kryogen1c

> There's also a huge difference between "just asking questions" and "just asking questions"

What is that?

Let's pretend I'm a card carrying jackboot wearing nazi. What question could I just ask, in bad faith? How come black people commit more crime? How come more black people are in prison?

Those are actually fantastic questions that, seriously considered, could lead to some significant societal change.

I can't think of an instance where the good/bad faith of the asker has any bearing on the question.

I never did this personally, but I worked with civilians that did 9 80s. If management isn't willing to consider "exotic" schedules, 9 80s seem like a really good starting point and a pretty sweet deal

In the US nuclear navy, the power plants have to be manned 24 hours a day both operating and shutdown. Ships in maintenance periods also generally go through a phase where ship personnel have to support maintenance work around the clock. Additionally, some parts of the training pipeline are run 24 hours a day.

I say all that to say that while I am not a subject matter expert, I have a significantly above average amount of experience working various types of rotating shift work as well as duty rotations (a duty rotation is working 24 hours every 2, 3, 4, or 5 days depending on available manpower. Yes, you read that right - for a month, I was at work 28 to 32 out of every 48 hours).

Forget 4 8 hour days, I would work 4 10 hour days right now in a heartbeat with no discussion or regrets.

1) it is invaluable to have a normal working day where you can do tasks - change your oil, get your haircut, go grocery shopping without a crowd, see a matinee, the list is endless.

2) the scope of weekend trip you can plan across 3 days instead of two is exponentially higher. So much room for activities.

3) time after the working day just isn't that useful. Drive home, eat dinner, now it's 630/7pm. Waste a couple hours, go to sleep. After a 10hour day, the time after work is precious and useful to relax, but then you get a whole other day off.

It surely isn't for everyone, but it surely is for a lot of people. The thing that blows my mind is no one is even willing to try.

Thanks for connecting the dots, I was doing this research before I found your comment. I knew I had searched for covered telecom equipment last year.

Also, I didn't know the covered list was being updated. Does anyone know what AO Kaspersky is? Is that the official corporate name for the anti-virus Kaspersky?

> It now takes 2 seconds to start on an 8-core computer with a PCIe 4 NVMe SSD.

The same is true of the snipping tool, which I find truly astounding.

Microsoft is really staying on track for alternating good and bad OSes.

> here’s my take on effective altruism: I think it’s a justification for being ambitious, for getting as rich as possible, and (in many cases) by any means possible, and keeping your conscience clear along the way.

Can someone explain to me what happened here? The last I knew about EA was from a JRE podcast in 2017 with macaskill, where his ideas were to spend currency where it had the greatest impact and with the greatest efficiency while presenting the least friction to give, and I recall these ideas and the charity being supported by thinkers like Sam Harris and others. Now I'm reading connections with sbf and future now and you'd think macaskill had gone full dark side. Macaskill's wiki says he wrote a book about longtermism which seems fine on its face but I've only read negative things about here on HN.

Without knowing more, Seems like people are being reactionary to me. What's the scoop?

> if someone claims that black swans existed, and someone else is skeptical, the onus is on the pro-black-swan side to provide evidence

Your example is exactly backwards. Black swan events are meaningful because they don't have prior evidence to inform their existence. This is the opposite of the case for zoonotic spillover - there is a well established pattern that should be present and is not.

Actually, your point is unintentionally correct - the black swan event here would be if zoonotic spillover DID occur, because there is substantial, expected, historically modeled, missing evidence. So, as you say, the onus is not on the lab-leak believer.

> I'm so sick and tired of subscriptions

sounds like theres a product gap and a market need; lets make a subscription "subscription service" service - the last subscription you'll ever have to manage!

what if there was an open protocol with a public API where you could just purchase fungible subscription primitives and then disburse them into any SaaS like Netflix, JetBrains, or M365? you'd probably want an immutable transaction log for both consumer and business protections, and it would be better if the system were distributed and trustless so you don't have to worry about any funny business on anyones part. also you dont have to count on those privateering, regulatory-captured bankers to prevent or replace erronerous double-spends and manage payment disputes - all the records are chained together and auditable!

I am no longer having fun writing this post. fungible subscription primitives - i made myself sad.

Because the pool of male engineers is ~4-8x larger than female candidates, so hiring 50% women is intentionally hiring worse employees because of their genitals.

