viknesh

Only a casual user of Linux desktop computing but my experience with ui stability seems to have gotten much worse after switching to Wayland.

I went and enjoyed it a lot. The variety of the exhibitions was great (personally I loved the watercolor pen plotter) and the age of the exhibitors - both very young and old, was delightful.

Just replaced a 17 year old Brother with a new one. Seems to work just as well, although I've always been using first party cartridges.

I believe Google explicitly stated that they used data collected from Ingress (arguably a predecessor to Pokemon Go) at the time. It's the reason Niantic was founded. It's hard to take these complaints seriously.

Sounds like a great opportunity for a startup to fix!

In the country I live, there is a standard AML/KYC service that allows customers (banks, utilities) to easily perform ID verification in a few minutes.

It's possible it's fake, but you can type in the exact same prompt into Gemini and get very similar results.

2/3 generated drafts include a "safety" disclaimer about botulism, but 1 doesn't.

What's interesting is thinking about what (if any) parallels of "PFOS" exist in the tech industry - collective delusions of products that aren't harmful. I would vote for most social media apps, maybe?

The article does a good job of addressing the nuance, but the headline and most attention grabbing parts of it don't.

Most of the new housing built may have been illegal under previous parking rules, but it doesn't logically follow that similar housing couldn't have been built without the parking rules change, just that it's cheaper to build without it.

The article/quotes acknowledge this,

> “It’s impossible, really, to tie a specific code change to changes in the market,” explained Brennan Staley, a strategic advisor for Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development. Other local regulations, housing prices, and international finance markets all play a part in the real estate market. Michael Hubner, who works on long range planning in Seattle, agreed: “It’s very difficult to point to a causal relationship.”

and also note that off street parking is still present in the majority of new housing

> In both cities, the majority of new buildings still included off-street parking voluntarily

Given that the rocket blew up more or less at launch, it should be full of unspent fuel. How does one put out that fire? I'm guessing there's a lot of energy stored there, so letting it burn through doesn't seem wise.

I would disagree. Mathematicians certainly don't need to visualize everything but "intuition" is a commonly used phrase which is a notion of understanding.

Although math merely requires proving some statement, often having an intuition / understanding of how concepts interact with each other helps figure out which things are likely to be true.

The contents of the link are so far from what you describe them as it's hard to believe that you're arguing in good faith.

Put another way, what is the government even bringing to the table? Clearly Twitter had the tools to attempt to sway the election on their own, so why do they need to meet with <insert 3 letter agency>?

Other than the practical reality of it being expensive to construct nuclear facilities (which may or may not be solvable), what is speaking against building new ones?

As someone who once had an NYT subscription (no longer) and now has an Economist subscription, I totally agree with the sentiment. The Economist absolutely has an angle, but it comes across with much more explanation of the objective facts around a given situation, akin to a 3rd party observer explaining an issue and their opinion of it. In contrast, the NYT is quite patronizing, with half-assed attempts to explain "both sides," but you always know what the "right side" is.

Edit: I think this quote from the article summarizes the NYT shift:

> Focusing on potential perpetrators – “platforming” them by explaining rather than judging their views – is believed to empower them to do more harm.

> Trying to be helpful, one of the top newsroom editors urged me to start attaching trigger warnings to pieces by conservatives. It had not occurred to him how this would stigmatise certain colleagues, or what it would say to the world about the Times’s own bias.

> I came to think of the people who were fragile, the ones who were caught up in Slack or Twitter storms, as people who had only recently discovered that they were white and were still getting over the shock. Having concluded they had got ahead by working hard, it has been a revelation to them that their skin colour was not just part of the wallpaper of American life, but a source of power, protection and advancement.

> At one point, Baquet, musing about how the Times was changing, observed that one of the newsroom’s cultural critics had become the paper’s best political-opinion columnist. Taking this musing one step further, I then noted that this raised an obvious question: why did the paper still have an Opinion department separate from the newsroom, with its own editor reporting directly to the publisher? If the newsroom was publishing the best opinion journalism at the paper – if it was publishing opinion at all – why did the Times maintain a separate department that falsely claimed to have a monopoly on such journalism?

> The Opinion department is a relic of the era when the Times enforced a line between news and opinion journalism.... by the time I returned as editorial-page editor, more opinion columnists and critics were writing for the newsroom than for Opinion.

> The Times could learn something from the Wall Street Journal, which has kept its journalistic poise. It has maintained a stricter separation between its news and opinion journalism...Journal reporters and other staff attempted a similar assault on their opinion department. “Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility,” shrugged the Journal’s editorial board in a note to readers after the letter was leaked. “The signers report to the news editors or other parts of the business.” The editorial added, in case anyone missed the point, “We are not the New York Times.” That was the end of it.

