Forlien

You might be interested in https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/giving-people-money-helped-... which talks about the studies showing low effects for just giving money to Americans. It seems like just giving people money is still unproven to have impacts to make people healthier, happier (beyond the year they start giving money), get them better jobs, or improve their children’s intellectual development. There's still hope for targeted programs, but it changed my view on blanket payments.

what's the point to change the platform

Money. From https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/i10p4m/surv..., Substack gave him a "very very generous offer in terms of how the monetization would work".

Not the OP, but when an investor acquires more than 5% of a stock, they have a limited time to disclose it. Elon disclosed his Twitter stock acquisition too late (20 days after instead of 10) and using the wrong form (Schedule 13G instead of Schedule 13D), painting him as a passive investor rather than an activist.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-06/elon-m... talks about it.

Even if it became illegal, qualified immunity would protect the offical who made the threats, so officials will likely never be personally impacted by breaking the law and so it'll keep being broken.

Western society says that some decisions are only able to be made by people who are old enough. If you think about other decisions like gambling at a casino, joining the army or purchasing alcohol, then it might help you understand where they're coming from.

Per https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/long-covid-much-more-t..., it sounds like long term physical and mental impacts can stay with people who get hospitalized by the flu. Why are you more worried about long COVID than persistent effects of diseases that have been around longer like the flu?

The best I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_(poker_bot), but it sounds like it was limited to a few demonstrations.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, since I'm not that well educated about this. Why can't they sue the police department or some similar body instead of the individuals? My understanding is that QI protects the individuals, but not the government itself from being sued; however, I don't see any discussion of that route when this defense is brought up.

According to posters on the subreddit for the blog, he emailed people who had been to in-person meetups for the blog. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/hbk52q/psa_...

From their page when you click apply:

NB! Please be aware that e-Residency does not confer citizenship, tax residency, residence or right of entry to Estonia or to the European Union. It is not a visa or residence permit.

Too bad. It looks like this can't make you a citizen of the EU.

I've heard that some minor internet celebrities will call their police department when moving to a new area to warn about potential swatting calls. You could try to do the same, but it's probably hit-or-miss.

IQ might be a better predictor, but the linked paper says it's not a far better one:

"The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades."

Hmm, do you think there are some things you can say that would classify as an action you could be arrested for rather than an idea?

For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed nation with free speech where they are accepted?

http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-s... says 41 gallons per capita in 2014. Converted, it's 0.4252 liters per day, so a liter per day is more than double the average.

I feel a bit dumb asking this, but your explanation doesn't make it clear to me why you can't think of a bind on Maybe as a flatMap on a List with 0 (Nothing) or 1 (Just) elements. Could you elaborate further on how thinking of a bind on Maybe as null propagation eliminates it also being interpreted as a flatMap on a restricted-size list?

Is this a case of a more specialized tool (with fewer but more focused features)? For example, you can view email in vim, and I'm sure you'd get better performance than Gmail for large emails but very few developers I know use vim for that.

This seems strange. If you view page source on this comments page while logged in to Hacker News, does the source show you as not logged in? When I do that, my source contains the link to my profile (user?id=Forlien) at the top so I know it's giving me the logged-in version.

Where do you draw the line for how much you can cut costs and sacrifice a little bit of productivity or retraining? For example, I often see programmers talk about having proper tools to do their job, whether that be high quality keyboards, faster computers with more memory, or subscription IDEs like Intellij. Should government programmers be denied these things because it is possible to program quite well without them?

For what it's worth, I have a counter anecdote. I go to a university where for some computer science courses, your labs are on computers with a Linux desktop environment. Other students seem to do fine in these labs. Even so, when I look around the classroom during lectures, almost all the open laptops are Windows or Mac. Perhaps these students don't get enough exposure over the couple of courses or don't get shown enough of the reasons to switch to Linux.

You can add these shortcuts into your browser. On firefox, you can right click on a search box and specify some character(s). I'm sure there's a similar process on chrome too.

At this point, I've set up search keywords in firefox to do this. Now, for example, I type "gi rabbit" for pictures of rabbits. It's nice because they also can be used as shortened parts of links. Eg. "@ john" to go to twitter.com/john

Pascal's Wager (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager) is also about a small but likely downside with a potentially large but unlikely upside. Do you think it's analogous to your 2nd case? If not, how is it different?

I thought Klathmon was pointing out say that they an attacker could say that they just mashed on the keyboard and that would be good enough for the fallible human on the other end of the phone.

Anecdotally, I had a time where I couldn't remember may answer to a secret question except that it was a type of food. I called in and the human on the other end let me reset my password with just that explanation. Take that for what you will, but it seems like if someone knows you use passwords that are random strings, they can use that to break in.

Interestingly, I took this quote to mean both that reported news is biased, but the decision of what events to report upon is biased too. Being a skeptic solves the first issue. For the second, filtering what you read doesn't help if you aren't reading stories that are valuable to you but aren't tragic / scary / interesting enough for the rest of the news source's readers. Since news sources are biased, how can you know what you aren't seeing?

But in this example Japanese Americans weren't his buddies, they were innocent people taken from their homes without trial. Going back to your example, let's ignore the issue of a lack of trial with vigilante justice. If instead you ran over him and another innocent passerby, is your example still clear-cut?

I'd argue that 3DS piracy would have continued even if Nintendo opened up for homebrew. There's money to be made off of it - if there weren't, the initial exploit with a special cartridge wouldn't have been developed.

On a sidenote, do companies in general want to allow home brew on game consoles? Especially if they're selling them at a loss or at break-even, since they're not going to make money if people buy the consoles just for homebrew purposes.

You make some interesting points about non-objective discussions on HN. I think your reasoning could justify banning other topics too, so I'm wondering how you would decide that discussions aren't objective enough.

For example, you could use your justification for banning any discussion about HN's rules since that would also be subjective and have minority viewpoints unfairly downvoted. People are often passionate about any rules changes as we can see by the upvotes on this submission. Do you think discussion about this rules change should be banned too?

That's a lot of $1 purchases. Where are you buying that you make 240k purchases in a reasonable amount of time?

Doesn't it depend where Mylan's profit comes from? I don't know the numbers, but ideally the fine would more than cover the amount they made from EpiPens.

In your example, if you legally earned $900MM and then robbed a bank for $100MM, would you be fine if the fine was $500MM when caught?

Did you link the wrong page? It looks like they are advocating switch statements.