The Edge popup asks you if you want to import data from other browsers and set the default browser (like what happens when any browser is installed). If you just press cancel a bunch of times nothing gets imported or defaults changed and only some icons get added. That dude just killed it in the task manager so it used the popup's default settings.
Complain about getting the chromified Edge popup as part of a regular update, not about it copying data.
You shouldn't have to do that. And it disables the normal close button.
What if you reboot without engaging with this weird unclosable window? What if you lose power? That's not agreement to the terms!
When you have a dialog to choose between yes and no, it is not acceptable to copy data without 'yes' being clicked. Justification about "they didn't 'just press no'" is not okay.
He did nothing in terms of giving the program any kind of input.
"Do nothing" doesn't imply consent by any means. Exiting (killing) a forced onboarding process must be an option and doesn't imply any consent, as well. Like "do nothing", the clear intent is to not to alter the status quo. Default settings can't imply consent. There's no contract, no grant, no entitlement for any subsequent actions. (The EU GDPR made this quite clear on a legal level.)
On a radically different note, I find it kind of surreal that comics 334 and 335 have been silently excised from this comic's archives page, and #333 now links forward to #336.
As a long time, on and off Debian user, I've actually never had debian-installer install firmware properly. For the longest time, using the minimal install image, putting the firmware debs (or loose files) in the correct directory just plain didn't work. I think at some point, it started working and I could use wifi instead of ethernet to install, but even now the installer still doesn't install AMD firmware, so some kernel modesetting funny business doesn't work and I just get a black screen on first boot (but the system is otherwise functional). The same applies to the firmware-included non-free image.
I mean, I can (and do) manually apt-get the right firmware packages at some point, either popping a shell during install or after first boot, but it is definitely a maze of some kind, especially if you don't know what package contains the firmware you need.
Not only that, but the NHL BANS full face protection unless you're recovering from an injury. (Ex-all star Dany Heatley spent most of his career wearing a comically big half-visor after suffering a serious eye injury, I wonder if he would've opted for a full visor if given the choice.)
Some players already dislike the currently mandated half-visors (visors can distort vision, or fog up, etc.) and do weird shenanigans like having small or tipped-up visors.
There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection.
The “fighting culture” in the NHL (perhaps more in the AhL and college leagues?) can’t die soon enough. It’s already better than it used to be in the 80s and 90s but there is some way to go. A good first step would be actual match penalties for proper fights. It has worked elsewhere.
There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions.
Teams have goons and enforcers. It’s the goon’s job to hurt star players. A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game, the series, or potentially the season. It’s those hits that cause injuries and end careers.
An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out of you.
Fights are by mutual consent, and almost never result in serious injury. But they hurt physically, and losing one hurts morale.
The league actually introduced an instigator penalty a while back, which means whoever initiated the fight is penalized. Concussions went up, because now the enforcer couldn’t do his job, or his own team suffers even more. So it was open season with cheap shots on stars.
> Teams have goons and enforcers.
> An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out of you.
This sounds like the NHL in 1999, not 2019. Enforcers are mostly gone thank god.
> A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished.
> If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game.
The rules are very different now (or compared very differently at least) compared to 20 yeears ago too. 20 years ago you saw people glorify open-ice blindsidee hits saying "heads up!". Now hitting someone when their head is low invariably is a suspension. The responsibility is on the tackling player. An attacker with his head too low is not a valid target.
> and almost never result in serious injury
The figures range from 5 to 10% of concussions coming from fighting. It's not a lot, and probably not the most serious ones - but they are all unnecessary unlike the others which are part of the game.
My theory is that glorifying violence is bad full stop. I don't care whether NHL players get a few more concussions. They make millions and have great healthcare. The problem is my kid who watches this and thinks that's how you play hockey.
Fighting doesn't disappear because it results in match penalties. It just stops the glorification. Linesmen should never back off two fighting players, crowds cheering with their popcorn. It's disgusting.
> Now hitting someone when their head is low invariably is a suspension. The responsibility is on the tackling player. An attacker with his head too low is not a valid target.
The rules are way more strict now, but this isn’t accurate. It has to be intentionally targeting the head, or feet leaving the ground. There is no responsibility on the player unless contact with the head was deemed to be avoidable. That doesn’t apply to the hit overall, as there is never an obligation to avoid contact - just that if you do make contact, and you have the option of where to hit them, you aren’t allowed to choose the head.
