Pyramus

I don't get the 'too high resolution' argument in 2024. The additional power consumption is negligible as has been pointed out by others. My 2013 Nexus 5 had a 1080p display.

> if you can't drive this

I assume your use case is playing Triple AAA games. But there are others such as Indie games and emulation which both benefit from higher resolutions. Especially in emulation a higher resolution will allow you to do integer scaling for a greater number of systems etc.

> Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction.

It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this incremental improvement to OP. In addition there is the benefit of being able to send a signal, and the associated utility is likely non-zero to OP as well.

> The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX.

What if OP already has the newest, safest car?

No, we don't have a definitive answer. We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep. But a definitive answer? There isn't one (yet). Here is the most likely theory according to Wikipedia:

>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep

I would add that it's a measure in particular how active the yeast is in your starter culture, and yeast is the crucial ingredient for fermentation.

> When you bake with such flours, you get a denser bread and when you create a starter with them, you'll struggle to get them to double in size for the same reason.

Sharing my personal experience: I use a 100% rye starter (wholemeal or, preferably, German type 1150 [1]) and my starter grows ~2-2.5x in volume. Gluten has an impact but is less important when you proof in a small container (same reason you would bake a high hydration rye bread in a tin). What is a lot more important is that a) the hydration is right, so the starter is not too liquid (in my case a bit less than 100%), and b) you feed the starter in a ratio of 1:3 old:new, or even 1:5.

[1] https://www.hefe-und-mehr.de/en/2014/03/mehl/

You are not wrong, but as always, reality is more nuanced than assigning utilities to a game. Russia would benefit in two ways:

a) Sending a message about capabilities and willingness to attack infrastructure (in NATO countries!),

b) Sowing distrust and misinformation (see e.g. Hersh article and US-Germany relations).

If you believe (big if!) Hersh's single source was a Russian asset, then b) worked wonderfully.

Overall I'm with you, current evidence doesn't point towards Russia.

You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.

> there's no reason to force them to do anything.

So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content that is traumatic, protect people's privacy etc?

I don't really understand? Is your point that we should not be doing this as well? Is your fear that the state of California will moderate Twitter?

No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?

> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.

So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.

It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.

So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?

Some analysts say the situation is (was) more nuanced: Prigozhin was pro-Putin but anti-MOD. His intention was to replace the MOD, claim their resources and fight in lieu thereof, for Putin. The article also hints at that.

Original headline: "Yevgeny Prigozhin onboard plane in fatal crash, says Russia"

Not sure I understand your post, both spam and threats are speech (at least in the US), so maybe something was lost in translation?

Here are some of the limits of free speech in the US:

> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex...

And here some examples from Germany (translated via DeepL):

> the protection of personal honour against insult or defamation, the disclosure of information classified as secret, the limits of morality and the protection of minors, the limits of public safety, unfair competition by discrediting the goods or services of a competitor, the unauthorised disclosure of copyrighted information, racial discrimination

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinungsfreiheit#Grenzen_(Schr...

From what I've learned here on HN someone who thinks that "free speech" is absolute - their right to free speech outshines the personal rights of others. So instead of discussing where my rights end and your rights start, they will argue that no line should be drawn.

In addition, from what I understand, they seem to think that democracy is a consequence of "free speech", not the other way around.

> so once you do get to the end you have the law

There is no end. Laws are just very very well performing models. But every 'law' breaks down if you violate the assumptions of the model: make things too big/small/hot/cold etc.

There is no (general) right to anonymity, but there is, at least in some Western countries, a right to privacy.

Yes there are some points where it is, e.g. elections, whistleblowing, witness protection etc., which goes to show that in general, in Western democratic societies, anonymity is not a requirement for free speech.

No, almost all parts of society require identification, you could say it's a fundamental principle (Western democratic) societies are built upon. Your freedom is based on me being held accountable to respect it.

Anonymity is protected in special situations such as elections, communications, whistleblowing etc.

Reminds of the time Musk said chess is "too simple" because there is no "fog of war" and no "technology tree".

> To me (an European) that is a bonkers way of looking at the issue.

Came here to say exactly this. If you do not trust your democratically elected institutions you need to improve your democratic system.

> "Popular sovereignty is the principle that the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political power."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

Don't get me wrong, this is not an actionable solution, but I'm a bit surprised that it's not even discussed conceptually? Why is that?

> Often something is presented as a scientific consensus

> During COVID a lot of things were presented to the public as if it were 100% obvious and agreed with by every specialist

Who is it that presents things to the public? Who are "they"? Who is "the media"? At least in the country I live in different journalists/writers/bloggers had very different opinions and they changed significantly over time. You could even watch the scientific process in real-time: New evidence comes in, people update their beliefs.

