469 karma · joined March 12, 2019
The one thing that disrupts the circadian rhythm dramatically is light. This is well-established and also mentioned in the article you linked.
They wake up that late because they're staying up late. They should be waking up when the sun tells them to, and go to sleep when their body tells them to, which doesn't happen because they're surrounded by light that messes up their circadian rhythm. This has a huge impact on things like anxiety.
Consequently, there can't be one time that is optimal. Why do we work the hours that we do, year round? It doesn't make sense biologically, it's an artifact of industrialization.
Of course, of all the egregious military research that has been undertaken, that one is just a whimsical side note. It could serve as a red herring even without any conspiracy theorist. I'd certainly sleep easier believing that the military is busy researching the gay bomb instead of the doomsday device.
Most conspiracy theories have some sort of factual basis. What makes them conspiracy theories is the wild exaggerations, unfounded extrapolations and unproven connections to all other conspiracy theories.
I have my own "conspiracy theory", which is that people like Alex Jones are assets to whoever wants to divert attention from the factual basis of all these conspiracy theories. Actual conspiracy theorists usually suffer from paranoid delusions and apophenia, they are incapable of maintaining credibility. The factual basis then becomes less credible by association.
So while all the "clever" people get to have a laugh about that clown and his antics, they forgot asking themselves why the hell taxpayer money might be flowing into gay bomb research, and what other ridiculous secret projects might be underway right now.
Your original claim is what I care about: "This is not censorship" is what you said (paraphrased). That's wrong. It's a misconception.
Why is that important? Because we should be worried about corporate censorship as well, not just government censorship. In fact, right now, the government is censoring almost nothing, but corporations are using censorship to maintain "good" ideas and narratives in the heads of their viewers while keeping out the "bad" ones. There is no space for "dissident" or "heterodox" views, neither on left-leaning nor right-leaning media. It's polarizing the country. I don't think that's their job.
"This is credible science, let's seed this to Alex Jones, he'll turn it into a laughing stock!"
It made the list:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing...
Endocrine disruptors should be a serious environmental concern, but now that Alex Jones talked about it, I guess we can safely ignore it.
I agree, it just happens that your narrative is wrong.
There are important distinction to be made between government and private censorship, of course. Nevertheless, the word "censorship" never implies "government censorship".
Many TV stations literally have censorship departments, whose job it is to decide what is and isn't shown, in line with the agenda of the network, not merely what the law mandates.
Some people strike me as particularly odd for blacklisting: Louis Theroux, Brian Dunning and Rickson Gracie must be politically uncontroversial, unless I'm missing something.
We especially do not know whether cloth masks reduce personal risk.
None of the links given in this overly assertive article show that cloth masks work or that they reduce viral load.
All of these are plausible hypotheses and beliefs, but they are still not backed by high quality data.
The hamster study did not show a big difference in outcome with higher viral load, contrary to what the article suggests.
It is possible that you need a minimum viral load to elicit an immune response at all and if so, the virus would first need to replicate to that level in vivo.
The paper that the headline is based on does not really support the headline.
Other links are not specific to COVID.
This is a more reasonable reading:
Banks are different because they create money out of thin air. That has been generally accepted so far, but where is the empirical evidence for banks creating money out of thin air? It's in the paper. That's the contribution of the paper, to show empirically how new money is created.
We don't need evidence (empirical or otherwise) for non-banks not creating money, because that would be proving a negative.
If you want to attack the strong interpretation of the claim, you would have to show how non-banks do create money, which you didn't, because as we already agreed, deposits at non-bank institutions are not considered money.
I implore you to apply the principle of charity (steelmanning) instead of wasting your time on semantic disputes.
If I want to do imperative programming, I can do that just fine in most languages, except for functional programming languages.
Hmm, you're right...
> We can conclude the claim is true by definition.
...which means we don't even need any empirical evidence to say that banks are different and unique from non-bank entities!
> I never asked for empirical evidence for non-banks' inability to create money out of thin air. Werner claimed to have empirical evidence for this.
No, he doesn't. He claims that he has empirical evidence for banks creating money out of thin air, nothing more.
> If Werner had instead said "due to accounting conventions, we declare banks' IOUs to be money and non banks' IOUs to not be money", I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Doesn't that go without saying, considering that non-bank IOUs, such as poker website deposits, aren't considered part of the money supply under pretty much any definition?
If we remove the distinction between private IOUs and bank IOUs, indeed you would have an example of a private entity creating money out of thin air, for a more loose definition of money. However, as we established, removing this distinction is unwarranted, bank IOUs are treated quite differently both legally and materially.
If we maintain the distinction between private IOUs and bank IOUs, then your example becomes simply irrelevant. Any IOUs that may be issued by private entities that are materially and legally different from bank IOUs have no bearing on Werner's claims.
I believe the empirical evidence for private non-bank entities not being able to create bank IOUs is that they're not banks. Am I missing something?
Werner’s second claim is patently false, because the ”evidence” he presents in his paper only describes banks’ ability to create money out of thin air — he presents no evidence for non-bank entities’ inability to create money out of thin air. Thus, he presents no evidence that banks possess an ability non-banks do not possess. And yet, he claims to have done the opposite."
This is awful semantic gaming to "prove" that a false claim was made. If the definition of "money" is fuzzy and there are different kinds of money, if "bank IOUs" and "private IOUs" are materially and legally different from one another, then the strongest interpretation of Werner's words must be taken: He is talking about the sets of money that do not include IOUs from random private entities.
Clearly, banks are special in this regard and the amount of bank-created money on the money supply is enormous, whereas the impact of private IOUs is so minor that we can disregard it.
Germany is a relatively low-wage country considering its productivity, but also its factories are highly automated. If these variables change, production will continue to move to cheaper European countries, just like US production moves to Mexico.
Every german car maker has an electric car shipping.
They know the market better than you.
That is likely already close to the sweet spot, at least for automotive workers.
All of the technical concerns raised by the post are either left unaddressed, or deferred to future extensions of WASM. In other words, the author must be correct in his analysis and the standard has made questionable trade-offs from the outset.
I can think of at least one reason why you might want a register machine: Not every platform is going to use or allow JIT, and a register machine would perform better here, i.e. like Dalvik in the early days of Android.
"Oh, but the implementation details will leak through!"
So what? This is an ivory-tower concern. When you are designing a standard, you must have your mind on possible implementations, which is far more difficult without having created an actual implementation. You can't design in a total vacuum, otherwise your standard can't be implemented properly at all.
Yes, there's a lot of crap on the Play Store, but there's also a lot stuff that I don't like about Android that makes me not want to use it, much less gladly.
There is a lot of prohibitions in the iOS guidelines that serve no purpose but Apple's business interest, such as running a "platform" app that has other apps embedded. Of course, if you're WeChat, you get to ignore that rule.
To pass off all this as "security" or "curation" is just dishonest. There's a lot of crap on the App Store too, but that crap can't be as malicious because iOS has a better sandbox, not because Apple does the literally impossible task of scanning for hidden malicious behavior in its review process.
Of course users are not complaining about having no access to apps that were never developed in the first place, because 80% of the revenue is on iOS and going Android-only makes little sense.