peeters (u/peeters) - Readit News

peeters commented on Pro-democracy HK tycoon Jimmy Lai convicted in national security trial bbc.com/news/articles/cp8... · Posted by u/onemoresoop

epistasis · 2 months ago

Libya is a super super bad example if you're looking for bad US behavior. This is literally the very first sentence of your own source:

> On 19 March 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention into the ongoing Libyan Civil War to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973).

Compared to the South America stuff, this is saintly and angelic behavior helping out the world in every way. It's not the US alone, it's a coalition that expands beyond NATO, there's a UN resolution...

In fact bringing this up as a "bad behavior" example proves just how much of a shining city on a hill the US has been around the world. It's been bad, but it's also done lots of good stuff.

peeters · 2 months ago

I don't think you're understanding what OP actually said. They didn't cite the Libya example as an example of bad behaviour; there wasn't any value statement on it at all. They were saying the fact that they intervened in Libya but not elsewhere was an example of the US intervening when it suits them.

I'm not an expert in US foreign policy so I'll refrain from entering the debate itself, I just think you're not arguing against what the OP is actually saying.

peeters commented on The staff ate it later en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The... · Posted by u/gyomu

notatoad · 5 months ago

this seems to be making its way to western shows as well - when taskmaster has a food based challenge, they often include a reassurance that the food didn't go to waste. and i've seen similar on some youtube shows.

for example: https://youtu.be/_gNZR5IEsAA?si=x5nvoBzC9Xc4fxFs&t=1674

peeters · 5 months ago

Yeah Taskmaster (which I adore) came to my mind too. I think it's more common when the food in question is an animal product, but still it just seems a bit contrived when behind the scenes the catering company is probably chucking tons of food the talent didn't feel like eating on a given day anyway.

It's entertainment, it has an environmental cost, sometimes a big cost. I don't think you need to signal that it's unacceptable for that cost to be paid solely for entertainment's sake. What's the difference between some food waste and burning fuel to drive a boulder out of town for a laugh.

peeters commented on Toronto’s network of pedestrian tunnels worksinprogress.news/p/to... · Posted by u/bensouthwood

canucker2016 · 5 months ago

Toronto Maple Leafs played at Maple Leaf Gardens until Feb 1999. The PATH was created before then.

The portion of the PATH connecting Union Station to the ACC is a few hundred metres at most.

I can't see how anyone in Toronto would help people from Montreal enjoy a Habs win over the Leafs. :)

Torontonians call it the "ACC", (short for Air Canada Centre, before its current rebranding to Scotiabank Arena - Google Maps knows both). Also, it's "Skydome", not Rogers Centre. :)

peeters · 5 months ago

Yeah I was going to say, the ACC is basically connected to Union already, you don't need some complex system of tunnels to get from one to the other.

peeters commented on FBI seized $40k from Linda Martin without charging her with a crime reason.com/2025/07/28/the... · Posted by u/fortran77

Etheryte · 6 months ago

The title doesn't say nor imply anything about her getting it back though? It says her assets were seized which is correct.

peeters · 6 months ago

The article itself has the title:

> The FBI Seized Her $40,000 Without Explaining Why. She Fought Back Against That Practice—and Lost

I think it's decent, but still a bit ambiguous. Less ambiguous than if it just said "She Fought Back and Lost". My initial assumption formed by the title was still that she didn't get her money back.

peeters commented on Live coding interviews measure stress, not coding skills hadid.dev/posts/living-co... · Posted by u/mustaphah

djtango · 6 months ago

I've seen people give weak in person coding interviews then done perfectly fine on a take home and went on to be fine on the job.

To date, I've never gone on to regret hiring someone who blitzed the in person coding exercise.

peeters · 6 months ago

Yeah and I think that's the core of the issue here. In a lot of hiring markets, the cost of letting in a bad hire is higher than the cost of filtering out a good hire.

peeters commented on Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016) magazine.uc.edu/editors_p... · Posted by u/ajuhasz

arrowsmith · 7 months ago

I don't know about the US, but in the UK you can definitely say "D-Day" to mean "an anniversary of the original D-Day", not strictly 6/6/1944. It's not wrong.

Just like you can say "Independence Day" to mean July 4th of any year, not only the specific historical date on which the US declared independence.

peeters · 7 months ago

Hmm I'll take your word for it that that's true, but I would say the examples are very different. Independence Day is a title/holiday retroactively created to commemorate the event (which apparently might not have even happened on July 4).

Whereas D-Day was something soldiers used to describe that specific day even before it happened. And you would hear things like "D-Day plus 23" to describe points in time, you wouldn't have to specify the year

So to me the Independence Day analogy is a little weak.

peeters commented on Neil Armstrong's customs form for moon rocks (2016) magazine.uc.edu/editors_p... · Posted by u/ajuhasz

smnrchrds · 7 months ago

Semi-related:

"Passports please! British paratroopers met by French customs after D-Day airdrop

British paratroopers recreating an airdrop behind German defences to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day were met by French customs officials at a makeshift border checkpost.

Moments after the paratroopers had hit the ground and gathered up their chutes, they formed an orderly queue and handed over their passports for inspection by waiting French customs officials in a Normandy field."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/passports-please-britis...

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ZY4rlAQus

peeters · 7 months ago

> Passports please! British paratroopers met by French customs after D-Day airdrop

Err, D-Day anniversary airdrop. That headline has only one correct literal interpretation, and it's wrong (not ambiguous, wrong).

peeters commented on A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs addxorrol.blogspot.com/20... · Posted by u/zdw

peeters · 7 months ago

> The moment that people ascribe properties such as "consciousness" or "ethics" or "values" or "morals" to these learnt mappings is where I tend to get lost. We are speaking about a big recurrence equation that produces a new word, and that stops producing words if we don't crank the shaft.

If that's the argument, then in my mind the more pertinent question is should you be anthropomorphizing humans, Larry Ellison or not.

peeters commented on Encoding Jake Gyllenhaal into one million checkboxes (2024) ednamode.xyz/blogs/2.html... · Posted by u/chilipepperhott

banana_giraffe · 7 months ago

The site uses "font-size: calc(1.5vw + 1.5vh);" or some variant, for most of the sizes, which has the effect to lock the size for everything to the size of the viewport, regardless of zoom.

peeters · 7 months ago

Yeah that's a very bad idea.

peeters commented on A new pyramid-like shape always lands the same side up quantamagazine.org/a-new-... · Posted by u/robinhouston

peeters · 8 months ago

It's a meaningless distinction. A solid is defined by a 3D shape enclosed by a surface. It doesn't require uniform density. Just imagine that the sides of this surface are infinitesimally thin so as to be invisible and porous to air, and you've filled the definition. Don't like this answer, then just imagine the same thing but with an actual thin shell like mylar. It makes no difference.

peeters · 8 months ago

Oops disregard this, by "has to be identical" I thought you were objecting to the non uniformity of the surface, not the incongruity of the sides' shapes, so that's where my comment was coming from.

The incongruity of the sides certainly makes it not a Platonic Solid, though the article doesn't actually assert that it is. It just uses some terrible phrasing that's bound to mislead. Their words with my clarification for how it could be parsed in a factually accurate way: "A tetrahedron is the simplest Platonic solid (when it's a regular tetrahedron). Mathematicians have now made one (a tetrahedron, not a Platonic solid)...".

It's a dumb phrasing, it's like saying "Tesla makes the world's fastest accelerating sports car. I bought one" and then revealing that the "one" refers to a Tesla Model 3, not the fastest accelerating sports car.