pariahHN
pariahHN on Hacker News
Do you stop for food? Buccee's is already half restaurant and targets long distance drivers. Charge yourself while charging your vehicle. Many suburban gas stations have some form of food service attached as well.
The company mentioned (Electriq Global) has a powder that stores hydrogen. There must have been some language or knowledge transfer issue with the article, because the website for Electriq talks about using KBH4 as a hydrogen carrier.
https://www.electriq.com
Similar experience, it makes it easy to integrate components into partner pages because they can treat it just like any other HTML element and we don't have to worry about the vast majority of possible namespace conflicts thanks to the shadow DOM.
If it's one person spending 4 hours a day, 500 pages/month is about 16 a day including weekends, 4 pages per hour, so 15 minutes to review each page for redactions. 500/month seems pretty fast given that there's probably only a few people that have had this dumped on their plate in addition to everything else they have to do.
That article ended too early, I was hoping to get some insight into potential solutions.
This is extremely frustrating. Every time I try to discuss big issues with my dad, his side consists basically of "its too difficult". This man witnessed the transition room sized memory to 1TB SD cards, the growth of the internet infrastructure, the development of international flight - all things which would have been considered magical miracles just a few decades before he was born, but now everything is just too difficult to bother implementing. I don't understand how he can have that attitude after everything he witnessed being built and even participated in building.
This is really what does it for me. Name, eh, ok. Deliberately choosing other names to retain the 'joke', that's pushing it a bit but not a real deal breaker personally.
But straight up using homophobic slurs because of an API change? Apparently random racial slurs in comments? Why? Someone deliberately choose those specific words, they don't bring any benefit to the program, and they really are not something I would want to be associated with as a contributor.
I think the words people choose to convey information say a lot about what is floating near the top of their mind. Who seriously comes up with 'sluts' as their first choice to name an array of women?
This is an interesting point I have not contemplated in my musings on the issue so far. Something I should have thought of earlier since my dad came out of retirement and thus is taking up a position that otherwise could have been occupied by the promotion of someone who graduate more recently.
Thanks for sharing it.
It doesn't have to be done with accelerated individuals not experiencing that school environment - just expand existing dual-credit systems and make it possible to spend your four high school years doing dual credit for the entire common core curriculum in your normal high school environment. That alone would probably make a huge difference. Not sure what the equivalent for trades would look like, I don't know enough about the academic process for those. But my high school had an auto shop, so it would be doable in at least one place for at least one trade.
Academic progression does not necessarily have to be tied in lockstep with social development.
I was also wondering about this. No discussion of the likelihood of someone who knows about their condition and is being treated for it being exposed in the first place. If they had a lower likelihood in the first place then it would also look like HCQ had the desired effect.
I am interested by a couple of their references, specifically regarding the possibility of HCQ only working as a prophylactic after a sufficiently long period of exposure. That could be a contributor to difficulty in replication.
It wasn't intended to be. It's an actual question - where does the cutoff point lie for something standing on its own vs it being considered a problematic and irredeemable symbol of an atrocity and how do we define it? How do we differentiate between when someone is an asshole or not?
I came across an example of this the other day after seeing the word used in a historical text for a class [0,1]. I was fairly certain it did not mean what it sounded like it meant so I looked into it. While the word does not have a definition associated with slavery (that I know of) and is thus arguably further away from the issue than the word master, its phonetics are enough for its usage to result in condemnation.
Lives can be ruined, either from an accusation over a misunderstanding or a failure to recognize actual harmful intent. Vagueness creates friction. To solve a problem there needs be a thorough and precise understanding, and when it involves multiple people there also needs to be a sufficiently common definition.
[0]: http://www.americanyawp.com/reader/16-capital-and-labor/will...
[1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Controversies_about_the_word_nig...
Are we going to get rid of every word that a plantation owner ever used to insult the slaves? For words that specifically have no purpose other than conveying hate, I can understand stamping them out. But master has quite a few other meanings, most of which I would think existed before institutionalized slavery of black people existed. Seems a bit unproductive to target it. They had supervisors - should we stop using the word supervisor? What about boss? Or plantation? Could not the entire BDSM culture be considered in the same way, with its themes of bondage and servitude? Somehow I doubt that every time a sub asks a dom to crack a whip over their head they are celebrating slavery. How close does a word have to be to an issue relative to its other usages in order to be considered a symbol of that issue above all else?