The reasoning is correct but the conclusion is backwards IMO.

You should "adjust for inflation" (using other measures for inflation) to examine the current price of gold. If gold is still expensive, either the inflation adjustments are incorrect, gold is mispriced, or external force is driving demand for gold.

Put another way, because gold is an "independent yardstick" for inflation, you have to "adjust for inflation" to draw any conclusions about the current price of gold.

For me, the operative part of the comment is

> To keep it simple, consider starting by reporting SMSes.

> For robocalls, expect that many robocall CIDs are spoofed

I pretty much only get spam calls (texts are pretty rare), and I'm 99% sure all the source numbers are spoofed and I assume it's infeasible to actually trace them. If this is wrong, please let me know.

Otherwise, I guess I'll just keep waiting for STIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN).

Would you also agree that if NFL teams were tax exempt, it wouldn't matter anyways?

I agree that the dollar impact of lost taxes on society is negligible, but the blatant unfairness seems worth fixing.

Is public housing the main driver of lower housing prices in comparable economies?

I would have guessed that the HUD being unable to build more housing isn't helping us, but isn't the main reason that prices are skyrocketing in urban areas.

Are there any factual assertions that you disagree with in the piece? Otherwise this seems to be more anti-Binance than crypto itself (although the author's viewpoint on crypto is clear).

Neat fact! I guess that's basically Martingales for life expectancy?

> it varies considerably by income, location, and whether you do drugs

It's not even that complicated - if you've lived to age 54, you've already lived long enough to not die for the first 54 years and so your life expectancy is higher than the default "no info" value of 73 years old.

According to https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html, you have an expected 25 years left.

This paper seems to not have controlled for vehicle weight, which is the most obvious thing I could possibly think of being a confounding variable (specifically, total force applied). They specifically call out the variables they controlled for on pages 9 & 10 of the paper (https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2294).

It shocks me that this article could be written without mentioning the phrase "price elasticity" a single time (a word I learned in a class literally numbered "econ 101").

I think a meta point that is interesting here is that nobody could be more motivated to lobby for DMCA changes than large platforms like Google. Wrongfully targeted victims take out their anger on the platform, who thus far wrings their hands and says "sorry, it's the law, file a counterclaim if you want."

If it's enough of a problem for the platform (and not the victims), they can just pay off their congresspeople to write a law allowing DMCA abuse detection systems.

I think you could argue something like "Amazon is aware that it's ads broadly promote counterfeits but leave them up"

One thing you might not have considered is that some notion of "dissatisfaction w/ job" would increase both the likelihood of you wanting to join a union and your employer wanting to fire you or lay you off.

Edit: also, another confounding factor that hasn't been discussed is job role/department. Layoffs and union membership are definitely not evenly distributed across role/department, but there is not enough info in the article to know if the layoffs were targeting specific roles or uniform across the company.

…what?

I get the idea, but having money shouldn’t mean you should be able to just choose someone’s land and decide its yours.

I didn't make it very clear, but I agree that the specific example isn't problematic. The false claims weren't meant to be any sort of targeted disinformation, and like you mention they reverted it in 48 hours.

This is such a short-sighted take. Who do you think pays for your $0/year premiums? You do, through reduced wages.

The main difference between US healthcare and socialized health care is that in the US, nobody is responsible for lowering healthcare costs... and so they go up. Why do you think PE loves buying up healthcare facilities?

I think one would have to weigh the pros and cons of this kind of research. In particular, the main cons (IMO) are:

* users are misled about facts * trust is lost in Wikipedia * other users/organizations use this as a blueprint to insert false information

Harm 3 seems to be the most serious, but I suspect it has happened/will happen irrespective of this research. As opposed to the water reservoir example, these harms seem quite small by contrast. I would have liked to see a section discussing this in the blog post, but perhaps that's included in the original paper.

They really aren't that arbitrary, except for 110, but even that is reasonable given our decimal system:

* Arbitrary but socially meaningful geographic boundary. Basically, a notable US city.

* 1 year intervals are actually canonical given that years are based on Earth's rotation

* Gregorian calendar / starting at Jan 1 is again socially meaningful, but in particular doesn't split summers in the northern hemisphere

* 110 and imperial are sensible given usage of Fahrenheit and decimal systems in the US.

Your comment makes it sound like the article is making a claim equally as meaningful as "at latlng 53.193,38.8493, Earth's temperature has been above 482.3 kelvin for 4 of the past 3952 days" which is really not.

Yeah, there's definitely some "p hacking" to make spin this into a newsworthy headline, but not nearly to the degree your comment makes it seem. And not to mention the issue of "110f in Phoenix" has been newsworthy previously (eg 3 straight weeks of 110+), it makes even more sense.