> we can see FTX's balance sheet [1]. There is no loan

The problem with this is that the customer funds are also not present on their balance sheet. Levine opined about this yesterday; Like 3 of the biggest assets are coins ftx didn't pay for - so where did the money go?

That's why the Alameda explanation is likely, in one way or another. Money had to go somewhere.

> I. Parody Functions By Tricking People Into Thinking That It Is Real

This is the opposite of what's true. Parody only functions because it's obviously NOT real, but real adjacent, a facsimile. How could it be a joke if you just think it's real and assimilate it into your world view?

> And if you share it willingly, and not for medical purposes, it doesn't mean that the person you shared it with suddenly has a higher burden of security/privacy with that info.

Almost but not quite. I came to comment on this bullet point in the article because misunderstanding about PHI is so prevalent its nearly a meme.

PHI doesn't have anything to do with willingness or sharing. PHI is not a meaningful term constructed of its component words - its a specific legal term under hipaa. Any (noncovered entity) company can ask you anything about your health and it doesn't matter - airlines, restaurants, event venues, etc. They're allowed and it doesn't have anything to do with hipaa and they are not collecting/storing PHI.

HIPAA applies specifically to covered entities under its law. Its basically health care providers and health insurance companies. If you aren't one of those covered entities and youre not telling that info to a covered entity, there is no PHI.

If you want to boycot somewhere asking about covid or whatever - get down with your bad self. It just doesn't have anything to do with HIPAA.

> the opinion of the famous player

This is a hilariously inaccurate description of magnus. He is widely regarded as the greatest chess player to have ever lived. His opinion on what it takes to play high level chess is worth taking extremely seriously. It's not like he has a history of temper tantrums or petulant behavior; he's an upstanding custodian of the mantle of world champion.

Magnus' evidence of "it didn't seem like he was thinking very hard during critical junctures" is the nail in the coffin for me.

If he has a history of stealing cars AND his new car is hot wired? Possible it's legal? Sure. Let's not twist our hands about a grand theft auto charge, however.

It's intended to be a steelman and is a rephrasing of an argument said to me in the past; you could dig it up in my comment history from a previous uber discussion should you be so inclined.

Regardless, feel free to ignore my strawman and tell me the real argument.

I have yet to see a convincing argument, here on HN or elsewhere, about how these companies are taking advantage of workers.

Most of us are old enough to have seen these companies spring into existence, so here are the steps:

1) 100% of people are employed or unemployed. Uber (for example) doesn't exist

2) uber starts existing, some previously unemployed people and some previously employed people start working for uber

3) those people that willingly took those jobs are being taken advantage of

What is the principal that justifies 3? People are not agents of free will, and any sub-utopic framework they have to participate in is immoral? Even if that's the case, I'd like to see the argument that those people who chose and choose to work at uber have worse outcomes than they otherwise would.

What a curious article.

- don't say "there is a concern the figure is wrong". Concern is not the salient point - correctness is. Is the data wrong or right?

- why are we focusing on the figures at all? Is the data correct but the figures don't represent? Or is the incorrect data correctly represented by the figures? This is a critical point left unaddressed

- They don't shun all rules.

I'm not a polisci guy, but isn't anarchism with some rules... not anarchism? Isn't that libertarianism?

> there's a danger to Originalism, in that people in the past didn't have the information

Good thing they built in a mechanism for revision then.

Their intent is relatively clear. If you don't like the rule, change the rule. Anything else is vigilantism.

> it never gets easier, you just get faster. As someone who arguably has accumulated expertise, I still feel like I'm winging it a lot.

Yes, I believe the gp has missed the point of the article.

The lesson from "your to-do list isn't difficult, it's impossible" is not nihilism. The point is not that no one is good at anything so why bother; the point is that the feeling of overwhelm, dread, and depression from an impossible- seeming to-do list is rooted in false assumptions. Your to-do list doesn't seem impossibly long, it IS impossibly long! You are born with a to-do list and you will die with a to-do list - but that's OK. We're all in the same boat.

Another helpful way to think about this is a math analogy. Your knowledge is a circle or sphere that has your literal area of expertise. The more your learn, the larger it gets - but you also gain more contact with the unknown.

