I'm pretty skeptical of modern philosophers in general.

Hijacking the thread: are there any worth reading? I'm not entirely uninterested in modern phil, but when it comes to being recommended 'big names', I'm suspicious if anyone has ever finished Zizek (which reminds me of this asinine aside-to-an-aside that combines misremembered Hegel, the Simpsons, and some obscure moment in the Second Pizdziszewo Revolution) or read the likes of Scruton for reasons beyond "fails at information theory as hard as he makes libertarians jizz in their pants." Not to mention work-related quantum bullshit.. What would y'all recommend?

Starting computer engineering next month, they thankfully will not make me repeat calc 1 or intro physics or that kind of shit. I also got to test out of things like Intro to Measurements, since, you know, common fucking sense for the win today.

Doing fine in general. Something something ru🗲🗲ian drones over Poland. I've been somewhat tired lately, but don't know if it's some flu going around or just a couple of unusually draining days.

There's a lot of it in Greek writing, though it's also clear that they were pretty self-aware in that style. Iliad is chock-full of exaggeration-by-convention, Thucydides stresses at key places basically going "no, guys, I'm not saying this for effect like other writers usually do, it happened like that" and counts on reader not being gullible in that regard, and Aristotle disses on authors overusing these modes as immature and lacking. IIRC dissing on Aristophanes', since that was his thing. Plutarch often juxtaposes contemporary hearsay with plausible causes/effects, emphasizing a couple of times how the style of other (sometimes lost) authors muddled the events.

It's kinda like how 'silver age' of Latin gets the rep of no substance and all-style, but that's because imperial absolute ruler changed the purpose of rhetorics from discourse to entertainment. They were aware what's being said when nothing is being told -- which Seneca corroborates in his writing while under banishment -- we're just left guessing what those nothings are about exactly. We typically read Greek tall-tales and think they were swallowing it whole, which I doubt they took too literally themselves.

"the sunchoke problem"

I don't know, sometimes the novelty of it is enough? Then again, I do admit to having rather plain palette, willing to favour texture to flavour.

The flesh of the ground-strawberry1 is very different to that of the arbute-tree,2 which is of a kindred kind: indeed, this is the only instance in which we find a similar fruit growing upon a tree and on the ground. The tree is tufted and bushy; the fruit takes a year to ripen, the blossoms of the young fruit flowering while that of the preceding year is arriving at maturity. Whether it is the male tree or the female that is unproductive, authors are not generally agreed.

This is a fruit held in no esteem, in proof of which it has gained its name of "unedo,"3 [3 He suggests that it is so called from "unum edo," "I eat but one;" a rather fanciful etymology, it would seem.] people being generally content with eating but one. The Greeks, however, have found for it two names—"comaron" and "memecylon," from which it would appear4 that there are two varieties. It has also with us another name besides that of "unedo," being known also as the "arbutus." Juba states that in Arabia this tree attains the height of fifty cubits.

- Natural History, Pliny the Elder.

The biggest problem with Pliny is that he can go from "astute and correct according to modern science" to "Herodotus-grade gossip" three times within a single page. Unless I mixed up my classics, he also described things like the water cycle with remarkable detail only to conclude with "unless the Mars is visible, then everything is wet!" or some such. It's a wild ride.

More on topic, a lot of these 'forgotten plants' were hardy enough to survive without refrigeration and just nutritious enough to be tolerated over the lenten months. I had a couple through renfair people, like skirret and salsify, that I could maybe see make a comeback, but a lot of them are an acquired taste to say the least.

I've been annoyed with AI-generated code so many times I don't even bother any more. It's basically:

1. Feed an idea.

2. Be given someone's mangled github repo that's somewhat similar to your idea.

3. Recognise a deep problem with the code, assuming it'll run without corrections.

4. Realise you can either correct that code and work around its weak points, or write it yourself after being made aware of easy fuckups.

