Ancestry has a somewhat smaller copy of the BIRLS database online, covering just the years 1850-2010 [1], and it seems to have been published on their website in 2011:
https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2441/
Our data set from the VA contains data through mid-2020, and was turned over to us in 2022 after undergoing extensive double-checking by the agency, including through non-public VA sources, to confirm the veterans really were all deceased. There's a paper showing the agency's methodology on our site, which we FOIAed from them.
There are a significant number of deceased veterans whose data is *not* included in the BIRLS database, because they (or their family/heirs) simply did not have any contact with the VA concerning benefits in or after the 1970s, which is when the database was first starting to be built. That is, their files almost always still exist on a warehouse shelf somewhere, but they weren't active any time in the past fifty years so they didn't get pulled and indexed into the database. You can still make a FOIA request to the agency asking for one of those files, but the VA will have a lower chance of successfully finding the file, and it usually will take longer for you to get a response.
[1] 1850 is very likely an approximation. While there are certainly deceased veterans listed in the BIRLS database who had birthdates or deathdates in the mid nineteenth century and/or service in the late nineteenth century, they are relatively few. Many of them are actually veterans with likely birthdates or deathdates in the twentieth century whose data seems to have been initially recorded by the VA with a two digit year of birth or death or enlistment/entry, and then assigned to the wrong two digit prefix, causing an incorrect four digit year of birth or death or year of entry/enlistment into service.
In other words, the VA's historic data is very messy and is a great example of an actual Y2K issue.
Agree completely with your comments and the parent's comment. It feels like this shouldn't have been allowed by the courts without better scrutiny and wisdom on the part of the courts.
Anything complex should be written in a competent language like Java. Script languages (like Bash and Python) are for short (a few lines long) scripts. Using the tool outside the scope of what it was designed for is not a good idea.
Tell me you have never seriously used Python without telling me you have never seriously used Python.
I mean, viewing Python strictly as a scripting language? I am honestly lost for words. There are many huge and major applications and web sites written in Python, without people regretting it after the fact. And yet here you are dismissing it out of hand without a single argument.
Meanwhile most of the time topics like this come up and people hate on shell scripts, those of us that like them see those criticisms the same way you're looking at this comment about python: So far out there it's almost not worth responding. I think that's why GGP and GGGP think "greybeards" don't think it's worthwhile based on experience - it's actually not worth arguing against misinformed comments so newer people don't realize it's still heavily used, just quietly in the background for things it's actually good at.
> …not worth arguing against misinformed comments …
Yeah, I have these same response patterns. Shell works really well for some use cases. I generally don’t respond to the comments that list the various “footguns” of shell, or that complain about security holes, etc. My use cases are not sensitive to these concerns, and even besides this, I find the concerns overstated.
Don't be too rude, this is a common view among people who are technically adjacent but not engineers, like IT people. It's an incorrect superstition, of course, but in tech almost everybody has their superstitions. There's no reason to be rude -- ignorance is not a crime.
I see that kind of thing all the time. Usually it is about static types. People think that dynamic languages aren't "serious", or something. It is laughable that these people still make up a significant amount of comments, here in 2024.
Using a tool beyond its design can be problematic.
But Python is not designed to only be a scripting language:
> What is Python?
> Python is an interpreted, interactive, object-oriented programming language. It incorporates modules, exceptions, dynamic typing, very high level dynamic data types, and classes. It supports multiple programming paradigms beyond object-oriented programming, such as procedural and functional programming. Python combines remarkable power with very clear syntax. It has interfaces to many system calls and libraries, as well as to various window systems, and is extensible in C or C++. It is also usable as an extension language for applications that need a programmable interface. Finally, Python is portable: it runs on many Unix variants including Linux and macOS, and on Windows.
When my scripts outgrow bash, they almost always wind up in Python.
That said, Sonnet 3.5 had gotten me much further in bash than was possible before - and it's all really maintainable too. I highly suggest consulting with Sonnet on your longer scripts, even just asking it "what would you suggest to improve".
Indeed and unfortunately. I've been reading up on "the binding problem" in AI lately and came across a paper that hinged on there being an "object representation" which would magically solve the apparent issues in symbolic AI. In the discussion some 20 pages later, the authors confessed that they, nor anybody else, could define what an object was in the first place. Sometimes the efforts seem focused on "not letting the other team win" rather than actually having something tangible to bring to the table.
It's 2 days after Christmas, too early to know the impact of the purchases made based on what AI recommended, either positive or negative.
If you're relying on AI to replace a human doctor trained in skin care or alternatively, your Google skills; please consider consulting an actual doctor.
If she "knows a lot about skincare in general, so she had the capacity to recognize any wrong recommendation", then what did AI actually accomplish in the end.
