kongolongo

It's probably more geared towards the gaming market then. 1440p/27 inch is a sweet spot for gaming because you can actually drive that resolution at a decently high fps. Even the latest (if you can get your hands on then) gfx cards still struggle at 2160p for upwards of 100fps, whereas you can hit that in most games at 1440p even on several years old hardware now. For 34 inch I think 1440p will start to look a bit cramped, but at least it's not the usual 2560x1440, it will be 3440x1440.

I think if you're going to support anything - crypto or otherwise, you should start with some level of skepticism, if it can overcome that initial skepticism then maybe it is worth believing in, otherwise remain skeptical imo.

>the iPhone was AT&T exclusive for a long time at the beginning.

I think that was a very different time though. Smartphones were just becoming popular. A lot of other upcoming smartphones also had carrier exclusives at that time (Verizon with the Droid line). I don't know if that would be acceptable in today's world.

A joint move like that by the carriers would be subject to a lot of antitrust scrutiny, where as apple can move on it's own with a lot less scrutiny.

>Moreover, as a citizen of the US that has paid for the R&D of those vaccines through my tax dollars, I have a right to see the results of that research. This shouldn't be a controversial opinion. (it certainly wasn't when the House passed the Freedom Of Information Act 306 to 0 in 1966)

there's hundreds if not thousands of top secret military r&d projects funded by tax money that will never see the light of day regardless of foia, this isn't particularly special and could very well include classified info that needs to flow down very long approval and bureaucratic processes. Hiring more people and then training them on that process would just lengthen the time needed to release the info

This is the better world though. Would you rather have a dating app with no users or so many that they can't possibly fully investigate every false-positive?

There isn't a single war without innocent civilian casualties caused by every side. At least this is under the guise of accidental, some nations do it on purpose.

The most powerful military in the world doesn't mean it can identify citizen from enemy combatants 100% of time. A lot of this is kinda meaningless to discuss without some sort of comparison to what other militaries false-positive rates are. Where is the US rank in mis-identification and accidental civilian killings in modern wars?

ElectroBOOM's exchange with a retired MIT professor (it was over whether or not KVL always holds) was also very polite, respectful, and entertaining and yet surprisingly the professor who must have received and exchanged feedback before having published many, many times seemed to have a meltdown over a the disagreement.

I ended up buying this model as well, but if I were to do it again I'd heavily consider the Sony equivalent just because of the AndroidTV support. WebOS isn't necessarily bad, but lot of native apps on LG don't seem to get the same level of support as AndroidTV and they're necessary to get the best quality from some streaming services (HDR, Atmos, etc)

You could easily argue they both did and do. Raw materials (see Cobalt mining in DRC as example) for semiconductors are tracible to mines throughout central Africa and South America that use child slave labor. Visa/Mastercard uses computers, which have semiconductors, which use slave labor as seen above, so they too use slave labor. It just depends how far you want to set the scope of the argument but you could easily trace all companies in all developed countries to slave labor arguments similar to the above.

>BTW I am deeply surprised that there has never been a cloud hypervisor doomsday vulnerability that has brought down AWS or some other huge provider. Back when virtualization in the cloud got big I would have bet serious money that this would have happened by now.

I think at this point anyone that's capable of launching such an attack would much rather it be as transparent as possible as they'd have far, far more to gain from not disrupting services. Aside from ransomware attacks, I think the general trend has always been towards those type of attacks as they're way more likely to be profitable

I'd consider those more software engineering/management books than computer science in the like theoretical and fundamental sense - not to say that they aren't great books though.

>The problem with Student Loan forgiveness is it would typically help the highest paid Americans. Most people with 100k plus in loans also make very good money.

That's very true. People often don't realize that blanket loan forgiveness is a very regressive policy. The higher you go up in the income bracket, the higher share of the student loan debt. Some kind of income-based or extreme situational (life-changing events, health, etc) forgiveness would be much better.

>Why in God's name would you go 300k in debt to make 50k ?

True especially for a masters program you should be well into early adulthood and it's even more difficult to argue that you were too young to understand the consequences. Schools publish their students past and expected incomes. Unless you have a good reason to believe you are exceptional, those numbers should definitely be used for planning your academic path.