This is the conclusion I think I am coming to on this issue. So long as only verifiable facts are presented as a counter point, then it isn't really even editorializing, let alone censorship. Editorializing is defined as presenting an opinion - if you present a verifiable primary data source and nothing else, you are by definition not editorializing.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-covid-19-tests-...Seems to confirm, 28% increase in the past month overall in tests performed per positive. But this graph doesn't give any regional focus unfortunately - all we can say is that on a national scale, the positive test rate is decreasing. It is entirely possible that there is an increase being hidden by a larger decrease in the hot spots, but the next month should give us the answer.
How would someone build a physical filter that only works in one direction? I'm having some trouble finding good sources on air filter design, I did see some mentions of differing porosity on different sides looking at HVAC filters but unfortunately no details on the mechanisms/principles behind it. Most of the information I have seen regarding lack of mask effectiveness comes from mask type, improper use, and conservation of supply for those most in need, not the actual mask itself, implying that masks are in fact effective if they are used properly, with effectiveness depending on mask design - your comment appears to be referring to use in general.
I would think however that placing any physical barrier in the path of an airflow is going to have an effect regardless of direction, as some non zero portion of particles are always going to impact the barrier.
Edit: It appears from other comments you may in fact be referring to improper use of masks that are also not specifically designed to maximize filtration ability. I would still submit that some degree of mitigation is better than none, but I can see how a false sense of safety could outweigh the benefits of the mask.
Every time I see someone bring up that others have it worse, everyone else has seen huge improvement, etc I've always gotten the impression that they are somehow trying to minimize the issues people are talking about as not being worthy of consideration because of the other. From your reply it seems like I may be missing something because I can't see how anyone's level of gratitude or acknowledgement/lack of acknowledgement re the improving status of others is relevant to the concerns they have regarding their own situation or productive in resolving said concerns. And thus, I usually conclude that the only reason it is brought up is to minimize whatever issue the original poster brings up.
But I'm really curious as to what the underlying reasoning here is. I can sort of understand when it comes down to obvious luxuries, so long as those luxuries are not in fact mandatory for being a productive member of the corresponding society (eg complaining about not being one of the 100 people to have one of those newfangled telephones vs complaining about not having a telephone in an age where having a telephone is the default expectation).
How would having a basic posture of gratitude aid someone in resolving issues they face that deal with what may be seen as luxuries in areas that are improving but which may be necessities in their own area? What relevance does the improvement of others have to resolving or mitigating the backwards slide of another? Is it not better for everyone to be experiencing improvement? Is there some fundamental mechanism that requires some areas backslide in order for others to improve?
I'm genuinely curious - you aren't the first person I have met that makes the assertions you have, and I have experienced the same sense of bafflement every time.
> Also maybe wages have stagnanted in the US for this generation, but keep in mind the wealth improvements in the rest of the world have been staggering. Billions of people in India or China have been lifted out of poverty.
So, your premise here seems to be that even though your own life may be going downhill as long as everyone else is doing better you shouldn't bother with exploring the reasons behind or even trying to fix your own backwards slide. Is that correct?
I do exactly this, but with the sticky notes application. I find it easier to shuffle and tweak the raw text than moving around and editing discrete todo items, and I have it covering the next 2-3 weeks at any given moment with longer term stuff noted at the bottom. I've also started carrying around a small notepad that acts sort of like a buffer for the todo list, both incoming items that occur when I'm not at the keyboard and outgoing data/thoughts for meetings. It feels more like a natural extension of my memory than any todo app I've tried.
This...does not seem as bad as I originally thought. Just a prompt bar to use Office instead of WordPad. I was thinking it would look like the start menu does. Admittedly I would be more concerned if it was advertising something other than a product most consumers regard as the default way to edit text.
Totally not a physicist.
But, I would guess that it has to do with wiggles in space-time, since they do say it's from the vibrating of the atoms. Energy is transferred through a medium via imparting of wiggles to that medium, so I think it would be reasonable to guess that it's either the vibrations moving through space-time or maybe some other field related to mass.
Even if we still had the Library of Alexandria, it may have shed zero light on the actual lives of citizens. Archiving content on the internet means capturing thousands of individual level perspectives and experiences. We don't know what will end up being important to historians 50 or 100 years from now. I would bet there are dozens if not hundreds of historians that would give
anything for a record of their favorite time period that contains even a fraction of the amount of content today's archive efforts are storing.
It's also not horrendously expensive - we are getting better and better at storage as well data analysis techniques, so stuff that seems useless today may be useful 50 years from now and cost less to store than it does now. The key thing again being that we can't benefit from hindsight.
Even graffiti can give insight into a time period, even if that insight is that that time period had an unusually high number of graffiti artists.