The rule states:
In determining whether contact with an opponent’s head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not “picked” as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
> I don't care whether NHL players get a few more concussions. They make millions and have great healthcare.
That’s the biggest issue in professional contact sports, particularly football and hockey, so any argument that dismisses it is not going to be very compelling.
There is no such thing as good health care for concussions. It’s permanent brain damage.
I’m obviously not in favor of increasing concussions - but luckily I don’t buy into the argument that fighting increases concussions, so it’s not even a tradeoff in my view. Reducing fighting can cut the 5-10% of concussions that come from fighting in pro leagues and help reduce them elsewhere as an added bonus. A less ridiculous sport is icing on the cake.
Read the stats. Concussions and missed games due to injuries are on the rise, with a jump immediately following the rule changes that made traditional enforcers no longer a viable option. You are trading that 10% for a much larger number due to bullies and pests getting away with cheap shots.
It could be just a long transition phase, but stats show that fighting was the mitigation, not the problem. They removed the mitigation and unleashed the real problem. They are trying to address the real problem now, but so far, the evidence suggests that they have not yet found a more effective solution than allowing stars to have bodyguards. It would be great if they can solve both.
Good intentions can have unintended side effects. You know, like time the time the US toppled that brutal Saddam guy and accidentally made ISIS.
If that’s the case then the increase would be seen in the NHL where there is a history of fights and enforcers but not e.g in the Swiss or Swedish leagues where there isn’t. But concussions are up across the board.
The more reasonable explanation for more head injuries is the game is faster (much fewer hookings, for example) and a focus on speed and skill over size and strength.
There just is no “I can’t punch this guy in the face so I’ll give him a cheap blindside to the head”. The stats doesn’t support the hypothesis.
They don't, really, and the stats show a fairly steady decrease in fighting. There might be a 'theory' but the evidence is fighting is on the way out.
You could make the argument that removing players who specialize in fighting and the ceremony and ritual surrounding it it makes fighting more dangerous - a recent case in point would be Ovechkin knocking out Svechnikov earlier this year. But that's also an even better argument for eliminating fighting altogether.
Yes it’s definitely on the decline, and nothing like before the rule changes, but it’s still an issue. Crosby has been punished heavily his whole career and suffered several concussions, so the Penguins had to make changes to give him more protection.
The theory is backed by the evidence. It’s correlation, but the link seems obvious. Concussions went way up after the original instigator rule. They went up even more after the “no hits to the head if you can hit somewhere else rule”.
The number of man games lost in the playoffs has also gone up steadily.
So by all metrics, outcomes have gotten worse. Pests and cheap shots have no deterrent, and compared to fighting, those are what cause real damage.
Your arguments sound plausible, but the numbers tell a far different story, and the coaches who have star players vocally disagree with you.
”The instigator rule may be limiting fights, but it isn’t protecting the players. It’s allowing dirty players to thrive. And that has to be worse for hockey than two players facing off in an effort to guard their teammates.”
Don’t get me wrong, I get the moral argument and the issue with glorifying violence. I don’t have an opinion on fights, but I find the change in outcomes to be interesting in the behavioral economics sense.
This is all covered in the book, The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL.
Or just search YouTube for:
"The Code" AND "NHL"
I love hockey, and I used to play sled hockey (a disabled sport--I cannot safely skate on my feet). I really only use my sled to skate for fun now. But, I won't be able to skate for awhile due to an injury.
>There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection.
Having grown up playing hockey in a pretty rough league that's not true. You just hook your hand under the back of the helmet and pull, it'll pop right off.
With a full cage? Either the wearer has deliberately made that possible, or it'll hurt.
I was kept mine so that I could get it on and off without unclipping the cage, but as snug as possible while still allowing that. So pulling it off isn't quick, and I wouldn't fancy someone else doing it.
There was a recent rule change that bans players from removing their own helmet (but not their opponent's) before a fight and the threat of punching hard plastic doesn't seem to have stopped anyone.
It was a tree-walking interpreter and slow. I had to switch it to a form that could be compiled. This took me down a year-long road of learning about machine code.