> scientific consensus is by definition clear cut

> maintain this illusion of universal agreement.

> Policy was globally homogenous

We can agree or disagree whether there are these groups that all act in unison, what I want to point out is that you need these homogenous groups for your argument to work.

If different countries had come to similar conclusions independently, that would mean the conclusion are likely valid, no? If different journalists/experts/scientist from different countries/cultures/political backgrounds came to similar conclusions independently, that would mean the conclusion is likely valid, no?

I'm making a guess here: I hypothesise that your discontent stems from the fact that you don't want other people to tell you what to do or not to do. In particular you disagree with the concept that society is a mechanism to distribute both wealth but also burden. Does that ring a bell?

> I got direct experience of this when my wife got COVID and was sick for a couple of weeks, I was then quarantined by the government at home but never got sick. How this could happen was never officially explained.

It seems you have been doing in-depth research about Sars-Cov-2/Covid-19, how did you miss the secondary attack rate/household infection rate? It used to be one of the crucial measures of transmission in early 2020, and has been studied for every variant ever since.

What I don't understand is this jump between the complexity of the situation and the simplicity of your conclusions. You go into great length to point out the shortcomings of PCR tests or that 100% susceptibility is an unrealistic modelling assumption, but your interpretations/conclusions are often blanket statements like

> This reveals one of the core scientific problems

> This research wasn't merely unnoticed, it was actively suppressed.

I notice that in your conclusions you tend to lump together very heterogeneous groups, like "scientists", "the media", "government", "the people who run healthcare" - and "they" seem to be responsible for the shortcomings? I find it very puzzling. E.g. scientific consensus is rarely clear-cut, but you will find plenty of papers/opinions arguing for and against something. Same with governments, there are some 200 countries and "they" followed very different policies. Wouldn't it be more convincing to present both evidence for and against a certain hypothesis?

No worries, appreciate your concrete calculation.

I would argue it's just one more convenient assumption that leads us away from a realistic estimation.

It seems to me USD 2500 is an idealistic best case scenario.

You have conveniently left out the cost differential for the printed edition, and you are conveniently pricing the trust/risk/hassle that comes with it at 0. And even in this case I doubt the USD 5 pw is the market price, you are basically assuming there is a kid, who values extra pocket money.

So all in all, USD 2500 seems unrealistic.

Okay, then please propose a concrete example with costs of labor, premium for print subscription etc.

Happy to be proven wrong, but USD 2500 seems unrealistic.

Real life is rarely about evidence or not evidence, which is a categorical decision (in contrast to evidence in court, which can be circumstantial).

Some more context in addition to the sibling comment: The classical example is this. You want to test the effectiveness of two drugs A and B in some sort of clinical trial. You gather a lot of data and learn that drug A has an average effectiveness of 4.0, while drug B has 4.9 (more is better). You apply a statistical test and it tells you B is not significantly different from A.

Can you conclude that B is not better than A? You can't. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There could be any number of reasons why we don't have significant evidence, e.g. because the experiment was done with a sample too small. B might be better than A, but there is no evidence it is.

The NTSB gathers a lot of data regarding the crash. The board looks at all the factors and deliberates whether they contributed to the crash. It determines that there is no significant evidence that the mental state of the pilot was relevant.

Can you conclude that the mental state was irrelevant? You can't. It's likely the pilot experienced stress but it is impossible to determine whether this stress was significant. It might well be, but there is no evidence it was.

Parent seems to think it was not a factor. But by relying on a flawed argument we will not find out why he actually thinks that way, ultimately leading to an unproductive discussion.

> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Exactly. It's a significant cognitive bias / logical fallacy that's very easy to fall for leading to wrong conclusions.

The not-inclusion of factor A for lack of evidence is not evidence of A not being a factor.

My interpretation is that it is some sort of cognitive bias, which is very common: Because A is better than B, we start to think of B as not good, while in reality B is still good and A is just better. In particular A may only be marginally better, or only be better on paper, according to an irrelevant metric.

I see this come up a lot in hardware discussions (Megapixels come to mind) and manufacturers love to jump on this effect.

Here we go again: HN user educates experts from different domain about said domain.

Why not say "I prefer X" instead of "you are too stupid to do X"?

Which might be a legit point and could lead to an interesting conversation...

I'm not saying the content of a post can not be personal data. I'm saying it is not by default.

The words "Hello world" posted on any subreddit is not personal data. In this case the company could simply delete the information relating to you such as user name, IP etc.

The content you post is not, in general, personal data. It certainly can be.