footage of a deer starving to death in winter, they’d agree herd culling is more humane.
Then that would be a specific environmental consideration. The argument I was addressing was the consideration on utilitarian grounds.
It's possible that there may be second order environmental affects on the utilitarian calculus. I.e. the loss of sharks, causes enough ecosystem imbalance that it out-weights the direct suffering caused by species X. But that's specifically an empirical claim, and simply claiming that "sharks feel pain" isn't sufficient.
In general there's no reason to believe that the current ecological balance is the utilitarian optimal. Darwin selects for inclusive fitness, and doesn't give a hoot about animal suffering. Imagining that the pre-existence of a large predator population exists to improve the lives of the prey population is succumbing to the fallacy of group selection.
Funny, I thought we are apex predators. Why do you want to kill all humans? /s
seriously though, ecosystems are interdependent and predators have their place. I remember watching a documentary about white wolves on a remote isolated island keeping the local population of yaks and rabbits from eating the island clean. They are absolutely vital for that particular ecology. Similarly it is not our place to rank animals by importance, since we are as a species quite obviously imbeciles.
Well the sebaceous gland in human skin produces this organic compound called "squalene" and we want that to make vaccines and cosmetic creams. But we don't want to kill all humans: squalene production significantly slows after the age of 30, so its more about killing young humans. /s
“Bonnetheads also ingest large amounts of seagrass, which has been found to make up around 62.1% of gut content mass. The species appear to be omnivorous, the only known case of plant feeding in sharks. The shark may perform this activity to protect its stomach against the spiny carapaces of the blue crab which it feeds on. A 2018 study with a carbon isotope-labelled seagrass diet found that they could digest seagrass with at least moderate efficiency, with 50±2% digestibility of seagrass organic matter, and had cellulose-component-degrading enzyme activity in their hindgut”
Humanity really is misled. The production of cosmetics, which I believe is not particularly vital to anyone’s survival, could be cut by ~20% and we could manufacture the vaccine with no change in the amount of fishing of sharks. What is definitely interesting though is that I haven’t heard of this before. I wonder if it could be cosmetic product companies trying to keep things like this in the dark, similarly to how oil companies spread misinformation about fossil fuels? I don’t wish to don the tinfoil hat, but I would say it’s not all that unlikely that it is done. Information is the gold of our age, after all :)
What about other questions, like: what does 30% price premium on plant based source of this oil translate to when it comes to cost of the final vaccine? And what are the issues of using plant based source? Is it worth it?
Shark is a wild animal that presumably doesn't want to be murdered by a human, to have their livers harvested, just because humans messed up with other animals and caused themselves to be infected with other animals' endemic viruses. I don't really know. I haven't talked to any sharks about this, just guessing.
Tangential, but related to the surprise of finding out how shitty humans are to other species:
We slaughter 80 billion animals each year for food. On a planet of 7 billion humans, each year. Those animals only purpose is to be born, get fat, and get eaten by humans. Mostly in horrible conditions because it's cheap. We need to look into the mirror for more than just cosmetics industry.
@yes_man, mammals capable of same emotions that humans have, are brought into this world just so that they can be stacked on top of each other in horrid conditions for 1/10th of their natural lifespan in order to be slaughtered and fed to a species that is dying of obesity anyways.
Invest in technology to reliably reproduce the polypeptides that we are using animals to grow.
Note, for consistency, you should be equally horrified at companies like Ynsect, which are growing trillions of living creatures to be eaten by billions of other creatures:
Thing is there will be unavoidable consequences from being at the top of the food chain. Morality will have to be relative when you live by consuming organic matter from other living things.
Yes, a lot. Even if you're a die hard animal rights activist, can't you see that 3.2 million deaths from a population of a hundred million (say) is a much smaller deal than 3.2 million from a population of ten million? One means possible extinction of a species, the other does not.
If you are not an animal rights activist, it may be hard to see why preserving a species matters at all.
It seem to be of no importance. And as long as humans are concerned, it may even be the reverse, heuristically. The bigger species is (measured by total weight, for example), the more important it may be for sustaining the ecosystem.
The author highlights not teaching enough mathematical theory behind the various techniques. I have tried Andrew Ng's course on Coursera. It uses Octave from what I remember. After a point the lack of mathematical background started to show up. I have always wondered where can I find course that teaches both the mathematical background as well as the hands-on programming in a balanced way.
Precisely. If I fast for 16 hours it does not do much. As a male in early 40s I have to hit atleast 18-20 hours of fasting to start seeing a difference. I have to restrict sugar intake also during the 4-5 hour eating window.
TL;DR! For me, I can always fall asleep within 5-10 minutes of lying down. However on some nights I wake up EXACTLY between 3-4 hours fully energized as if I had 7-8 hours of sleep. Then going back to sleep becomes a problem. This typically happens if I stay on my laptop after 8 pm and particularly if I spend time coding after 8 pm. I am a morning person.
To implement file system in userspace or TCP stack in userspace how does the process invoke the device driver? I am sure the Kernel steps in at some point. What system calls would you invoke from userspace TCP stack to access the NIC?
I got my hands on “Computer Systems: A programmer’s perspective” and it brought together hardware, compilers and C programming language in context of Linux. That was it and I was hooked.
