This is a really embarrassing post. You stalked the author's online presence, turned up a TCP bridge utility, not really relevant to anything, and tried to shame the author for writing it, all so you can pretend you won an argument on the Internet?
It wasn't embarrassing that the GP shat all over someone's project, it was embarrassing that I pointed out that he gatekept people's contributions without contributing much himself?
The app is vibecoded. The author isn't making decisions about these tradeoffs and possibly wasn't aware of the implications of these decisions at all. The robot they used tried to fulfill its given prompts at the expense of everything else, which is why it's looking in bad directories and trying to install Docker environments in the build script.
I suspect that some of the author's comments in this thread are vibe-written, also. They are LLM-flavored and contrast strongly vs. their regular commenting.
> The app is vibecoded. The author isn't making decisions about these tradeoffs and possibly wasn't aware of the implications of these decisions at all. The
I agree, but to be fair this is how I would code it, too. I would have probably bundled the Python interpreter and only downloaded the FFmpeg binary (because of its license), but that's a relatively minor difference.
OP didn't claim you of misrepresenting facts in the document directly; OP claimed you of grossly mischaracterizing those facts in order to support claims the document does not support. The document is cited as supporting massive fraud "beyond intellectually serious dispute" while the scale of the fraud is disputed in the cited document.
But, on the other hand, I suppose intellectually serious dispute requires both sides to be intellectually serious. One good step in that direction would be to arrange one's citations such that they are supporting the claims you are citing them for.
I will also remark, as others have, that it's odd to make a big deal about this particular fraud when there's a lot more fraud happening a lot more obviously in a lot more of the nation. This is not to question Minnesota officials who are, rightly and appropriately, investigating suspected fraud in their zone of investigation; but it is worth questioning voices who have, apropos of nothing I can discern, made decisions about what's important to talk about and what isn't, and further made decisions to misrepresent allegations in alignment with people who very aggressively lie for evil reasons. As others have pointed out, the essay's core is seemingly cromulent, and it doesn't need you to do that.
<LLC voice>
We have reviewed your feedback on our editorial choices, and are comfortable that we have characterized the claims in the report accurately. We stand by "Minnesota has suffered a decade-long campaign of industrial-scale fraud against several social programs. This is beyond intellectually serious dispute." This is editorial analysis, informed—as is stated in the plain text—by the experience of several programs. Feeding our Future, for example, is cited in the piece, with analysis. It has resulted in dozens of convictions and guilty pleas, and federal prosecutors characterize it as having defrauded the public of nine figures.
You are welcome to your own opinion as to what could motivate a publication which routinely writes about fraud and finance to write about fraud and finance. Past issues you may enjoy include a year-long investigation into a single incident of fraud in NYC, a topological look at the fraud supply chain in credit cards, discussions of how the FTX fraud was uniquely enabled by their partner bank failing to properly configure their AML engine, and similar.
</LLC voice>
Seriously, it's beyond amazing how much mud this thread has been flinging at you. If the analysis you've offered is somehow not above board, it seems impossible to point out the clear facts of the matter in a way that nobody would object to.
Agreed. I thought the article was an interesting look at how fraud in many ways acts like a real business, and how one can use fraudsters' tendencies in order to catch them. The discussion in this thread has been 90% partisan slap fights while ignoring the substance of the article. It's absolutely shameful.
Many Cyrillic letters are Latin-looking, but actually have direct Greek analogues due to the history of the writing system. If you don't know Greek letters, you'd have a hard time guessing р made a 'r' sound. If you do, it's a natural guess.
The rich do not, in general, possess Scrooge McDuck vaults full of "prior government backed currency". The assets of the wealthy are generally real assets and business investments.
Cash is such a poor investment that the word "investment" typically means trying to find something more productive than holding cash. Neither do alternatives to cash have a reliable history of benefitting the poor. In the US there's been lots of attempts at local currencies; they tend to fail naturally without government interference. Recently, cryptographic alternatives to cash have mostly served to benefit crypto barons and scammers.
