jtc331

Yeah, there are valid ways to use the data. Looking at the parent again perhaps I was misreading it; I was responding to the idea that you could find the correlation and just go straight from there.

Because of shared memory most panics and seg faults in a worker process take down the entire server already (this wasn’t always the case, but not doing so was a bug).

If you read the thread you’d see the discussion includes still having e.g. postmaster as a separate process.

This is literally the definition of p-hacking, and no, it is not a good thing.

This is why I find America’s Test Kitchen so helpful: they’ve tried everything repeatedly, and because of that it’s rare to find one of their recipes that doesn’t work.

No, because the argument for vaccines causing autoimmune disorders is largely not about live viral vaccines (or at least not them on their own) but rather vaccines that contain adjuvants (and not all do). The idea is that the adjuvants result in the immune system targeting many proteins (not just the proteins ones in the vaccine).

Aurora Postgres supports bog standard native Postgres logical replication.

Notably I didn’t disagree with any of that, and, in fact, take pains to very carefully address only that there are tradeoffs—that is that there legitimate arguments to be made both ways particularly depending on the person.

I don’t object to an individual saying “I’m far better off this way”; it’s often true. But it’s also the case that I’ve observed others who are far less productive working from home.

And we should be intellectually honest enough to recognize both realities.

Even though I’ve personally taken the trade off of remote work, it’s always seemed intuitively obvious to me that there are also massive benefits to being in-person because collaboration, chance conversations, and feedback are more likely to happen naturally and because communication bandwidth is far higher face to face.

The trade-offs are largely around whether those things are desirable. Sometimes they aren’t. But also sometimes they are. And I’ve never understood why there seems to be such a dogmatic insistences that remote is better on all fronts and there can be no acknowledged benefits to in-office work.

That’s hard to believe given there’s plenty of new-build natural gas, which is still a steam turbine, and the gas is definitely not free.

I don’t understand the downvotes. These are specific datapoints we have to wrestle with to make this transition, not a position on desirability of any of these things.

It's nice to be able to hand wave away the problem. "A few hours" is "10 hours", and the instantaneous energy for each of those is very high. When I charge my EV it doubles my normal peak electrical usage (in KW, instantaneous) and quadruples (or more) my average KW usage.

In my new neighborhood a set of ~5 homes is connected to a 50 KVa transformer. Those five homes charging a single vehicle each at the same time is enough to overload that transformer even with zero other demand. That's a real problem.

My understanding is that we're talking about a doubling of demand. Are we ready to double all of our electrical generation and transmission infrastructure?

Conclusion 2: “that the federal entity responsible for reporting health statistics should be firewalled from the entity setting policy due to concerns of real or perceived systematic bias in errors.”

While the US has theoretically good separation of powers between branches, something it is not good at is separation of concerns within the executive.

This is similar to how the FAA both regulates air travel and also runs ATC — a conflict of interest. Ideally the regulatory body would be separate from the ATC to remove this issue.

Edit: missing word.

“Quite the near future” means what to you? 2030? 2035? 2040?

“There is no right to profit” means “the incentive has been removed”.

Congratulations; you’ve just broken the system (even though it was well-meaning).

Given virtually all interventions have no control how do you know they’re successful?

Now it may well be that many interventions are successful. But your assumption of your conclusion is actually the bias the article describes.

Not having any studies to ignore is by definition not doing cost benefit analysis.

> why should it be the financial sector's job to weigh whether someone is good or bad

In practice though that’s exactly what happens. Banks have to look for transactions that are potentially illegal (including OFAC and AML). And the banks not only report but have to block some of those transactions or they become liable for the initial crime (if it existed at all).

The vast majority of those fees flow through to payment networks and issuing banks.

Because most of that revenue actually gets passed straight through to the payment networks and issuing banks.

Eh, they did lie about it repeatedly (as to why and how bits like location and aircraft trajectory). But they did acknowledge it happened I guess is your point.

Actually the “stuck in winter” problem for EVs is a myth: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38883045/electric-cars-sn...

The “charging slows down” is only true for DC fast charging. If you’re charging at home it doesn’t have an effect because the ratio of input energy to battery size is already so small.

I doubt it would outperform EPA estimates (you can only recapture energy not create it afresh with regenerative braking), but compared to ICE cars the percentage of stated range would be very high.

Comparing it to a commercial hotel isn’t really accurate. It’s more like a bed and breakfast. Size of the property matters a lot.

The 1500 hour rule didn’t improve safety, and, in fact was applied as supposed remedy in response to a pilot-error caused crash in which the pilot had well more than the 1500 hours of flight time.

There was enough of an outcry that they were forced to implement a way to keep it free if all you used was email (and checked the “noncommercial” box).

I expect that’s true over a full tank of gas but not when e.g. only 20 miles are left.