lkbm

Useless, perhaps, but generally say true things rather than false things, in my experience.

There are Firefox forks out there. LibreWolf, Pale Moon, and WaterFox are the bet known. Unsure which, if any, are still active.

This isn't about car seats, it's about baby carriers, and it's not about protecting you in a car crash:

> When our babies were little, carriers were massively helpful in flying. The baby likes it, and your arms are free.

> The carrier means the baby can sleep wherever we are, and I can have my hands free. If you can breastfeed in the carrier, even better because the baby can eat as you’re navigating the airport, etc. Carrying the baby centered on your body is easier on your back than carrying them in the carseat. Plus it’s good for walking / sightseeing at your destination.

I mean..that's a problem, but apartment-dwellers are around 20% of Americans, and disproportionately the ones who don't need a car at all, and it's not a problem at all apartments.

Does the ICE marketshare only drop to 10-20%? I feel like that could be describes as "it's over".

Not sure how much we need to optimize for this. Plane crashes are rare. I'm happy to risk a baby seat crashing into me if my plane crashes if it means the 99.99987% of the flights are slightly better.

It does, but "pace yourself" is something we say to kids (for example) to tell them to slow down because they're going too fast. We don't tell people to pace themselves because they're going too slow.

It is that, but it's also your speed. When running, you typically pick a pace that's slower than your max, so it can be sustained for the full distance.

"Pace yourself" specifically means "slow down".

It's fine on light mode. It's just the dark mode that's terrible. Seems likely they only tested the former.

It's been a common phrase for many years.[0]

[0] https://x.com/search?q=%22load%20bearing%22%20until%3A2020-0...

I mean..."close to true" is another way of saying "false". It could easily have been phrased in a way that was actually true and gotten plenty of upvotes instead.

Fair, "widely known" might be exaggerating, but I'm confused as to why it's news now. Is there anything new, or is it just a legible summary just came out?

I'm confused by the headline being a headline here at all. Irregular being involved in OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta incidents has been well-known for over a month[0][1]. It's literally the only thing I know about the Meta incident.

[0] https://x.com/jtcbrule/status/2085443180191715780

[1] https://x.com/RaconteurR2D2/status/2086932963829125185

I have this as a bash script and a some similar bash and python scripts for converting between python's print(my_dict) and json, or to run some python (mostly the dicts) through black.

The j2p is pretty self-evident if you know any python, and the only trick to p2j was knowing `ast.literal_eval(input_str)`.

It's larger than HN on my browser. It seems to just be what you have your browser default to.

Because they're crawling a billion webpages, only a tiny fraction of which can be git cloned, and configuring a special case just for that tiny fraction isn't worth the effort (of the crawlers).

> So, you'd think that something that pretends to be “Artificial Intelligence” would use the most efficient way of using our data for training purposes, right? Clone the repos, walk every commit. Done.

If repos like this were 10%+ of what they crawled, having a special case for clone-able repos would be smart, but if you're crawling everything, you're not going to do an efficiency tweak for each special case that has a more parse-able option.

Yeah, and the number also is not of all exports, but of goods exports (as opposed to total, which includes both goods and services).

In 2024, fishing/marine products was ~18% of total exports, which is still a massive deal, but only half as massive. (I believe tourism, the largest "export", is close to 40% of total exports.)

Not sure which number you're questioning, but it all looks right to me:

$852.7B[0] + $109.9B[0] = $962.6B ~= $1T ($1,000,000,000,000)

World population ~= 8.3B (8,300,000,000)[1]

$1,000,000,000,000 / 8,300,000,000 people = $120.481927711 per person[2]

[0] https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=%241%2C000%2C000%2C000%2C000...

I don't think it is. A lot of federal government debt is held by other governments, not just private entities.

Companies discovered that they can pour tends of billions into clean energy and still be hated for destroying the planet. They can use a small amount of water and be blamed for draining the Great Lakes.

Why would they avoid doing things people dislike if the PR outcome is the same?

With many old books, a big part of the problem is that it's non-trivial to determine who owns the copyright. Sometimes the contract would say the copyright reverts to the author after a certain amount of time out of print,but you have to go dig through old contracts to figure out whether that's the case for any given book.

> No, they mean free at time of service, which they are.

I don't think that's true France, Norway, New Zealand, or Switzerland. (And that's just developed nations. The GP's claim was every country other than the US.)

> Car accidents, because we drive much more and are much more spread out than other countries.

Somewhat off-topic, but I think this explanation of the car accidents misses the mark. It might be part of the cause, but car accident deaths were dropping in the US and Europe until around 2010 when they kept dropping in Europe, but flatlined and then rose back up in the US.

I don't think we were driving less and less and are now driving more and more. We changed policies. (I think it's mostly bigger cars, plus less focus on traffic infra/systems/rules that prevent fatalities.)

Add in that my freezer probably contains over $500 of food (and the fridge has less, but not none.)

Usually you can buy ice, but when I had a ~36 hour outage a couple years ago, I couldn't. Most stuff was fine for that long, but 2-3 days would've meant tossing pretty much the entire contents.

(Plus, I don't have cell service where I live, so being able to power my router is pretty useful.)

This is probably a bad move if you live in a city. It makes more sense in rural areas.

USA Today also owns a huge number of local papers -- possibly most. The main local papers in the three last places I've lived (Austin TX, South Bend IN, Asheville NC area) were all USA Today Co.-owned. (Used to be called Gannett.)

It's not dying. Or, at least, it's doing better than anyone else.

Ads are influencing us to buy things we don't need! This is terrible!

[Billboards stop targeting you at all.]

Ads no longer influence us to buy things we don't need! This is terrible!

Just take the win.

Bigger fines would, too. If you gain $1B by doing an action, but you have a >10% chance of a >10B fine, it's expected value is negative.

The 10% and 10B might need to be extra high to account for hyperbolic discounting, but I think we could get there just by increasing those numbers. Shortening the time from gain and fine would also help. I don't think we can get it into a single-quarter cycle, but most CEOs don't want their company bankrupted five years down the line, either.

I can understand a no answer from people who think climate change is no big deal, but it's kind of weird that people who think climate change will kill hundreds of millions -- possibly everyone -- say no on the grounds that it has risks.

Possible unintended side effects is better than "everyone dies".

Ten years ago, I was saying we should experiment with it on a small scale so that if it does become necessary, we're not shooting blind, but even then the doomers were opposed because of "risks". You know what else has risks? Unmitigated climate change!

It's occasionally mentioned, but the answer appears to be "roughly 1000x current global electricity production", so we don't worry about it too much. Energy is much higher than electricity, of course, but we're not planning on replacing all energy [or all electricity] with just wind.

We'll hit other constraints long before that happens.

There may be some local effects. I think the main one is one cluster of wind turbines effecting the output of nearby clusters (and effects within a cluster). Pretty sure they account for this when engineering wind farms, with the effects actively being studied.

> Good sanitation is a financial and political problem. The engineering has been solved for decades now.

This was true of computers, phones, books, washing machines, refrigerators, A/C...most technologies.

Turns out that doing the addition engineering to figure out how to do these things cheaply makes the political and financial problems way easier.