hgomersall

Is it conceptually like the tower[1] library? That's a rust lib for composing services and meta services.

[1] https://docs.rs/tower/latest/tower/

I completely understand that it might be because I've never suffered the pain associated with the thing you're purporting to solve, but I really don't understand what Waymark does.

I find this really common on HN - someone posts a project that addresses a problem and all the intro and docs assume you understand the problem and couch the discussion in somewhat domain specific language.

It might be interesting to me. It might even be relevant to me and I don't know it yet. The problem is I need to work really hard to get to the point of understanding that.

This is an appeal to authors of such posts: please give a motivation that provides the necessary background to understand the problem, and ideally do so in a way that a technical but non specialist reader can understand.

There are loads of uses for improved software in clean energy. You don't necessarily need to move away.

Have you tried lighting a fire without matches? It's deeply satisfying.

So how do you test that gnarly function that outputs a long series of states that interact with each other based on order in non obvious ways? Like, say, a compiler?

Industrial output now is much higher in real terms than in the 70s.

Was my point really that hard to follow? I'm not saying "intelligence" in the strict psychological definition of the word. I mean, perhaps, the thing they claim was the independent variable was in fact a proxy for something else I hypothecated as "intelligence", by which I really meant some as yet undefined thing that on average leads to higher incomes, which could be intelligence in the colloquial sense, because that sort of has that trait and is pretty influential in attractiveness.

Or income is a proxy for, say, intelligence.

Then got their heads chopped off. Arguably the failure of the British monarchs to become absolute monarchs was what saved them from the same fate (Charles I notwithstanding, him being the vent).

I think we're talking at cross purposes. There's a clear equilibrium state which is both higher temperature and notably bad whilst completely balanced from an energy perspective. Climate change is not bad because the temperature is increasing, its bad because it has increased and is going to increase more. The fact we still have baked in warming is additional bad.

The energy received is always the same as the energy radiated, its just the temperature increases to maintain that balance.

I appreciate the sentiment, but is the gunk on the car not the gunk that would have washed down the drains in the first place? Clearly there are plenty of nasty cleaning agents, but one supposes that safe ones might be used (I actually spent a while considering exactly this, and it's possible but not super easy getting an environmentally friendly car cleaner). I guess the issue is it's hard to tell from mere drive-by observation what cleaner is being used.

Right, but you absolutely need the suspicion. If it's too deniable, it rather loses efficacy. It seems in this situation it could be any number of actors, which rather dilutes any intended message.

Why would you want to keep it deniable? What's the point in this sort of sabotage if nobody knows you did it?

Here's another paper from 2010 which i remember appearing. I guess this is just more evidence: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2773211/

No, the alternatives are any number of other solutions that are not given a look-in to the very lucrative duopoly. The network effects are prohibitive for upstarts.

It's also a story, and quite an enjoyable and well written one at that. My 8 year old son enjoyed being read it.

TBF, the original post used the precise phrasing "plant based meat replacement", which IMO covers this like tofu as well as impossible burgers.

No, none of pasta, noodles or home made sausages are UPFs by the Nova classification.

This is kind of the point. We simply don't have a sufficiently good understanding of food and nutrition to be able to say "smoosh these nutrients ands other food derivatives together and you get a healthy food".

UPFs is exactly the smooshing, and is generally done to maintain palatability whilst saving money, not even in an attempt to make a healthy food. Sure, Huel has a different goal, but I'm not sure the end result is any different. Just because it's not hyper palatable, it doesn't mean it's healthy.

Tofu is often used as a meat replacement and is Nova classification 3 at most.

The Nova classification is generally how people interpret this stuff. Generally speaking ultra processing isn't something you do in your own kitchen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

Yes, develop an economy that is not run for rent seekers. Provide a job guarantee so everyone can work at a wage floor. Build housing stock that is actually affordable and desirable for anyone on a normal wage. Make sure healthcare is affordable and available universally. Provide schools that are good regardless of where you live or what you can afford. Those things would be a start.

Even benefits etc are too late. The money should be spent on providing hope for people. It's 45 years of neoliberalism that we are reaping.

That's the point. Most financial investment is really putting money into something higher risk to get a (hopefully) higher return. Most "investing conservatively" is just being a bit more wary as to what risks are acceptable.

Sure, so should we, as society, reward it further by also providing more free money?

Fair point re seeking the best return given the same risk profile.

Allow me to refine my point: It's gambling when you seek to increase your risk profile in the hope of gaining higher returns, without actually doing anything else other than "invest" the money.

Why should having money ever give you a return on that? I ask that question in the context of moral philosophy, not a capitalist society. Surely there are better ways to determine how an individual should live that doesn't typically amount to emerging from a lucky orifice?

Why don't you think they are gambling?

The point is largely around expectation. Sure, the base case of putting money in a bank is very safe, but the interest on that is not. Factor in inflation and its pretty easy to get negative returns on bank deposits.

If you fiddle with "investments" with the intent of making money without doing anything else, that's gambling.

Sticking money in the bank with the hope that it's still there next time you come back to it is not really gambling. You're just doing the default thing.