5. Notice how it took more time to do all of that than to write a design document draft.

6. "Huh, turns out I can do that by feeding ffmpeg/awk/LabView/establishedToolOfChoice output into these 10 lines of Python."

Something something and an email with a list of fallacies and a quote from Yudkovsky's libertarian refutations on AInobelievers. Begone! I'm done wasting time on midwits with neologism addiction.

I like how llms can usually tighten my documentation, tho.

Vice President of Population Health

Can't lose aiming high. Fingers crossed and all that jazz.

As to weddings, It's hardly my place, but I've been to ones ranging from "350 people in a literal palace rented for three days" to "12 friends and family served a nice three-course dinner after a ceremony at the registry office" and the cheaper end of the scale seems to be universally more enjoyed by everyone involved.

Are US trains notably cheaper or more convenient than airlines or buses? Are they seen as this rustic freighter of the past that ended the era of cattle drives you may indulge in Dollywood? I'm asking because for us EU folk, the answers are unsurprising "yes, and I use them daily" and "no, they feel more modern and 'civilised' than most of the planes I flew."

The truth is that I needed teachers and professors to get me to understand electrodynamics, but for the most part, I grokked Bleak House because I read a ton of books before it that weren't part of my educational curriculum.

It'd be easy to grokk CED if the Poynting vector was as easily experienced as classism or poverty or long-winded descriptions of weather.

And indeed, to their credit, they don’t pretend that they know how to bring the “problematic” readers up to proficiency.

Don't stigmatise the reading of not-so-great books? I'll admit to smirking when told I don't read that much by comparison, only to hear a litany of YA novels that'd make Eragon read like Zamyatin... but don't put folks down for choosing to read for pleasure. Reading utter crap won't boost your vocab, but it's leagues (or would 'miles' be more appropriate for the modern reader?) better for you than vegetating in front of a screen.

As the students read, they must translate what they read into modern English, explaining what each passage means.

This isn't easy; going from academic to vernacular register is on par with translating from a foreign language, effort-wise. Doubly so for Dickens, who takes a page to say a sentence.

veen's mention of a vocabulary percentage is on point, as reading (in a foreign language) with comprehension is painful below 90-98%, especially if the goal is for the reader to acquire new vocabulary. It's why comprehensible input is so huge in classical languages these days (and historically, before German school reforms grammaticised it): Latin isn't difficult to read if you start with an introductory text (Orberg: Roma in Italia est. Italia in Europa est. Graecia in Europa est. Italia et Graecia in Europa sunt.) rather than introductory author (Caesar: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur).

My sabbatical was accepted, I'm taking a year to push hard towards habilitation. Success or not, I'm leaving.

Also, gonna use that year to learn some data science tools beyond "Python and some R, I guess?" and... euch, actually learn and understand, <vomits mid-sleep>, some finance <dry heaves>. God, I still think this is too mature of me.

kb (and others too!), what do you recommend? Is there something that's conceptually For Dummies but isn't afraid of maths? 'cause in my experience it's either "here's de Vries equation describing <white noise in fluent garbage>" or "money can be exchanged for goods and services, here's a five-page description of a fucking supply-demand graph."

Should I pay a subscription to read that thrilling piece of journalism

Nah.

Boy Accidentally Orders 70,000 Lollipops on Amazon. Panic Ensues.

Holly LaFavers said she was eventually refunded $4,200 for her 8-year-old son’s order of Dum-Dums candy.

Piles of red boxes labeled Dum-Dums sit outside a front door with two white columns on either side.

The delivery of Dum-Dums lollipops was left outside of the LaFaverses’ home on Monday in Lexington, Ky.Credit...Holly LaFavers, via Associated Press

Christine Hauser

By Christine Hauser

May 8, 2025

On Sunday morning, as Holly LaFavers was preparing to go to church, a delivery worker dropped off a 25-pound box of lollipops in front of her apartment building in Lexington, Ky.

And another. And then another. Soon, 22 boxes of 50,600 lollipops were stacked five boxes high in two walls of Dum-Dums. That was when Ms. LaFavers heard what no parent wants to hear: Her child had unwittingly placed a massive online order.

