nyc640

Yes, let's look at "Asia" (as if that's some meaningful grouping in this context when the countries are so different culturally, geographically, and economically).

Since 2005, a huge amount of US manufacturing and resource processing (both large emitters) have been outsourced (largely to Asia, and more specifically China). Our economy doesn't function without these imported emissions, yet they don't count as "US emissions". Even excluding these emissions, the US makes up 4% of the world population and emits 13% of world emissions. Asia makes up 60% of the world's population and emits 52% (more than 3x less per-capita than the US). If you actually consider that the countries in Asia are vastly diverse, you'll find the large majority of these emissions are from China (from said manufacturing and resource processing), and India for example emits far less than its share of the population.

This also completely ignores that the effects of warming are from cumulative emissions (not just point-in-time emissions) because CO2 doesn't just disappear every year. As a share of historical emissions, Europe comes off far worse than Asia per capita, and the US even worse than Europe.

Even despite this, at least China (and the rest of Asia to a lesser extent) is investing in clean energy. China produces > 80% of the world's solar panels and > 70% of the world's lithium batteries. Meanwhile, in the US the administration is doubling down on subsidies for fossil fuels and issuing stop-work orders on renewable energy projects already under construction.

And because I know I have to give this disclaimer these days: I am no apologist for everything else wrong with China and their authoritarian government. But I can't bear this attitude of absolving ourselves of blame for climate change because some other continent has a bigger number than us.

Visa and Mastercard don't, but right now cash more or less does. If the state has a monopoly on digital payments, and can thus mass surveil all digital payments without any scrutiny, the state has a huge incentive to disincentivize or bar the use of cash. Then all it takes is a bad actor to come into power and abuse the system.

> Driving is safer on a per-trip basis.

You can’t make this blanket statement and I would bet on average it’s the opposite still.

- Flying in the US is on average ~750x safer per mile than driving according to 2000-2010 data (it’s likely even larger a difference in the modern era).

- I would venture to guess that most US flights are in the 1000-2000 mile range and most US car trips are easily more than the equivalent 2-3 miles.

- Most fatalities from flying occur during takeoff and landing, so longer flights are actually safer per mile. Relating this back to the thread, the risk of catastrophic failure from your choice (or non-choice) of airframe only really affects the off-ground danger and not the higher danger you face on a taxiway/runway.

- All of these numbers are based purely on fatalities but I’m guessing your definition of “safety” includes being maimed or otherwise seriously injured. You have several orders of magnitude higher chance of being seriously injured in a car crash compared to flying since accidents in aviation are much more likely to end in death.

Some caveats for others who don't want to read the study.

1. This is a study done on rats and is only a single study, so caveat emptor.

2. They administer 250mg/kg/d Aspartame (human recommended max dose is 50mg/kg/d) based on the claim that "Species correction required a five to six times higher dose in rats than humans, as rats metabolize aspartame faster than humans"

3. Even if you assume effects correlate perfectly to humans, a dosage of 50mg/kg/d in the average American 90kg male corresponds to 22.5 12-oz cans of Diet Coke (200 mg Aspartame) per day for 30 days straight (length of the study).

4. There was a group of rats fed Aspartame at those levels for 1 month, then left to recover for 1 month. The sciatic nerve in these rats recovered significantly, and although it appears the recovery was incomplete, they also state that this difference is not statistically significant. There is also no discussion about whether recovery over a time period > 1 month would have resulted in complete recovery.

I don't think they even plot the tag numbers on any scale. It looks from the graph like it's just graphing the "rank" (but actually inverse rank), so they sort the languages by # of tags and give each position an inverse score corresponding to the rank (#1 gets 102 "points", #2 gets 101, #3 gets 100, etc.).

I should have clarified I'm not picking on the Model Y in particular because I think it's a perfectly reasonably sized car and I agree it's much safer than most full-size trucks, it's just surprising how much EVs can weigh. The worrying trend is that moving forward, there are a lot of EVs much bigger than the model Y in the pipeline:

* Kia EV9 (likely ~6,000 lbs)

* Volvo EX90 (likely 6,000+ lbs)

* Rivian R1S (7,000 lbs)

* Electric Chevy Silverado (likely 8,000+ lbs)

* GMC Sierra EV (likely 8,000+ lbs)

If we're talking cars hitting you at 80mph, sure you're probably dead no matter what. But a 9,000 lb car hitting you at 35mph is traveling with the same momentum as a 3,000 lb car going 105mph. You might survive a 3,000 lb car hitting you at 35 mph, you're unlikely to survive the other.

Hah, no kidding. It's undoubtedly a massive feat of engineering, but so are a lot of things that don't belong on our roads.

