CarelessExpert

LOL, just because they're running the project, doesn't mean their opinions are sacrosanct or unquestionable.

The statement they made is ridiculous, and I stand by my decision to label it as such.

If you want to explain to me how I'm wrong instead of simply appealing to authority, you're obviously free to do so.

As a bit of meta-commentary, the fact that anyone is even arguing with the points you're making is deeply disappointing to me.

It seems like there's an entire generation of folks out there who can no longer tell the difference between an open technology ecosystem and a closed one...

> And yet here I am, with Linux on an Intel laptop that can't play video without tearing.

Odd, because here I am with an Intel laptop running Linux that manages that just fine.

> Support from chip manufacturers doesn't mean you're actually going to end up with a better user experience.

Honestly, this is just ridiculous. Go ask the Nouveau folks how their reverse engineering project is going.

I love the drive you guys have, and I wish you the best of luck. But Apple could pull the rug out from under you any time they want in a future hardware rev (either deliberately or accidentally), and all you can do is keep on reverse engineering in the hopes of keeping up.

Edit: Updated pronouns since apparently the OP is one of the project maintainers.

Oh sure, look at you, showing up with a reasonable interpretation.

Here we had a near-perfect right wing clickbait article, attacking college students, the California left, mask wearers, and cyclists. And you had to come in and ruin it...

I agree with the sibling poster, here. None of those things represent innovation. a) none are novel in the IDE space, and b) they're incremental.

If "innovation" just means "make things marginally better than before", we've got a very weak definition indeed...

> Nothing I said was racist. Many developing countries have a higher birth rate than the US, no one disputes this.

The trope that folks in "developing" countries universally pop out huge numbers of kids sufficient to "more than offset your decision not to have kids" is just that, a trope, based on, generously, a paternalistic western view of the rest of the world that lacks any kind of nuance.

For example, China's birthrate is below replacement rate. Is China a "developing" nation in your mind?

What about India? Birthrates have also been dropping consistently, averaging around 2.5 children per couple, which is just a bit above replacement rate (2.1), and in many communities birth rates are actually below replacement:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-bel...

Sub-Saharan African birthrates are on average much higher but they've been plummeting for years and the trend is likely to continue:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

All of this reflects a global crash in fertility rates:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

> Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

Frankly, you might want to reflect on why you hold on to these outdated beliefs about the "developing" world.

> He is not sneering at education itself, he is pointing at the (assumed) cultural and political background of that person

You can't untangle those things.

Education is seen as the cause of the "(assumed) cultural and political background of that person", and therefore education becomes the target.

> Maybe I've come off the wrong way here. I do not believe that either party can claim the moral high ground for their decision on raising children.

And the difference is the OP literally was just talking about themselves and their own choices. Go read their comment. They even went out of their way to say "For me, it's practicing what I preach, because I view climate change as the most pressing existential threat to our species" and finished their comment by stating "If you disagree... more power to you! It's your decision to make, and I mean that earnestly."

Never once do they deign to make moral statements about anyone else. It's purely about their decision and why they've made it.

The only way to take offense to that is to look for it.

You, by contrast, proceeded to attack the person's beliefs, going so far as to say of their desire to have children: "you probably never really wanted them anyways."

As for this...

> For the record, I am 26

I'd wait until at least your 30s before you start telling people what they might or might not feel when they get older...

> but the silent generation did not seem to be that concerned during the cold war.

The silent generation didn't grow up expecting reproductive choices. And that's ignoring the fact that nuclear war was just theoretical. Catastrophic climate change is actually happening.

> the success for liberal pro-choice propaganda if anything.

Giving people access to birth control and condoms is propaganda?

> there's going to be plenty of others in developing countries that will more than offset your decision not to have kids.

First, this is at least racism-adjacent as far as I'm concerned.

Second, birth rates are declining throughout the world thanks to increased access to reproductive technology, improvements in income and quality of life, and increased urbanization:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-...

> If your marginal, insignificant impact on the climate is enough to prevent you from having kids, then you probably never really wanted them anyways.

Or they have different values than you. Shocking, right?

> Why should anybody give up kids but keep their iPhones, AC, avocados, and software engineering jobs?

> You might feel differently when you’re older.

Ahh, there it is. That moral superiority that oh-so-often exudes from folks with kids criticizing folks who don't want them.

I'm 42. Married almost 20 years. No kids. Still no desire to have them. Amazing, right?

Suggestion: Don't talk down to people about their reproductive choices. You might not agree with folks but you're no one's moral superior.

> there’s never been a safer time to have a child.

Now.

The entire point is that people are afraid about the future.

Honestly, did you even read the article?

Are you working on it?

Yes, because algorithmic curation is the only form of content discovery...

Still think it's a worthless waste of time that's now contributing to global warming by incentivizing things like reactivating dormant coal power plants.

More broadly, blockchain technology will forever be my go-to example of a (bad) solution in search of a problem.

But I also have a small percentage of my portfolio allocated to an ETF indexed to the price of Bitcoin because the last ten years have proven that, in the crypto market, there's apparently always a greater fool willing to participate in this multi-billion dollar Keynesian beauty contest.

> Reducing R0 only slows down the spread a little.

Reproduction is an exponential function. A small change in R has a large effect in rate of spread.

> We don't have a practical way to reduce it below 1.

First, this is just not true. Even the (likely pessimistic) Israeli data indicates that vaccinations reduce chance of infection by over 60%. This cuts R in half from 5-7 to 2-3, and probably less when you consider the window of infection is shorter for breakthrough cases.