>which got me into a different social group and even though I continued to find some trouble, I did not continue to find ever worse kinds of trouble

I think that was the most impactful part. I'm curious what you think though.

If you were to dissect what makes actually makes a gifted and talented program different or better is it actually anything to do with the selection part of it or is it a result of being surrounded with peers from better socioeconomic backgrounds who are more likely to make it through the selection in the first place?

Take another step back and also consider if you had a twin with virtually the same upbringing as you up until your mom forced you to try out for the magnet program, would they benefit more or less from the g&t school existing or if that funding had been distributed to their under-funded schools? Would more kids on average benefit from the existence of these programs than not?

Obviously there are other confounding factors here but I'll enter this in as a counter-anecdote, I went to a small suburban school district in the north east that had a single, well-funded public high school, our graduation rates, testing outcomes, and college acceptance rates were comparable with g&t schools in other states.

It's interesting you say that because South Korea had scandals where unlicensed nurses, office managers, and receptionists were performing surgery, not to say it isn't difficult to perform surgery, but I think it was doable at all because the core skills you need aren't difficult to pick up for the majority of cases, but the breadth and depth of knowledge you need to deal with more complicated surgeries is why there's a lot of gatekeeping and licensing for professions like surgery or airline pilots.

In fact being licensed for small aircraft in the us isn't much different from a bootcamp in terms of time and effort, but that jump from personal to commercial airplanes is largely in more flight time and some specifics related to larger aircraft, but largely the skills are very similar.

I think the same is true of most software jobs.

I think there can be truth to both. Consider the fact that it may seem easy to you because it's almost second nature in a sense where you're unaware consciously of how much it would take an average person to learn what you're doing from scratch.

>No one gets paid for working hard, they get paid for demand of their skill and expetience relative to supply.

I think that's generally true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take a lot of initial hard work to gain the skills and experience necessary to work "easily" ofcourse there's some people where those skills came easily first anyways but I think those are generally at the tail end of the curve.

That's a good point!

It seems very hard to weigh the cost/benefits of something like this especially when the evidence for the possible health costs are so difficult to collect. Think of all of the possible confounding factors that could result in these health outcomes, the fact that not all plastics are the same (phthalates are not the only compound of concern), and the fact that most probable adverse health outcomes are not acute (we have pretty strong evidence plastic packaging isn't acutely toxic), but would take a long time to develop which further increases the difficulty of forming any type of causal relationship between plastics exposure and health outcomes.

There's a lot of problems societally that happen when you go below replacement rate that are probably not being accounted for in that simulation. For example, the age proportionality can become massively fucked with populations that have a massive majority in retirement-aged people and people under working ages leading to extremely low working-age people. That type of collapse can also accelerate unpredictably since we don't have exact ideas on whether or not there is a "catastrophic threshold" that replacement rates can go under.

>But it seems like most of our problems are caused by overpopulation.

That's too broad of a generalization and not true globally, some countries problems are exactly because of underpopulation. The problem isn't homogeneous throughout the world. It's highly dependent on what populations you're talking about and their circumstances.

>Fields like production, retail, maintenance, etc. would have less workers, but also proportionally less demand.

In some developed countries where recently the birthrates hover very slightly to sometimes below replacement rates can lead to a whole hosts of problems. For example take into account age proportionality as a result of extremely low birthrates in Japan, an ever increasing older and retired population does not have enough younger labor to produce good/services for basic societal function. There's also problems of gender imbalances like in India or China also causing massive issues in the coming generations.

That's interesting because those ingredients are "physical" sunscreens which have been gaining popularity in some part because of concerns over health and environmental impacts of many chemical sunscreens (significant absorption through the skin and subsequently detectable levels in blood possibly leading to hormone disruption and destructive to coral and sea life health)

You're right it definitely doesn't fit neatly under any current anti-trust laws.

I think the justification for why something like exclusive dealing agreements in monopolistic conditions is unfair could definitely be applied to why being a competitor in your own marketplace, while leveraging your customer's data, and boosting your own listings could be deemed unfair and lead to monopolistic conditions too.

That's true, but I think there's a solid case for why this type of practice is anti-competitive and unfair.

Let's say I own a restaurant and instead of improving my food or service I go to my competitor's food suppliers and offer them extra money to not sell to any of my competitors. In isolation, there shouldn't be anything wrong with me making an agreement with another private corporation, but the effect of this is that it creates an unfair playing field for my competition.