I would argue that the spirit of Mu has remained constant. Where it needs to change it does so without trying to stay 'compatible' with the past. It tries to present as little change atop the substrate as possible to be habitable (http://akkartik.name/post/habitability)
I feel really out of the loop here. I went through a pretty standard curriculum in the 2000s and have never owned or used a graphing calculator (aside from the few times the teacher demonstrated our school's TI-83s in class in high school). What are they used for?
[And while I used a bog standard scientific calculator regularly in science/stats classes, I'm pretty sure my calculus classes disallowed calculators and only stuck to magic numbers that were easy to manually calculate with. It might even be plausible to go through a whole math curriculum without a calculator apart from whatever stats/applied classes you're required to take.]
> I'm pretty sure my calculus classes disallowed calculators and only stuck to magic numbers that were easy to manually calculate with
That's the key. There's two schools of thought that have their pros and cons. 1) using magic number means no calculator, but students can get by searching for clean answers and might not truly understand the topic. 2) using real world examples grounds the curriculum in reality so there isn't a gap applying it, and you're not used to the cleanliness in the future, but might be a bit opaque in the short term.
Both sides have pretty good arguments why they do better than the other teaching a number sense to students about the various transformations.
I have a strong bias towards the first school, the point being that opaque calculation are simply harder to reason about.
I also agree that handling complex computations is a relevant skill, but then what you need to learn is the mental book keeping of where you are and what you need to do that you need to learn.
The only case where calculators are truly useful is in sciences, where numbers are just a tool to scientific insight.
(moreover in math if you need trigonometric tables chances are that you are going to learn better math by keeping symbolic answers)
Fibonacci is usually introduced as "the next term is the sum of the two previous terms" (sometimes with the story about rabbits or whatever). There's two obvious ways to implement this:
1. Direct recursion
2. Keep track of the two previous terms
If you start with (1), you run it and it takes exponential time, and so you should instead remember the two previous terms, leading you to (2). When you go with (2), you either use 2 mutable variables and a loop in the imperative version, or you have 2 accumulators and tail recursion in the functional version... which is the same thing, since a tail recursive function is just a named loop.
There's nothing about laziness or self-referencing an incomplete structure here, which is just a Haskell thing. Taking the tail of an incomplete structure, in particular, is indirect and hard to understand.
If you want to demonstrate laziness, you can still do it directly by doing something like:
fibs a b = a : fibs b (a + b)
fib n = fibs 0 1 !! n
You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation? Responding to criticism that it's brainwashing propaganda, here's what the chairman of a pro-Beijing education lobbying group had to say:
"A brain needs washing if there is a problem, just as clothes need washing if they're dirty and a kidney needs washing if it's sick," said Jiang Yudui, chairman of the Beijing-friendly China Civic Education Promotion Association of Hong Kong, according to news reports. Jiang's comments in July came at the same time that tens of thousands, including many parents pushing their children in strollers, took to the streets to protest against the plan.
> You don't think teaching Chinese in Mandarin (5% first language) rather than Cantonese (90% first language) or trying to introduce national education into the curriculum is assimilation?
No I do not. That's just what you teach to your citizens. When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation? Or is that OK because it's the US that did it?
> "When the US took over Puerto Rico, kids there damn well learned English, the American history, the national anthem, and the star spangled banner in school. Do you call that assimilation?"
If that's not assimilation, then I have no clue what the term means.
> "Or is that OK because it's the US that did it? "
If your argument relies on all Americans being hypocritical sycophants of the American government, it's a bad argument. Criticism of America is mainstream in America. One can be American and be critical of the American government, just as one can be Chinese and be critical of the Chinese government. In fact there is ample reason for both to be critical of both.
Call it assimilation if you want. My point is that it's what all governments will do under the situation. The fact that China did not push through national education forcibly shows that it's willing to forgo even that minimum amount of "assimilation". It has actually been a model of hands-off administration.
EDIT: Actually do not call it assimilation. Learning Mandarin as a shared language does not mean eradicating Cantonese, and most Hongkongers are ethnic Chinese and share much of the same culture, there's nothing to assimilate.
Wiki: Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a dominant group[1] or assume the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group.
So yes, it is assimilation when you force your dialect on others.
