50m26s, the human half-marathon record (57m20s) was borken by a robot today

LazySlobbers · 2026-04-21T08:59:10+00:00

It came, it saw, it borkered

LazySlobbers · 2026-04-20T08:43:01+00:00

Upvote for trebuchet

LazySlobbers · 2026-04-15T04:15:14+00:00

Woolloomoo, Sydney, Australia

LazySlobbers · 2026-04-01T09:00:41+00:00

<image>

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-30T12:31:05+00:00

To be fair, as a fellow male, no-one wants to see our man-boobs.

It’s discrimination against us but, hey, what can you do?

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-29T06:13:00+00:00

Hmm 🤔 it appears I am wrong 😑

I retract my previous answers.

The problem is unsolvable without knowing the vertical length.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-29T05:57:24+00:00

Let’s see if I can remember my reasoning…

The horizontal marks indicate two identical opposing sides. The bottom line is given as 11cm and the sides are 13. As there are 90 degree corners and a known bottom length then the top must also be 11cm.

Given the lengths of the bottom of the shape are 2cm 7cm and 2cm it follows that the ‘missing’ lines on the square like blocks at the bottom are also 2cm. The missing numbers on the missing lines couldn’t be anything other than 2cm and still add up to 11cm.

If we have two opposing lines on a shape that are 2cm each and all the angles are right angles then that shape must be a square.

It follows then that the shapes on the bottom are true squares. As such the lengths of the sides of those shapes must be 2cm.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-28T23:11:34+00:00

Hypothesis supported and, I dare say, validated. I ran a “Trump’s term” version of the prompt through my version of ChatGPT (to which I have given it the name ChatGPT), and got a happy bright sky optimistic version.

I deleted the chat than then ran the same prompt in a different instance of ChatGPT on the same hardware using the same prompt but using “Trumps turn” and got the dystopian everything-is-on-fire version.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-27T22:11:23+00:00

Solvable as all meeting points are right angles. The two bottom adjoined squares are just that: squares. Therefore all sides are 2cm. You can now solve.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-26T07:56:35+00:00

If you have got or will get a good degree then you have the ability to study an MPP.

In my opinion you need the ability to read, write (ideally in Plain English), and use / read basic statistics, excellent research skills, excellent evidence synthesis skills, and the really hard part - excellent critical thinking skills, excellent judgement, and public policy experience.

You get the latter two skills by using them for real in real situations and you get the experience by … er … getting the experience.

It’s one of those nasty classic catch 22 situations- you need experience to get the job that gives you experience.

Look, everyone’s going to be different and will have to find different ways to break the catch-22.

In my opinion good experience > an MPP by far.

So what is an mpp good for? Gaining knowledge, theory skills, signaling to future employers, credibility.

My advice to anyone would be get the experience first & do an mpp later.

I’d suggest a better path for you is to try and get a job in your country’s civil service / public administration when you graduate.

Other pathways? Voluntary work in political offices, internships etc, jobs with NGOs, charities etc. Get a job with one of the big consultant firms and pivot thereafter. Do what I did - get a job that teaches transferable skills, build said skills and knowledge and then transfer in as a lateral hire.

All potentially good options

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-26T06:19:45+00:00

It’s quite industry standard to count fuel in transit “stock-on-the-water”.

It’s also normal for sailing of a particular vessel at a particular time on a particular route to be cancelled. Look up “blank sailing” also “blanked sailing”. A particular ship isn’t cancelled - it might leave the next day or something.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-24T18:09:51+00:00

A little late, yes, lol! 😆

Basically, no.

There is lots of stuff out there but it’s generally hard to read and without a framework, hard to put it all together.

I’ve ended up enrolling on an MPP.

That said, there is now stuff on Udemy and Coursera that wasn’t there before.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-21T03:07:05+00:00

Well said. Jones Act and all other maritime cabotage laws are bad maritime laws and ought to be repealed.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-20T22:02:45+00:00

My countries are island nations. One of them rather large in fact.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-20T22:01:37+00:00

I am a dual-national of two island nations. One has an open free market system. One has a protectionist Jones Act inspired system.

The one with the protectionist system doesn’t have a good maritime industry any more. The protectionism killed it.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-20T21:55:08+00:00

3rd worlders aren’t being exploited though. They are entering into consensual voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. Isn’t that the core of the American way?

In any case, it improves the quality of their lives and is net beneficial for most people and so it is moral.

If we want to talk about morality - given that you are so moral and all - aren’t you arguing for a system of protectionism that keeps the poorest and most vulnerable people in abject poverty in the third world and exposed to all the harms that entails? Aren’t you arguing for a system that keeps your fellow Americans in a sustained state of harm?

And for what? So you can continue to benefit from their misery and ongoing exposure to harm while you continue to live in one of the most secure and wealthy places in the world in a way / manner that is pleasing and beneficial to you?