I'd much rather live with the vast majority of smaller cars and trucks electrifying and letting the 0.1% of people who feel the need to drive a Hummer keep their gas-guzzling cars. At least the old gas models were a "mere" 5,000 lbs and accelerated 0-60 in a much more reasonable 7-8 seconds.

If you're looking for recommendations, one option is the XC40 Recharge, which comes in at 175".

But I agree they are getting so unnecessarily long. Not just in the car length, but also in the wheelbase. The Ioniq 5 (compact SUV / hatchback) has a longer wheel base (118") and thus worse turning radius than a Toyota 4Runner SUV (110"). Makes it a nightmare for city driving & parking.

The US government was also largely responsible for incentivizing the supersizing of American cars with emissions standards based on footprint (road to hell paved with good intentions, etc.), which then had a knock-on effect on consumer demand. So it's certainly possible to incentivize automakers to go the other way, even if you can't change public behavior directly.

I am a little afraid of the long-term safety implications of people driving these massive (literally by mass, not volume) EVs. As if being a pedestrian, biker, or small-car driver wasn't already dangerous enough in the US. For context, a compact SUV EV weighs almost as much as many full-size trucks:

Current Cars

* 2023 Compact Gas SUV (RAV4): 3,370 lbs

* 2023 F-150 V8 Supercab: ~4,500 lbs

* Your typical American short school bus: 10,000 lbs

EVs

* 2023 Tesla Model Y: ~4,500 lbs

* 2023 F-150 Lightning Extended Range: ~6,500 lbs

* 2022 Hummer EV: 9,000 lbs

Except now the 9,000 lb SUV can go 0-60 in 3 seconds.

Not GP, but the Tundra is enormous compared to a Tacoma for someone coming from a car and not used to a full-size. I was also considering a Tundra since the model refresh, but even compared to our current truck (Land Cruiser) the Tundra felt noticeably larger and less maneuverable.

You’re totally right, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard RCV being called more consensus-oriented. Just that it makes it less harmful for third party candidates to participate in elections since they won’t play spoiler in the same way (Ralph Nader). I think the success of RCV just has to do with its relative simplicity compared to other alternative voting methods.

Even leading up to this election, I saw some mainstream coverage of the fact that the election would come down to who finished 3rd. i.e. if Palin got eliminated in the first round, most of her votes would’ve gone to Begich and he probably would’ve won. Doesn’t speak well for RCV that it can come down to such a slim margin, but I still think RCV > FPTP for the third party reason above.

A commenter on the thread mentioned the VMWare price hikes, so it could be as simple as IBM sensing an opportunity to poach customers from VMWare (probably more overlap in potential customers than AWS/GCP/Azure) and aggressively selling OpenShift to the C-suite with a promise of "if we can get a deal done this year, we'll give you heavily discounted pricing for X years".

It does seem a bit strange that all of these requests supposedly come specifically "from the CEO" though, as I would expect most companies would have CTOs making purchase decisions like this.

FWIW, when I last bought a Pixel phone through Fi (first gen Pixel), you got support through Fi for your device and not through the Google store. Fi’s support at the time was much better and they replaced my phone without much trouble when I had an issue with it, whereas every experience with the Google store I’ve had has been terrible. Hopefully things haven’t changed much for the worse since then.

I just gave it a shot and it doesn't seem to work. Thanks for the tip though!

Unfortunately 1Password doesn't work. Not because of extension compatibility but seemingly because 1Password has an internal whitelist of trusted browsers that Orion is not included in. It's really unfortunate as there's been a community forum post about it for months[1], but it's never been addressed.

Dark Reader has worked perfectly fine for me though.

[1] https://1password.community/discussion/124112/support-for-or...

In the case of Medicaid funding, I thought the outcome of that case was that the Federal government couldn't threaten existing Medicare funding but it was allowable that any future Medicaid expansion be denied to states if they didn't comply with the ACA. The makeup of the court has changed since then though and in general the conservative portion of the court did generally vote to say that coercive use of federal funding was unconstitutional, so hopefully that remains the same when the ideological nature of the case is reversed.

In any case, I hope you are right friend!

This seems a little naive considering Congress has found plenty of ways to coerce states into implementing laws (national speed limit which was later repealed, national drinking age, etc.) by threatening to withhold funding and these laws have stood up to a tenth amendment challenge. Similarly the GOP could threaten Medicaid funding for states if they don’t restrict abortion, which would be disastrous for the state and thus impossible to ignore.

That would be a great way to solve this issue if LinkedIn cares about users’ privacy. Otherwise I’m afraid they go the Pinterest or Quora route and just gate even “public” info behind a log in (they already do this for most user info).

I honestly have no idea because I haven't done (nor do I plan to do as I don't live in California anymore) enough research to have an informed opinion on the topic.

However, I think it is generally valid to say that if you are explicitly trying to address how a system (CA math education) is failing a certain group of people (black students), it would be useful to consult with members of that group or people who work closely with members of that group.