> most Hongkongers are ethnic Chinese and share much of the same cultuRe
I beg to differ. Mao destroyed a lot of cultural relics during the Cultural Revolution. Things that used to be wide spread such as idol worshiping is no longer seen in China and only in Hong Kong. Hong Kong resembles more of the traditional China culture than China does today.
An attempt to deemphasize Cantonese in Guangdong does not constitute eradication.
Mandarin in Hong Kong as far as I know would've been strictly in addition to, not instead of Cantonese, much like learning English in Quebec.
So again, not assimilation.
> Mao destroyed a lot of cultural relics during the Cultural Revolution.
The relics may have been destroyed, but (most of) the people lived, some still living. Culture doesn't die with the relics, it lives with the people.
> Things that used to be wide spread such as idol worshiping is no longer seen in China
It's certainly less wide spread now, especially in big cities. But it's still common in small towns and villages. Dive deeper next time you visit China.
> The relics may have been destroyed, but (most of) the people lived, some still living. Culture doesn't die with the relics, it lives with the people.
I would have to disagree with this. Those people are in their 70s now. And without relics, there is no anchor for cultural values.
Cambodia did the same thing and it has been a disaster to their culture.
The destruction of the relics was on purpose. Hence “cultural” revolution.
> its stated goal was to preserve 'true' Communist ideology in the country by purging remnants of capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, and to re-impose Mao Zedong Thought as the dominant ideology within the Party
It was a deliberate attack on Chinese culture to solidify Maos power.
Your statement sounds too much like marketing speak without any substance. I think I heard it before. Oh yeah: Thor Ragnorak. It is low effort.
> I would have to disagree with this. Those people are in their 70s now. And without relics, there is no anchor for cultural values.
Relics without the people are pretty meaningless. There's very little you can learn about the ancient Egyptian culture even with all the preserved relics.
Sadly we lose tradition, heritage, and culture with the passing of every person. That's universal, Cultural Revolution or not, east or west. But personally I've seen new relics and artifacts recreated after the end of Cultural Revolution, so all is not lost.
> Your statement sounds too much like marketing speak without any substance. I think I heard it before. Oh yeah: Thor Ragnorak.
Well if it's cliche it's only because it's true. BTW never saw that movie, or any of the recent Marvel junk.
We are talking about the same Hong Kong in which sellers of questionable books were disappeared to the mainland, apparently without the knowledge of the HK government.
If it is a model of restraint, what would be your definition of unrestrained. It seems like you would have a different way of handling the situation? Would love to hear it.
That is assimilation I think by definition, without the value judgment. The question is whether or not Puerto Rico wanted it and if it was forced.
Puerto Rico is a poor example, especially since they seem to want to be inducted into the U.S. officially as a state! Hong Kong does not seem to share the same sentiment with Beijing.
Since you're revisiting this thread. I will try to clarify the issue.
No it is not. It's only assimilation if you aim to wipe out the local language and culture and replace them with your own.
So it's not assimilation in either case, Puerto Rico or Hong Kong, as the US did not attempt to eradicate Spanish, nor is China trying to eradicate Cantonese.
People who accuse China of assimilation are surely smart enough to know the difference. The thing is, they have already made up their minds, China is evil no matter what it does.
"In 1914, the Puerto Rican House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of independence from the United States, but this was rejected by the U.S. Congress as "unconstitutional" " [1]
However Chinese and Cantonese share the same writing system.
And don't put gibberish Cantonese scripts as an example, it's called 白字 which means illiterate writing style. You can type that online in forums and IM, SMS to friends but it's not something official nor standard. Should Ebonics be taught in schools instead of standard English?
Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box.
Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages. That written Cantonese hasn't undergone a formal standardization the way Mandarin did in the early 20th century doesn't make written Cantonese gibberish, just not fully standardized. And written Cantonese isn't only used for memeing on forums or text-speak, it's also widely used for casual writing in newspaper columns or in advertisement, or to authentically transcribe spoken Cantonese (rather than paraphrasing in Mandarin). See also:
[Edit: That kids were (and perhaps are) taught to read and write in Mandarin at school using Cantonese sound values, rather than writing in Cantonese, also doesn't say all that much about Cantonese as a written language. Rather, it demonstrates that Hong Kong is a diglossic (well, polyglossic) society.]
> Mandarin and Cantonese share the same writing system in the sense that English and French share the same writing system: mostly the same characters, innumerous cognates, and I can read the back of my cereal box.