>> It's 2 days after Christmas, too early to know the impact of the purchases made based on what AI recommended, either positive or negative.
No worries, I can tell you what to expect: nothing. No effect. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Those beauty creams are just a total scam and that's obvious from the fact they're targetted just as well to women who don't need them (young, good skin) as to ones who do (older, bad skin).
About the only thing the beauty industry has figured out really works in the last five or six decades is Tretinoin, but you can use that on its own. Yet it's sold as one component in creams with a dozen others, that do nothing. Except make you spend money.
Forgot to say: you can buy Tretinoin at the pharmacy, over the counter even depending on where you are. They sell it as a treatment for acne. It's also shown to reduce wrinkles in RCTs [1]. It's dirt cheap and you absolutely don't need to buy it as a beauty cream and pay ten times the price.
_____________
[1] Topical tretinoin for treating photoaging: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (2022)
It's a teratogen causing birth defects and miscarriages, so severe that "women of child bearing age taking isotretinoin are required to register for the iPLEDGE program. The iPLEDGE program requires that women taking isotretinoin undergo frequent pregnancy tests and commit to using two (2) forms of birth control in order to prevent themselves from getting pregnant."[1]
From Wikipedia[2]: "Isotretinoin is a teratogen; there is about a 20–35% risk for congenital defects in infants exposed to the drug in utero, and about 30–60% of children exposed to isotretinoin prenatally have been reported to show neurocognitive impairment".
See also pages like r/AccutaneRecovery[3] for people harmed by using it for acne, reporting systemic damage, perhaps permanent damage.
Scroll down[1] for the picture of some of the possible side effects of oral Accutane/Isotretinoin on the mother[3] and note that Wikipedia says "the most common adverse effects are dry lips (cheilitis), dry and fragile skin (xeroderma), dry eyes[8] and an increased susceptibility to sunburn" and wonder how a beauty treatment which improves skin condition has most common side effects which ruin skin condition.
This line of inquiry leads to a fun conspiracy/woo hypothesis; Grant Genereux[5]'s claims that what it does is trigger stem cells to differentiate in the epithelial layers of the skin, which makes thicker skin in the short term (wrinkle free) and worn out stem cells and thick skin in the longer term - and that many small vessels in the body have an epithelial lining of 'internal skin' and that thickens by the same mechanism leading to narrowing and closing of all kinds of internal vessels - tear ducts and sweat glands and blood vessels and inside the kidneys and liver and inner ear, etc. which cause the dry skin and dry eyes "side effects" (direct effects really) seen outside, and the organ damage/dizziness/etc. seen inside. And that it's a teratogen by getting inside cells, damaging them, damaging the DNA/protein building mechanisms causing wider systemic damage which can be long term and is not cleared up by stopping taking Accutane, this is misunderstood as retinoids "mediating hundreds of gene expressions" but is really shotgun chaotic damage and that's why there isn't a single symptom to look for and how it gets diagnosed as many different organ-specific diseases instead of retinoid toxicity damage. And/or causing cellular apoptosis with immune system response to a percieved 'attack', which is then seen as organ damage with immune system activity present, and misdiagnosed as "autoimmune" where the immune system has decided to attack an organ for no reason, which is why autoimmune disorders never have treatments or cures and why they cluster (people with one often get more) despite no good reason that should happen.
And that this whole collection of behaviours is triggered by food with Vitamin A (retinol in the tretinoin family) in it such as dairy and meat fat and Cod Liver oil, and foods with Beta Carotene (retinoids in the same family) such as orange/yellow/dark green coloured fruits and vegetables, and fortified Vitamin A in low-fat dairy and flours and other products through the USA/Europe. And it doesn't take much more than the RDA of Vitamin A to become problematic, and once it builds up in the body beyond the level the body can handle over a few decades, it's like blue touch paper waiting to be lit. Which, he suggests, is why auto-immune disorders cluster together (if you get one, you likely get more), why Eastern Canada Prince Edward Island near a Cod Liver Oil refinery was the highest incidence of Alzheimers in the world and that has been dropping since the refinery closed, and many more connection-between-retinoids-and-disease-states including claims by other people[6].
(I called it a 'fun' idea - it is at least fun along the lines of Tyler Vigen's spurious correlation noticer. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations even if the main idea is not true).
[6] https://nutritionrestored.com/blog-forum/topic/the-known-his... - blog post about paper observing hypervitaminosis-A bone damage in fossil skeletons, articles observing hysteria in Eskimo women, speculated to be caused by Vitamin A toxicity from Atlantic fish liver (callback to Atlantic coast cod-liver oil refinery), connection between hypervitaminosis A and calcified arteries, connection between hypervitaminosis A and scoliosis, hypervitaminosis A in small animals causes bone growth problems and symptoms of depression.
