jat850

Thank you for this work. I hope others are taking the time to read this.

This game has such a special place in my heart - like others, I have some beautiful handmade boards, some of which have been in my family for a couple generations. Canadian as well which seems thematically common here. My father and I spend as much time trash-talking each other about playing as we do playing. And my grandmother was a complete shark, the crokinole matriarch who would put any of us to shame.

Another reason why I will always appreciate HN and its breadth of community and interests.

Audience. What may come across as question dance dazzle might suffice to impress or allay concerns of certain people (employees, investors, etc), but it's not probable to work the same under oath and the techniques of prosecution. It's hard to dance around evidence with what you say, no matter how its said, with evidence to the contradictory put right in front of the court.

Wouldn't agency involve ChatGPT deciding it wanted to do this, instead of you telling it to do it?

L'appel du vide in one of its more commonly manifested forms.

Only by way of anecdotal experience, but if I skip a meal (or worse, two) I tend towards massive overindulgence at a later meal, and I don't have an innate sense for calorie intake estimation. So I will often end up eating far more calories at the later meal than I might have skipped in the earlier one.

Not at all scientific, just 2 cents.

Amphetamines are synthetic, so maybe the reverse of that question is better? What is natural about amphetamines?

In practice, almost never. Internet arguments seldom result in both sides agreeing on a single outcome. Nobody is convincing anyone else of anything on the internet (most of the time).

It's definitely not a scientific study of the data, but those will follow in years to come by respective national and international bodies I assume.

Apologies, as it's a PDF. I don't have another version of it available.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22275411-group-life-...

> It's practically impossible now to go back and figure out how many were _actually_ "killed by COVID" vs "died _with_ COVID".

No, it's not. Which is why some health regions are going back and doing exactly this, to reflect the distinction.

Insurance companies have already begun publishing reports indicating that excess mortality rates are inversely related to vaccine adoption (i.e. higher excess mortality in states with lower vaccination rates).

My father worked in early IT days and a major fixture in my home growing up was boxes - and I mean dozens and dozens of boxes filled with thousands each - of punch cards they stopped using (all unpunched).

They made for fantastic quick note-taking, grocery-list making, or leaving notes for the family.

This is a super fun site from a pure nostalgia perspective.

Illegal Pete's is one of the best parts of Denver (or Boulder).

I would have been deeply disappointed if that wasn't the face you picked for the shirt. It's a complete capture of the entirety of the document.

I felt the same way, for what it's worth.

This is a key point in the article. The researchers (original) did not want to throw out the data that doesn't "seem random", this group argues in favour of doing so.

Why not diagnosis over environment?

I have to say that the Northern store in the Labrador pics was a massive nostalgia throwback.

I would venture to say almost none and that's exactly what bothers me about it. If they did know about it, do you think they would be comfortable realizing they're in the position of being a negotiating tool to achieve this political end?

edit After consideration and with regret, I am not that comfortable having political views represented so openly in a very public space. Not a retraction of my position but the issue of permanence is a massive privacy concern for me over a subject this sensitive and contentious. Sorry if this breaks thread flow.

I'm sure along with discovering this, it also gave you an explanation for the science of sweeping which is also super neat and to the casual observer, not a well understood part of the game. At the micro level, the abrasive texture of the brooms is melting pebble (not entirely, just temporarily along the sweeping path) and affecting distance, deceleration, curl.

Sorry, kinda nerding out over seeing a curling article on HN.

What's interesting is that several things can affect the sheet of ice and make sheets even within the same building behave differently. Often if sheets on the end of the building have an outside wall, you'll see the outside sheets behave different from the middle sheets of ice. The same thing can happen depending on how cold it is outside. It's grown more scientific in recent years, especially at the professional level.

Ice makers are indeed held to a challenging task and what you said is true - they're recognized across the club, on site, by basically every member and they more often get blame than praise for how the ice affects a game!

I do not think that is entirely true - all my PCR tests have contained the name of the lab where the test was performed as well as the performing (or, in some cases), supervising physician.

That does not mean it is easy to verify test results, but it should be possible.

Not to challenge the overall idea too hard, but have you thought about what that really means, to say that? If you extend the IFR of, let's say, 1% to the entire population of (let's pick, for example, the US), would it be acceptable to just let 4,000,000 people die and take no mitigating procedures against that happening?

4 million, my mistake, squeezed an extra zero in there.

Show your math on 0.2%. This does not appear to hold true for any country I can think of off the top of my head. US and Canada are somewhere around 1.3-1.5% last I checked.

I am curious if those (especially posting here aligning with this position) would change their minds if a more deadly variant were to arise, if the vaccines available evolved to better match the strains by probability, or otherwise.

Respectfully, Dr. Malone's entire platform is contrarianism. He is opportunistically acting on his own behalf in my belief.

Recently, he published an article highlighting a noted increase in insurance claims (death and disability) in Indiana. He then intentionally implied a link and placed blame on the vaccine.

However, he took no care whatsoever to do any thoughtful analysis of the data before presenting the conclusions he did. He did not even attempt to perform a comparative analysis between Indiana and other states based on vaccination rates. This is low-hanging-fruit simplicity that could have either disproven his claim or supported it - if he cared to. He did not.

This is not the type of information I expect to see come from someone supposedly claiming to be on the right side of science here.

And yet it remains heavily influential, reaching millions of people via Twitter, Joe Rogan, and other mediums, reducing critical analysis to trivial opinion masking as expertise.

Do they have higher rates, or better access to information, introspection, tools, awareness, and common understanding of these things? I am curious about that.

I think with the majority of instances it's a matter of repeating what they've seen online somewhere, where it is nearly unilaterally presented in similar tone. Some cases are malicious intent I'm sure, but I wouldn't guess the most of them.