Again, I'm not taking a strong stance here and I'm sure there could hypothetically be some world where this may not be true and the X truly most qualified people to tackle this issue are all not Black. But even from a completely cynical, practical standpoint you can see how the optics look bad when the state of California admits to failing its Black students yet tasks a committee of professors to solve the issue without any representation from the groups it has failed.

It's not that they published a paper without any Black co-authors.

There has been a controversial push in California to reform public school math education guidelines called the California Math Framework [1]. It [2] frames current math education in California as failing minority students and gives suggestions for how to remedy it. The issue has been controversial as some see it as injecting social justice topics into the math curriculum, while others see it as necessary to contextualize math within our broader society. (edit: corrected by the other reply to your comment that said some of the parts of the framework about adding social justice topics have been removed from the most recent draft of the framework)

The tweet author is pointing out that this 800-page framework about addressing inequalities in math education for minority (in particular Black and Latino) students was written by many authors, but none of them were Black. This seems like a valid criticism given the issues that it is explicitly trying to address.

There have also been similar criticisms levied at the new framework because it was written entirely by academic researchers studying pedagogy and had little to no input from actual teachers.

[1] https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2021/11/cali...

[2] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/

Similar tool for macOS that also controls built-in displays and Apple monitors: https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl

Not aware of a similarly polished GUI tool on linux, but I use this: https://github.com/rockowitz/ddcutil

It's been super convenient having found all these tools (I use all 3!) for software control of monitors recently.

Thank you for posting this! Definitely had some concern about the IndexedDB leak, so good to know the new release is out (and has a fix for the issue) so I can update ASAP.

Fastmail also supports subdomain addressing for your own domains so that if your email is [email protected] you can use [email protected] rather than [email protected] and it will be delivered to your mailbox. This is great because:

1. You can create a new alias [email protected] and sign up for services with [email protected] and it’s all centralized in the same inbox.

2. I’ve found some websites that don’t allow ‘+’ in their email checker/parser. Also since plus addressing is such a common pattern, when sites sell your email to marketers, they probably strip the ‘+whatever’ part anyway so you’ll never know who’s selling your info.

3. They make it really easy in the web UI to reply to emails sent to [email protected] from the same email address ([email protected]) vs. for example if you use wildcard addressing. I’ve found this helpful for the few times when an automated email system or customer support person requires you to reply from the correct email for “authentication”.

If you read the link, it specifically says dependent children, which seems fair. I don't see how how the constitution protects your stock trading rights if you are likely to be privy to insider information.

If you work in the financial industry, there are already draconian rules on oversight for all trades made by you, your spouse, your dependents, and even roommates. Why shouldn't this oversight extend to members of congress?

I think it's arguably both. Bad UX means that it's difficult to learn how to do things and can make it easy to press the wrong button even once you are used to it.

However, having driven my share of cars that are exclusively touch screen, even when you know where something is (capacitative volume buttons, touchscreen climate change controls), it takes too long to find and adjust the settings compared to having physical knobs that you can easily reach over and adjust without taking your eyes off the road.

This is not true, you can see the data[1] yourself for in-state students. It is true that of in-state students at UCs, white students are "underrepresented" compared to their share of the population, but their share of admissions is actually very close to their share of applications so there could be other reasons for this. For example, white students in CA may be:

* more likely to apply to private schools

* more able to afford private schools

* more likely to get accepted to private schools that don't have the same race-blind admissions restrictions that UCs do

* more likely to go out-of-state for college

[1] https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2021/chapt...

> The report cited in the article isn't as clear on their distinction and in some cases the numbers indicate that the comparisons are among feeder, in-state high schools; and others are general enough that the lack of detail is concerning as the study leaves out the total population and only provides percentages.

You can look at the data[1] yourself. It's clear that of in-state students enrolling in UCs (not international), Asian Americans make up 36% of enrollees and white Americans make up 20% of enrollees (indeed "underrepresented"). It seems like you are leading on with your comments that it is maybe OK to cut down on Asian representation because most of those students are probably international anyway (which I also don't agree with), but the data clearly shows that such a cut to Asian representation would harm Asian Americans as well.

[1] https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2021/chapt...

I can see how essays for graduate admissions can be more useful since you have to make a personal statement about your academic/research interests, how the program would help you accomplish your goals, etc. But for undergraduate admissions, the essays are the easiest part of your application to game since they ask about very generic life experiences (e.g. tell us about a hardship you overcame) that are unverifiable.

This is especially true for people with money: either through major editing from professionals ($$$), or just outright paying someone to write them for you ($$$). As someone who went to a rich high school in a large city (as a diversity student), I can tell you the number of students I knew who paid to have their essays written or heavily edited outnumbered those who didn't.