Combined with other measures--contact tracing, masks, social distancing, improved ventilation, etc--the measures that got Alpha transmission below 1 without a vaccine would be effective with Delta in vaccinated populations. This could allow moving to a model of managing hotspots rather than dealing with unsourced community spread.

Second, you presume that there will never be a vaccine effective against Delta. I'd rather we do what we can now--which means driving of vaccination rates as high as possible as quickly as possible--to slow spread and buy time for targeted boosters to come out than to throw up my hands and just assume that everyone is gonna get COVID so we might as well just give up and stop trying.

> There will be no significant herd immunity effect.

This is a statement that lacks critical nuance.

Will there be herd immunity that eliminates the virus from the population?

I agree, the answer is probably "no".

But vaccines significantly reduce the chance of acquiring covid upon exposure, and they reduce the period in which you're infectious if you experience a breakthrough case.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

The result is that R is significantly reduced in a highly vaccinated population. This reduces the rate of spread and the chance any one person will be exposed, thereby protecting the vulnerable.

I know everyone is throwing around the example of Israel's experience, but no one seems to be considering just how much worse things would be for them if they didn't have a high rate of vaccination. The answer: a lot worse. Especially when you consider that, even with Delta, vaccines are highly protective against hospitalization and death:

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...

Oh the implication! Well, you got me there. Obviously we can't just read what he said and take it at face value...

Nowhere in that quote does Fauci say "no one can get sick again". He's literally talking about flattening the curve and the reason for doing so.

Either your reading comprehension is lacking or you need to try harder.

Well, then you should be able to find some excellent examples of public officials (I'll welcome comments from the CDC, WHO, state level health authorities, or similar expert organizations) making the claim that "no one can ever get sick again"! I look forward to the voluminous citations supporting your claims.

As an aside, I find it amusing yet entirely unsurprising that you're of the persuasion to believe the term "woke" is somehow a pejorative. But nice work throwing around what you believe to be insults.

No, some large percentage of the remaining unvaccinated population have decided to put people like my immunocompromised mother-in-law at risk through their actions.

I'm genuinely sick of this "I got mine jack" attitude toward vaccination. Getting vaccinated isn't just about you. Unfortunately we apparently have a good solid 20-30% of the population who care only about themselves. But, who should be surprised. This is just American radical individualism coming home to roost.

And that's ignoring the fact that with Delta there's early indications that it's leading to an increase in the number of younger folks hospitalized or worse.

> Somewhere along the line we went from “flatten the curve” to “no one can ever get sick again”.

Oh please, no public health official has ever said that, and you know it.

The problem is the curve isn't flat, thanks to 1) Delta, and 2) vaccine hesitancy. There's a reason ICUs in the American south are at or over capacity.

> now that I and 90% of adults around me are fully vaccinated

I'm curious, where did that 90% figure come from?

Around here, of the eligible population, about 1 of every 3 has no shot at all, one 1 out of 4 with just a single shot. If you look at the full population, including minors and other ineligible groups, the numbers are even worse.

That means if I go to the grocery store, I'm absolutely gonna be in proximity to someone unvaccinated at some point along the way.

I'm with you. Applications change. I have no objections with what they've been doing and I'm always surprised by the vitriol. Then I remember the people taking the time to comment about Firefox are predominantly the ones complaining. Squeaky wheels and all that...

Good to see the CEI continues to shill for big oil, doing whatever they can to undermine any attempt to address climate change. Right on brand for those monsters. Kinda funny given the likes of Exxon had to stop funding them. But, I'm sure they've still got plenty of folks in the coal industry and so forth keeping them afloat.

Given that article was back in 2019 I wonder what misinformation they're spreading now. Checking, I see they've made the pivot to "kfine, I guess climate change is real, but it's nbd! Also government still bad!"

> In fact, climate change does not endanger the survival of civilization or the habitability of the planet. So-called climate solutions are bureaucratic power grabs and corporate welfare schemes with no detectable climate-related benefits.

The short answer is Delta. The longer answer is:

1) Delta is enormously more contagious and so will tear through the unvaccinated faster and will create more breakthrough infections simply due to greater chances of exposure,

2) Delta is also more virulent and is more likely to put young people (who are less likely to be vaccined) in the hospital,

3) Breakthrough infections are more likely with the elderly or at-risk populations due to poorer immune response, and Delta being more virulent means they're more likely to land in the hospital, and

4) Assuming some reduction in vaccine effectiveness over time, that'll impact high-risk populations first since they've been vaccinated the longest. And those folks have a much higher likelihood of ending up in the hospital because of their high risk status.

> How should I interpret for example the data from Israel?

By reading the following analysis and familiarizing yourself with Simpson's paradox:

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...

You're spreading misinformation. Stop it.

These days the best-of-breed are all web-based, which is fine by me since it's web-based content I'm reading, anyway.

I personally run tt-rss and I quite like it precisely because it's light, fast, has good keyboard shortcuts, and has a solid Android app.

I used to use Feedly and it's also an excellent option if you're not into hosting your own infrastructure.

Well, in Canada (and I'd assume elsewhere, but I've not checked) our ballots include party affiliation, so it's pretty easy to tell the candidates apart if you're paying any attention at all.

Ugh, I know. There's a bizarre number of folks right in the Framework forums explaining how they didn't buy a unit but they would if <insert laundry list here>.

The interesting thing about the Framework is conceptually some of this they can do with just module options or aftermarket components. Trackpoints or different keyboard layouts, different switch styles, different mainboards, etc, could all just be an option in the future since they can sell a kit of parts rather than having to build and sell a range of product lines.