ShrimpCurler

joined 2 years ago
[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

A different context, but I think this is actually a pretty good rule for software engineering. A number of times I was sure a problem was someone elses fault, only for them to find my own silly mistake that I was overlooking. Sometimes the opposite also happens to me. Now I really make sure and typically find the actual root cause of problems before I suggest someone else caused it.

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago

It should have been an eye opening moment the last time he got in. But, here we are.

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah people in the US tend to assume everything is about the US. Sometimes it's good to remind them that other places exist and have internet.

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You got me curious and I wasn't satisfied with any of the existing responses to this. I agree that public sightings would certainly be correlated with whale population, but it would have plenty of other compounding factors, so it's a pretty poor way to estimate population.

The Internation Whaling Commission will do sighting surveys do get an actual population estimate. This is with groups of specific people going out in boats and/or planes to spot them and using those numbers to extrapolate population number with certain confidence intervals. I'm not sure how they do the extrapolation, but I can't be bothered looking into it further.

I did also find this plot using population estimates, including a projection to 2030 (made in 2019)

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/humpback-whale-population-hunted-to-near-extinction-recovers/11609318

I'm guessing we would have the capability to gather more accurate measurements, but there's probably just no funding for that and the current sighting surveys are good enough for what we need...

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

David McRaney has some really good content on this topic. I recommend listening to his podcast episode called How Minds Change, about deep canvasing. He has a whole book by the same name, if you want to read more about it.

Edit: I should summarise the key points I've taken from consuming his content:

  • Facts and figures don't change minds, stories people can relate to are much more effective
  • Changing minds can take a lot of time
  • An approach known to have a decent success rate is to have a calm discussion where both people are trying to understand each other and find some common ground while following the steps of deep canvasing

Having said all that, it's best in 1 to 1 conversations. Not sure how effective you can be on the internet, but I do think it's best to try to show understanding of other peoples views and steel man their arguments (opposite of straw man) while sharing your own views.

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago

Well there wouldn't be much point to the Great Chinese Firewall if lots of uncontrolled information was flowing in and out through social media.

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago

Well now seems like a very good time to set a precedent

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you fully grasp how Wikipedia works and how much work is put into it to keep it up to date and accurate. Maybe you should try changing the meaning on that page and see what happens (although I don't actually condone that kind of behavior).

I could vouch for that specific article, because it words it better than I could. But, it seems you'd rather have a ridiculous argument than have your question answered...

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Wikipedia is probably the most trustworthy source around. It can be wrong so you should still verify it if you want to be sure. But, I don't think there's another site with a large amount of knowledge that is so consistently accurate.

What you should have learned from school is that you don't cite it in your papers, because it's not the original source for anything. But, you definitely should be using it for your research and using its citations to go deeper.

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I could understand that. But, with a bit more context from the article (that I should have included), it's talking about the criminals that are targeting specific individual children to assault them.

view more: ‹ prev next ›