SquishyPanda23

You have the power to search for "cannabis iq" and find the literature.

Generally I expect some basic scientific literacy on HN. But of course I should have learned by now to expect science denialism when ego is at stake.

If you want a concrete source look at any of the studies that cite the twin studies, including the meta-analysis from this year.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...

Scientific American is not a peer reviewed publication. They are science journalism and they aren't even particularly careful about their analysis. They posted an article in 2017 claiming cannabis might make you smarter:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/marijuana-may-boo...

The "some folks" include the scientists who actually study this.

But good job cherry picking a study. Hope it makes you feel better.

What do you mean by casual cannabis dismissal?

> "It makes you dumb" was one of their favorite cut downs.

Well, it does measurably decrease IQ. And at least in teens, this reduction seems like it may be permanent.

> It could very well be that marijuana puts you at higher risk of schizophrenia

More likely, marijuana use accelerates the development of schizophrenia among people already at risk.

> it could also be increases in the percentage of cases that actually get diagnosed, etc.

This is generally a valid stock response to these sorts of studies. But it strikes me as a bit unlikely that there was previously a large amount of undiagnosed schizophrenia.

(Unless we have broadened the definition recently).

I think the answer is going to be a form of micropayments.

The system we have now is micropayments. Personal data has economic value and we pay with that.

The engineering problem is to figure out how to make the payment system less indirect so that companies can't rent seek by extracting more data (payments) for the same service.

> What I don't understand is why people are using git for this kind of workflow.

People like to use distributed workflows even with monorepos. E.g. chains of commits, branches, rewriting local history, etc.

It's clear that people want a mixture of monorepos with distributed workflows. There are two ways to get there: add distributed flows to a monorepos, or build a monorepo layer over a distributed tool.

Both seem like valid approaches. The market will decide which approach it prefers.

I haven't been following it closely, but in another thread on Audacity earlier today there was a threat by the Muse group saying that it was illegal to use their public API to download public domain content and that they would collaborate with China to physically track down developers who posted code that used the API. Or something like that.

Again I haven't followed it. Honestly it looks a bit to me like the playbook you see when a project is sold to a private equity firm.

I think the issue is more that the group that bought Audacity had thrown several red flags, of which this is one.

However, Audacity is cool and all, but I wonder if it would be better to create a simplified frontend based on Ardour, the way GarageBand is for Logic.

> "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data.

This doesn't seem to be true. Privacy here means "user privacy" whereas security means the security of the systems holding the user data.

Almost any system that hold large amounts of user data is a counter example. Such systems are typically highly secured but are antagonistic to user privacy.

According to their privacy policy, virtually anything you send them. The only promise they make is that they don't link it in an identifiable way with third party data.

> did he deserve to die?

Is there a coherent answer to this in the case of suicide?

I feel like we enter a liar's paradox since the entity who decides whether you deserve to die is yourself.

Here is the wiki page on the report and the controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_the...

tldr:

Signal removes SMS import functionality, breaking the standard onboarding flow for new users.

Users are told to use two SMS apps if they want to see their old messages.

> exploit gaps in Open Source licensing

Allowing others to fork for profit and give nothing back is entirely the point of permissive licenses.

"Permissive" means exactly that developers are permitted to give nothing back. Licenses without this permission are generally copyleft.

> The permissiveness of open source was one thought to be "we can all succeed together"

Not at all. That's the spirit of copyleft. The spirit of permissive licenses is that "I don't want developers to have to give anything back."

Usually this is done to deliberately allow private companies to profit off of the work without having to disclose their proprietary improvements. That is, presumably, why MIT and Berkeley licenses are permissive: they moved IP out of the university system into silicon valley as a type of indirect economic stimulus.

As far as I know, there is only one known successful approach to working through large ideas, and that is to build solutions to smaller related problems and scaling up those solutions after some kind of objective information gathering.

Generally a well-understood stable system of any kind (including a democracy) evolves from a smaller stable system.

This principle is more or less built into the scientific process, where smaller results are peer reviewed and kicked around to a while before being combined to solve large problems.

I agree, the inexpensive laser printers are amazing.

But I do wonder whether this problem will continue to be specific to ink jet printers. It's easy enough to make a laser printer refuse to print with a third party cartridge.

Many refrigerators do the same thing to prevent you from using third party water filters. I think this is a more general pattern than inkjet printers.

> this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source.

I think the software community is having an "I never thought the leopards would eat my face" moment.

The community pushed for a long time for licenses that donated labor to corporations because the licenses sounded more "free", and that flattered their politics.

When the corporations actually pick up the value everyone left on the table, the community gets outraged.

> What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allows ideas to disseminate faster so people can decide which are the good ones and the bad ones.

Can you cite empirical research showing that the process works the way you believe it does?

> there is no need, ever, for police to have the automatic weapons, APCs, and "non-lethal" weapons they are buying from the military.

I agree with the sentiment, but my impression (based on little evidence) is that the "need" here is to create a wider market for these weapons.

It takes money to develop new weapons, and a larger customer base helps defray those costs.

Wow, prison sentences are inherently unfair to the rich because they're used to living in mansions?

> Hypothetically, what would the net change to the GDP year over year be if we killed all people over a threshold age when they were diagnosed with a terminal disease?

That depends on how profitable it is to provide the treatment for terminal illnesses.

You've confused utility with wealth.

> The US system probably is overly harsh -- in Ireland it's probaby overly lenient

The US system is overly harsh to some groups of people and overly lenient to others, and the imbalance creates its own set of problems.

I would love to see sane prison reform based on data and science.

Meh it's not strategically genius. The crypto community is hugely political and right-libertarian leaning. He's just signalling that he's not going against that trend.

> He's totally neutered the ability of employees to take strong political stances

He absolutely has not. I'm sure they will continue to take hard right-libertarian stances that are common in the cryptocurrency world.

You can't distribute changes to the source code. This is a read-only license.

That's both a practical limitation and a serious criticism of a company that markets itself as open source.

> they looked at the market and felt like they were being underpaid.

I also suspect Firefox engineers are underpaid relative to Google SWEs working on Chrome.

> even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.

It's specifically her dying wish. IMO she's giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.

> It's not a weakness to integrate more information about the problem space into the solution. It's engineering.

You want your solution to depend on the right abstract model of the problem, not on the particulars of the problem.

Otherwise your solution is difficult to extend, and is generally expensive and error prone to change when your problem changes, which happens with 100% probability.

> I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society.

This is a somewhat bizzare argument IMO.

Even if you assume that sociopaths are over represented higher in the hierarchy, base rates force you to acknowledge that most sociopaths are at the bottom.