Amazon's position as both the marketplace and a competitor in that marketplace, creates very similar "unfair" circumstances that benefit them uniquely on that marketplace (for example placing their offerings higher up in search results, or creating special "recommendations" specifically for their offerings, etc) not to mention, the unique access to information that they have into how well their competitors do (which is not inherently unfair, but when combined with all of the other aspects does make a decent case for fitting the "unreasonably constraining competition" section of anti-trust law)

Does this not fall under "unreasonably constraining competition" section of anti-trust laws? I'm only familiar with the US anti-trust debates (and even then, not too familiar) is there a German equivalent that should be preventing this?

While that's true often these types of weak observational studies are needed in order to fund more robust randomized and controlled studies which tend to be far more expensive and need some even low-quality evidence to justify.

In this case the evidence is particularly weak as even the paper notes almost every attempt at retrospective randomization or control makes the association basically disappear.

The limitations of prospective observational studies will generally be the same regardless of the topic, there are few controls, a lack of randomization, and mechanisms of action are only proposed and not directly tested for (in this case the paper doesn't suggest any mechanism of action at all). This paper simply states that there is a correlation with alcohol abstinence and all-cause dementia. That claim alone is probably true, but without randomization or controls dementia can not be directly attributable to alcohol consumption because there could be all types of confounding factors. As an extreme hypothetical imagine if in a fictional society only the wealthiest .01% could afford alcohol, nearly any observational study will show better health outcomes for alcohol drinkers if you don't control for wealth. In reality observational studies have to control for many, many more factors to be considered strong evidence of causation.

From the paper: "It is difficult to provide evidence of causality in observational research, but triangulation of evidence from alternative study designs and across different research settings has been identified as a promising avenue ... Among current older drinkers, the current study failed to find a consistent relationship between alcohol use and dementia across different contexts, some of which are likely to be subject to quite different confounding structures Meanwhile, Mendelian randomisation studies to date have generally failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between alcohol use and dementia, except perhaps with respect to age of onset for dementia. While there are limitations associated with the current study, as well as the studies based on Mendelian randomisation, strong evidence for the causal link between alcohol use and dementia remains elusive."

I didn't say discretion means policy can be ignored, it's part of the interpretation of policy. Whether or not a policy is applicable for specific circumstances is part of discretion. It explains why policy is not universally applied and appears inconsistent.

Nothing about one drug being denied approval despite having more successful trials than another drug alone demonstrates that policy was ignored or that it wasn't considered.

Policy also has to be flexible when it comes to things with as many complexities as medication. Coming up with a universal standard for approval is extremely difficult. There can be issues both if it's too rigid or too lax. The role of policy in most cases such as this is supposed to be a guide, not a strict pass or fail for every possible criteria. Discretion from the regulators is needed to accommodate for cases that don't fit neatly into existing policies.

As a comparison, look at how nearly all of the big social media platforms all struggle with policy interpretation and enforcement around topics such as misinformation or hate speech.

Policy has to be interpreted and enforced by people and that isn't always going to be consistent even with the same person let alone the fact that's its never the same person or group of people overseeing every decision.

What do you think of fields like medicine or biology where preprints can become a source of misinformation. For example a lot of conspiracy around unproven treatments for covid, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine safety directly source preprints that never make it to publication.

Associated with sure, but at what exposure levels? Can we expect all microplastics to have this affect? What if the lower fertility rates are tolerable compared to the benefits of plastic use overall?

From your first source: >Data are still preliminary but suggest that ingested MPs bio-accumulate in mammalian tissue, including the testis, with outcomes on semen quality in rodents, as a consequence of inflammatory state and oxidative stress damage.

>The mechanisms decreasing fertility rate during the lifespan are still poorly understood.

>Taken together, although studies in mammals are still limited, preliminary observations point out a possible risk of MPs for male fertility.

The evidence is still "preliminary" and data "suggests" some outcomes but nothing is close to definitive. There are lots of confounding factors that can cause lower fertility that are explicitly noted in the that source. For example they even suggest that the microplastics themselves might not be causing harm, but rather that they act as "sponges" or vehicles for concentrating other pollutants that are actually decreasing fertility.