That is the lesson. Imposter syndrome demystified. Only a fool feels in complete control. One simply does what one can.

What a disappointing showing from HN. 120 comments and so little substantive discussion or truth-searching. Everyone rushing to share their feelings and no one trying listen.

I have thoughts I'd like to discuss, but apparently this isn't the place to do it.

On the whole, the popularizing of "logical fallacies" has been a net negative for debate. instead of recognizing a strawman and saying "youre not accurately representing my position, heres clear evidence why", the conversation devolves into a juvenille meta-argument that adds no value.

i wonder how much more our societal attention span can shorten.

welcome friend!

you must be specific and stay in scope. prep for things you can manage and survive. doomsday preppers are neurotic idiots.

to me, prepping means hanging a water tight canvas bag in my tornado cellar (hung so critters dont get to it). there is food and water to survive in the cellar for weeks if we are inside and the house falls down on usm medkit too, amongst other things. my prepper expansion plans include a generator, solar panels, garden and chickens. do not fool yourself into homesteading - that is a full time job by itself. but you can pareto yourself into a much smaller reliance on outside support.

the bottom line is you won't survive a disaster by yourself. the wilderness might support you, but it wont support you and all your neighbors. true prepping means setting roots into your community and creating antifragility for everyone.

> Doesn't that mean

No.

> "See, it didn't happen because I yelled about it on the internet"

this is a gross misrepresentation of the anticovid policy sentiment. it wasnt misanthropes on 4chan and twitter warriors with no skin in the game - there were, and still are, millions of people down through grass roots and local politics up to sitting major political party members.

the chess pieces we're playing with are very serious on both sides and the original comment i replied to - "i bet those conspiracy theorists feel stupid now" - is disingenious and a badly formed argument.

This is entirely the wrong take. Its like saying everyone was panicking for no reason in the Cold War because Earth wasn't destroyed in nuclear hellfire.

Its feasible that vocal protests helped push back against further tyranny.

i dont want to go down the who was right and who was wrong rabbit hole of covid policies. just dont use hindsight to try and retroactively prove your point.

> locks people out of some of the best ways to create wealth unless they’re already rich

im sorry what? investing in startups is one of the best way to create wealth? you have a source that talks about average and median returns on investments across all startups?

interesting guess, but it can only be part of the story if its true at all. a lot of those people are Joe's best friends that would more likely go down in flames than abandon him (ari, bert, tom, bill).

a more likely angle is some intermediary like publishers or managers are making decisions through contracts or deals.

this looks alarmingly like a destruction of wrongthink. comedians, musicians, joes friends. this isnt just the rambling conspiracies of alex jones or covid skepticism with non-consensus doctors.

rather than debate the meaning of IP, free markets, or the first amendment, we should he focusing on us - the people. our communites.

why is it that companies think its advantageous to silence people like this? it must be following the money. spotify is following the zeitgeist. the fact that everyone would rather erase this content because its existence is unbearable is a warning side. engendering disgust is a half step from dehumanization, and dehumanization is a half step from death.

comments like this drive me stark raving mad. its just nonsense that somehow is taken, unexamined, into the psyche of a whole generation.

1) there is not a consensus as to what an optimal economy looks like for reasons so numerous its unimaginable someone would make such a claim, but include things like: globalism vs nationalism, hedonism vs utilitarianism, militarism vs pacifism, importance of a problem vs tractability of a problem, etc ad infinitum.

2) even if there was somehow a consensus on what an optimal economy is, its a floating target. economics is based on intangibles like demand and peoples feelings. if such a thing were to exist, it couldnt exist for long and would require constant change.

3) what an optimal economy could even theoretically be requires knowledge of the future. if earth becomes uninhabitable in 1 year due to meteor impact, the optimal economy certainly doesnt involve anything but meteor detection and defense. or from volcanic eruption. or solor flare/ejection. or nuclear war.

do you bemoan a suboptimal economy when people buy 50 sneakers? or candy and soda? or have 5 TVs? or 3 computers? what does wealth inequality have to do with anything? what are you even talking about?

given that the lead democrat, nancy pelosi, represents one of the wealthiest districts in america, this hardly seems believable at face value and rather falls in line with the article.

left vs right rather seems like a shell game to me where the dealer has the piece the whole time.