Completely wrong. A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French. Are all the words the same in English and French? Can you look at French text and know what it's saying if you didn't speak French already? Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue. The reverse is less true, see below.
> Spoken Cantonese is a different language from spoken Mandarin, with different grammar and vocabulary, and when you write them down you get correspondingly different written languages.
Wrong again. They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary.
Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words.
Tracking down which semantic character corresponds to which Cantonese word could be done if there's enough interest and funding for such work. Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China.
Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese. EDIT: Even in its current form, written Cantonese is still 80% intelligible to Mandarin speakers.
> A Chinese character is more or less equivalent to a word in English/French.
Most Chinese characters are monosyllabic, and most Chinese words are polysyllabic consisting of multiple characters. A Chinese character is a morpheme, and it also happens that many common words are also single character morphemes.
> Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue.
Because we've all been taught to read and write in Mandarin from the very beginning of our education. Again, Hong Kong is a diglossic society.
> They use largely the same grammar and vocabulary. Because Cantonese is ancient Chinese, over the years they have lost track of what semantic characters to use for some of the Cantonese words.
They share a lot of grammar and vocabulary (...but not all of it) because they share a language ancestor. Cantonese is not ancient Chinese, but it's a descendant that conserved a lot more consonants than Mandarin (and a lot of sound merger is actually happening right now in Hong Kong over the last 100 years, but it's commonly derided as "lazy sound").
> Once the mapping is done, you will be able to write down Cantonese and have it understood all over China. Since the work hasn't been done, you can only write down Cantonese with the help of some phonetic characters, which denote only pronunciation but not meaning. It's not gibberish, but neither is it proper written Cantonese.
See [https://books.google.ca/books?id=pFnP_FXf-lAC&pg=PA51] for a description of common strategies for writing Cantonese. Phonetic borrowing is one strategy, and the most common one, yes, but that's no different than characters in standard Chinese, the vast majority of which are a radical with a semantic category (but not a complete meaning) + a phonetic component.
A Mandarin-only speaker can decide for themselves how intelligible that colloquial Cantonese exchange on page 52 is, what with the difference in vocabulary and grammar.
> Most Chinese characters are monosyllabic, and most Chinese words are polysyllabic consisting of multiple characters.
Most modern Chinese words are polysyllabic, but these words are the same in Cantonese and Mandarin. Your comparison to English and French is still false.
> > Someone who speaks only Cantonese can read and understand text written by Mandarin speakers without any issue.
> Because we've all been taught to read and write in Mandarin from the very beginning of our education.
I doubt that. Suppose you were only ever taught written Cantonese. I believe you'd still be able to read Mandarin writings, simply because you would still recognize all the words.
> They share a lot of grammar and vocabulary
So they are not so different after all.
> Phonetic borrowing is one strategy, and the most common one, yes, but that's no different than characters in standard Chinese, the vast majority of which are a radical with a semantic category (but not a complete meaning) + a phonetic component.
Phonetic borrowing, or other ways of making up new characters, might not have been necessary. If we could be bothered to trace the origin of a made-up Cantonese character and find the original Chinese character.
For example, 冇 is wholly unnecessary when we already have 無.
Even with the lazy approach of making up Cantonese specific characters willy nilly, I counted only dozens of them from the Wikipedia article you linked. So how different is Cantonese really from Mandarin, besides the pronunciation?
Looks like you are a Hong Kong nativist. I can totally understand, and even support, your desire and struggle for ever higher level of autonomy and self determination.
However, spewing blatant lies about your own language, culture, or heritage invites only ridicule and scorn from honest people who know any about Hong Kong and China.
See the part about adding an environment file on Windows. On Linux, I set my LANG to en_US.UTF-8 but all the LC_* variables (apart from LC_ALL) to en_CA.UTF-8 and that gets me the right UI/formats mix in GnuCash (and also Chromium, which tries to speak British to me otherwise), and hopefully that works on Windows too.
The Edge popup asks you if you want to import data from other browsers and set the default browser (like what happens when any browser is installed). If you just press cancel a bunch of times nothing gets imported or defaults changed and only some icons get added. That dude just killed it in the task manager so it used the popup's default settings.
Complain about getting the chromified Edge popup as part of a regular update, not about it copying data.