Hmm. Why should I take this critique as being any more accurate than Bryson, given that the writer says in so many words:
"[...] I - someone who’s far from an expert at linguistics [...]"
The rather sniffy observation about Wikipedia falls very flat as the book was written 10 years before Wikipedia existed!
In fact Bryson wrote his book a good 20 years earlier than this critique so perhaps this huffy person has resources to draw upon that were not available in 1990.
Not that I really expect Bryson's stuff to dot every i and cross every t - he's a humourist.
The writer doesn't claim that Bryson should have consulted Wikipedia, more that the myth that eskimos have 500 words for snow is so famous that the myth itself has a Wikipedia page dedicated to it. The discussion had been going on a long time when Bryson wrote this book, and I remember well being told this as a child in the 80's. To present what was either known as an urban myth or at least under a more nuanced discussion (they do, but it's due to how root words are easier to pluralise, not snow per se) is pretty lazy in a non-fiction book.
It's interesting that all these positions are called "common", but the actual board position might happen zero to one times in a lifetime, and I suspect it's usually zero times.
I noticed something similar when I played contract bridge at a competitive level. A top bridge player might play very roughly on the order of 10,000 hands a year, and vividly recall something that happens on the order of once a year as "oh yeah that's common". Of course I wasn't remotely close to them. But there is something about competitive games that seem to amplify the memory for certain kinds of unusual situations.
(Some people are commenting about under promoting to avoid stalemate traps down the line. I've always been a weak chess player, but... trying to set a stalemate trap after being down a queen, in a non-contrived position, is, like, adult chess players shouldn't do that. In my limited experience.)
> vividly recall something that happens on the order of once a year as "oh yeah that's common".
I mean, think of how many times a typical person has sex in their life. Hopefully they and their partner aren't getting pregnant more than roughly once per year. But somebody getting pregnant after having sex is reasonably defined as common. Certainly common enough that it's something you would consider and take precautions to prevent if you didn't want it to happen.
In ranked chess games, underpromotion happens about 1 in 1000ish games. I imagine it would be more common in high level unranked play. If you play one chess game per day, that's once every 3 years on average. It's not frequent, but I'd describe that as common.
I can't remember where I read or saw this, but it struck me as the obvious key difference: In aviation, procedures and practices are developed in concert with experts in aviation maintenance, aviation engineering, various parts of system design, and the people who fly the darn planes. In medicine, the lobbyists, politicians, and software companies have political and economic incentives and communication structures quite divorced from the practiced expertise of actual end users, not to mention the people being treated. So you have all these 'best practices' being imposed that have little to do with the sorts of best practices health practitioners would do or want to do or what patients need.
This is typical of Covid conspiracy theorists, or conspiracy theorists of any sort: one or two papers on one side prove something, but an overwhelming mountain of evidence on the other side does not prove something. The theorist makes no explanation as to how a planetful of scientists missed the obvious truth that some random dudes found; they just assert that it happened, or make some hand-waving explanation about how an inexplicable planet-wide force of censors is silencing the few unremarkable randos who somehow have the truth.
The first paper seems to claim a very standard cohort study is subject to "immortal time bias", an effect whereby measuring outcomes can seem to change them. The typical example of sampling time bias is that slow-growing cancers are more survivable than fast-growing ones, but also more likely to be measured by a screening, giving a correlation between screening and survivablility. So you get a time effect where more fast-acting cancers do not end up in the measurement, biasing the data.
But in measurements such that one outcome or the other does not bias the odds of that outcome being sampled, there can be no measurement time effect, which is why it's not corrected for in studies like this. The authors do not explain why measurement time effects would have anything to do with detecting or not detecting death rates in the abstract, or anywhere else in the paper, because they are quacks, who apply arbitrary math to get the outcome they want.
As another commenter pointed out, randomized controlled trials -- which cannot possibly have this made-up time effect -- often clearly show a strongly positive effect for vaccination.
reply