Well of course it is. How are you supposed to learn about how to integrate into society without, you know...learning about it?
I wish people would be more specific - it's not that education in of itself is bad, it's that the way it is currently implemented in this specific society has these specific flaws. I strongly dislike when a discussion disparages an entire concept when it's really just our implementation of that concept that is flawed. It rules out potential solutions simply because they are associated with ones that failed, when the differences between them could result in success.
Not saying that's what's in the video - I get the impression that they are in fact talking about specifically the implementation and not ripping on education itself, but I've seen and heard stuff like this used as the foundation not only of attacks on being educated but also on anything else where some implementations of an ideal failed and so the ideal and all possible solutions stemming from that ideal are dismissed as unworkable. And it bothers me a bit how that approach is popular among many sides of many arguments that I have seen. I would in fact suggest that it is in fact a marker of a failed education - using an example of a failed implementation to argue that the concept itself is inherently flawed is itself an example of a failure in critical thinking.
Yes but for a shirt? Capturing a shirt shoplifter is worth the same effort and potential damage to innocents as a murderer? Or a bank robber? Or an organized group hitting electronics retailers? If someone refuses to pay a parking ticket, how much collateral damage is worth getting them to pay their ticket?
Also I feel your comment may be implying that this sort of hyper aggressive enforcement is the only thing keeping crime down - I would suspect that crime at the level of shoplifting a shirt is more often due to need and desperation than to purely malicious intent, and while hyper aggressive enforcement may have some deterrent effect those crimes would probably be better resolved by trying to eliminate the core issues driving them in the first place.
And how exactly do you propose the Sierra Club enforce its decisions? Sharp words and a stern glare?
A government brings with it the ability to actually enforce laws, and I think there are sufficient examples in world history as to why the ability to enforce is just as important, if not more, as the ability to legislate. That's partly why we now have the Constitution instead of still using the Articles of Confederation.
That in itself may be considered a victory, depending on how far China is pushed and how they respond. If the rest of the world won't/can't do business with China anymore, that would be bad for China. HK's last ditch objective could end up as goading China into chopping off it's own feet to put down the protestors. A pyrrhic victory for sure, but still a victory in the long run.
Eh, in some instances you can define extremeness relative to alternatives, not number of believers. Execution as a punishment is more extreme than a fine regardless of how many people favor execution over fines. I would argue that generally a position being extreme results in fewer believers, not that fewer believers results in a position being extreme.
But there is a solution to that. Anything that can be easily identified as being the result of someone's own choices they are on the hook for and/or can get insurance for. Yes, these things would have to be enumerated, with some things debated and others refined, but insurance companies didn't seem to have any trouble enumerating what they will or will not cover and this isn't any different. Most if not all of the issues with implementing a system like this will be things that have been done before.
But, a percentage that would have bought black market goods may instead go the stereotypical route for underage drinking - getting someone of age to legally buy the product and pass it on.
People
still fall for "convincing" emails and social media profiles with a name and a photo. I work tech support at my university, and we regularly have to deal with faculty clicking on things they shouldn't, or not clicking on things they should. I also do some work for a local non-profit and a month ago two employees came uncomfortably close to costing us thousands.
Cryptographic trust won't help much either unless it is packaged and presented in the right way to the end user - it's basically advanced black magic to most people. I would love to have cryptographic verification setup for the non-profit's communication so that they can have some guarantee of legitimacy, but first I have to figure out how to make it fit into their workflow and not require them to actually take any action.
It's important to keep in mind that we have some distorted sampling. I would guess that most if not all of the people on HN are technical to some degree, so we may tend to have a bit of a bubble. We are a pathetically, uncomfortably small minority.
Never, ever, ever rely on humans doing the right thing if you can help it, whether in the form of an individual, a corporation, or a government.
They may not
technically be the only platforms (extending to include all big tech), but practically speaking they are effectively the only platforms, which is what really matters. Someone may technically be able to change from Comcast to Verizon, but if it would cost them 10k then it becomes rather impractical and the net effect is the same as if Comcast was the only option. The barrier to switching must be considered as well as the existence of options.
However I agree that breaking them up may not be the solution - mandated interoperability may be. At least then there would be the benefits of having freedom of choice with plenty of options without the downsides of losing access to your data and your social network (which I think constitute the majority of the switching barrier). Similar mandates in healthcare and education would also be beneficial. This would of course not immediately solve the problem, but I would rather have to deal with getting developers to be mindful of the needs of their users than face the impossibility of getting users in the first place.
An entity should be allowed to be as successful as they can manage, so long as the practical barriers to competition are not affected (ie, network effects)