“Mom, my suckers are here!” said her son, Liam, who had gone outside to ride his scooter.

“I panicked,” Ms. LaFavers, 46, said. “I was hysterical.”

Ms. LaFavers said in an interview that Liam, 8, became familiar with Amazon and other shopping sites during the pandemic, when she regularly ordered supplies. Since then, she has occasionally let him browse the site if he keeps the items in the cart.

But over the weekend, Liam had a lollipop lapse. He told his mother he wanted to organize a carnival for his friends, and mistakenly, he said, he placed an order for almost 70,000 pieces of the candy instead of reserving it.

And so the double ramparts of suckers rose on their doorstep, where the excesses of e-commerce crossed paths with their tight-knit community.

Ms. LaFavers said that she discovered something was amiss after a shopping trip early on Sunday, when she checked her bank balance online. “It was in the red,” she said.

The offending item was a $4,200 charge from Amazon for 30 boxes of Dum-Dums. Frantic and upset, she called Amazon, which advised her to reject the shipments. Ms. LaFavers was able to turn away eight of the boxes, totaling 18,400 lollipops, but the 22 boxes containing 50,600 lollipops had already landed.

“My Alexa didn’t even ding to tell me they had been delivered,” she said.

Ms. LaFavers said that she was then told by Amazon that it could not take the candy back for a refund because it was food. So she tried to send back to the virtual shopping world what it had unloaded on her in the first place.

“Hi Everyone! Liam ordered 30 cases of Dum-Dums and Amazon will not let me return them. Sale: $130 box. Still sealed,” she wrote on Facebook on May 4.

Our business coverage. Times journalists are not allowed to have any direct financial stake in companies they cover.

Here’s more on our standards and practices.

The post attracted the attention of local news stations and national media outlets, highlighting the financial treachery of online activity.

Parents commiserated on her Facebook page and shared solutions, like detaching payment methods from online accounts, setting up alerts for large purchases or simply keeping children off phones. One child spent $980 on virtual Roblox game currency. A 3-year old playing on a phone during an airport delay spent $300 on movies. A woman’s granddaughter spent $1,000 on Google Play.

“As a mom that has experienced unwanted orders, I feel your pain,” a woman wrote.

Companies offer steps on how to prevent and dispute unauthorized purchases in online shopping and games.

Roblox advises parents to use password-protected purchasing, and to call its customer service center before initiating a dispute with a payment provider, which would stall the refund process. Epic, the makers of Fortnite, has safeguards that include an “intent-to-buy” step, and purchase cancellations.

On Apple devices and accounts, family-verification settings include controls called Ask to Buy for a child’s device, or “don’t allow” for in-app purchases.

Google Play’s purchase-verification process also has additional safeguards on family accounts that reverify the user is authorized to make a purchase on apps meant for children ages 12 and under.

Amazon eventually told Ms. LaFavers that it would give her a refund. In an email, the company said that it “worked directly” with her “to turn a sticky situation into something sweet.”

On Wednesday, after the refund came through, Ms. LaFavers decided to give away the Dum-Dums instead of selling them. One neighbor offered to distribute some on Halloween. A local chiropractor asked for two boxes, and a bank in Somerset, Ky., said they would take five boxes.

“I am giving them to the individuals that offered to buy them from me, or I am donating them to a charity or a school or church,” Ms. LaFavers said. “People that I have relationships with were willing to buy those to help me out.”

Spangler Candy Co., the company that has made Dum-Dums since 1924, invited Ms. LaFavers and Liam to visit its factory in Ohio. “We also love that so many people jumped in to offer to purchase the extra cases,” said Kirk Vashaw, its chief executive, in an email.

Liam’s online browsing privileges are on pause. But Ms. LaFavers said he, too, had tried to find a way to recoup her money, telling his mother: “It’s OK, mom, we can sell my Pokémon cards.”