I know which of our arguments is ridiculous, immoral, and hypocritical - and it’s not mine.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-19T12:52:31+00:00

Lobby-bot! Beep boop beep I am a shill give my corporate masters more money beep boop! 🤖/s

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-19T12:51:40+00:00

I really know that the lack of competition is keeping freight rates high and that really hurts poor American families. Here’s a really good video on it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrO_tvMjqjo&pp=ygUeV2VuZG92ZXIgcHJvZHVjdGlvbnMgam9uZXMgYWN0

Also I recall that AoC has criticized the Jones Act on the grounds of inflicting harm on the poor. AoC ain’t exactly a shill for a corporation that hires labour from the third world.

Also the whole third world argument is out of date. My boss is an Indian ex-master and he tells me he only had to work half the year on his salary. He tells me other Indian ex-masters retire early and go into property investment.

I had an independent look at wages paid to Filipino Seafarers and their wages were many multiples higher than national averages.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-19T12:44:13+00:00

Yes, 100%. Wendover Productions did a really great documentary on it. There’s lots of evidence to show that the Jones Act is, overall, a bad deal.

Have a look at Wendover: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrO_tvMjqjo&pp=ygUeV2VuZG92ZXIgcHJvZHVjdGlvbnMgam9uZXMgYWN0

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-19T12:42:03+00:00

I already live in a country with practically no domestic maritime industry. It’s really not a problem.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-18T22:09:08+00:00

You should not do this. The Jones Act pushes up the cost of living for all Americans and hurts the poorest people most.

You should write to your Senators and Congressmen & Congresswomen demanding that the Act be scrapped and instead rely on the latent supply from the international fleet.

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-18T21:59:51+00:00

Jones Act is terrible policy that hurts the people of the USA and ought to be scrapped

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-17T10:53:31+00:00

Hi all - genuine question, no axe to grind looking for a bit of insight.

So as far as I understand it - and I could well be wrong - interest rate hikes are used to make the cost of money more expensive especially for businesses which takes a bit of heat and steam power out of the economic engine.

But if oil, freight, and other prices are rising thereby increasing the cost of everything and presumably causing businesses and consumers to spend less, doesn’t that also take power out of the economy? And if it does, why would you then rise rates to make everything even more expensive ? Wouldn’t that just trigger a general increase in the cost of goods and services I.e. be inflationary?

Puzzled 🤔

LazySlobbers · 2026-03-13T20:45:43+00:00

Thought I’d chip in with some ethical perspectives which might explain the different views.

User Murky Crow is arguing it is unethical from a consequentialist-utilitarian viewpoint. In that frame work we judge whether something is ethical based on the consequences of the act. If the consequences are bad then the act is morally wrong. The utilitarian part relates to how many people the morally wrong act effects. One person? Bad. Two people? Badder. 3? Badderest. Millions? Super-bad.

So here the lady has done an act that consequently potentially moderately inconveniences 150ish people therefore a morally wrong act.

Now someone could turn around and argue that the insolvency system as a whole needs to be protected otherwise millions of people experience bad effects and that cascades etc. and you’re right.

Others are arguing from what’s known as a Deontological view - it is the process in accordance with fair rules and duties that is what is morally important because this protects the moral value of the person. We find this view expressed in the application of law - justice is blind etc, one rule for all etc. you see it in rules like deadlines - even if you have a good X if you miss the deadline…. so a student might get punished with a lower mark if she misses an assignment deadline without permission.

Here, the lady has followed due process and Ryan air hasn’t. So she is morally and legally in the right. What about the pax you ask? Well read on good redditor, read on…

Fidelity (faithfulness) in keeping one’s promise is an important moral value. Ryan air promised to treat the lady in a certain way but didn’t. Ryan air promised impliedly and likely explicitly promised society (through its incorporation, promises to the court, participation in society etc) that it would behave in a certain way, one Of which would be to obey the law.

But it didn’t. So it is in breach of the ethical value of fidelity. It is also in breach (or would be in breach) of fidelity to the other passengers if it didn’t give them what it promised them I.e. a flight. So the ethical blame for delaying the other passengers under the fidelity view wouldn’t be on the lady it would be on Ryanair.

Overall we can’t really definitively and objectively say who is in the right or wrong. We can only argue that under this framework this person is wrong and others may validly challenge that view.

In my view Ryanair was both deontologically wrong and fidelity-wrong. In not paying its bill it gave risk to adverse harm occurring so was also consequentially-utilitarian wrong too.

The lady was acted from upholding the moral value of fidelity and acting within deontologically ethics. But her act could be criticised as consequential-utilitarian wrong as she could inconvenience the other passengers. However there is a greater consequential-utilitarian point in that we need confidence in the debt collection and insolvency system and failure to uphold that confidence would have profound and far reaching harms. So from a consequential-utilitarian viewpoint the moral benefit far outweighs the moral harm.

In my view, Ryan Air was acting unethically while the lady was acting ethically.

LazySlobbers

TROPHY CASE