HN user
Thanks, I'll look into that product. Less costly, but still far from the $2 scenario. If hardware keys got to a super low price point, or even handed out for free or bundled with new phones or PCs, I image lots of people would prefer them over passkeys.
A bit of a tangent but do you have a view on prices for hardware security keys like YubiKey? For private use they're a pricey option, especially if you get a few backup keys. Could a big actor like Google, if they wanted, scale up production, sell at cost and get prices down to say $2 each? Or is the components and manufacturing inherently more costly? Is there anything on the horizon that likely will bring much lower prices?
Good read! I wish we had a shorter name for "breaking down tasks". Perhaps taskspec, short for "task specifying". Or taskdev?
Both the Economist's text and the Fraunhofer press release focus mostly on the benefit of not using certain refrigerants. But for in home AC use noise reduction might be a much stronger selling point. Especially in Europe where it is common with so called portable indoor AC units that put the noisy compressor inside the room you want to cool down.
If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes
As a thought experiment how many more murders per year would you accept as a cost of keeping "punishment-respect" around? 10? 1000? 100K? Limitless?
To me respect for others is primarily about caring, promoting health and reducing harm. To prevent someone from getting murdered is very respectful of them and their life. We can also show respect for all the choices a person will make in the future by adopting the policy that prevents them getting murdered today.
But you or someone you care about could become a murder victim in both packages. Indeed the likelihood for that unwanted outcome is higher in the second package. I prefer the policy alternative that lowers the risk of people being murdered.
"justice ... Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values."
Values can depend on descriptive background assumptions and in such cases value arguments can improve by making progress on factual topics. In the case of the justness of punishment: the topic of determinism. The recent discussion by Daniel Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book "Just Deserts - Debating Free Will" is a useful read.
if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy?
Yes, if the "best thing .. in terms of .. crime rate" includes fewer murders. I prefer the package (fewer murders + higher percentage of murderers unpunished) over the package (more murders + lower percentage of murderers unpunished). Where unpunished does not mean "no reaction" but rather treatment, medication and rehabilitation.
They advocate a whole-foods plant-based diet. Meats/cheeses made out of plants aren't whole foods though. Generally we have to think critically and scrutinize sources cited and if they back up claims made. Do you have some such specific objection in this case?
Oh I see. The linked paper uses vegetarianism in a wider sense that covers that too.
Abuse is only one among several other arguments presented for ethical vegetarianism. For example see https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol19/iss1/1/
fake meak was proven to be non-healhtly
Here [0] is a series of nine short videos (with text transcripts and links to all scientific sources) on plant-based meat substitutes' health and environmental impact. The reported findings go against your claim.
[0] https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-environmental-impacts-o...
From the linked Calibre FAQ:
Why doesn’t calibre let me store books in my own folder structure?
... a search/tagging based interface is superior to folders ...
... much more efficient than any possible folder scheme you could come up with ...
Quite opinionated software. That and the quirky UI are reasons why I only use Calibre for a conversion or de-DRM here and there. Jump in, flail around until task done, fast exit.
Hence my sentences 2, 3 and 4.
Your sequestration suggestion should be compared to the most effective non-meat alternative, which is land area effective plant based protein production combined with reforestation of much current pasture https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food
We can eat soy - I had a tasty tofu bowl for lunch. The land used for growing soy animal feed can be also used to grow other plants we can eat directly or after preparation. That requires less land and less resources per calorie which lets us reforest and prevent further rainforest destruction. The carbon opportunity cost of meat is huge, https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food
Bitcoin is a way for regular citizens to (mostly) keep the government’s hands off their wealth.
What is the evidence for the "regular citizens" claim? Is there data on which social groups are over-/underrepresented in Bitcoin holding compared to non-Bitcoin wealth holding? My guess is that groups low in regular wealth/income are disproportionally low in Bitcoin wealth.
Government activities such as defense, education and infrastructure will still need funding. If some resource A shifts to Bitcoin and, assuming for argument, thereby becomes non-taxable won't some other non-Bitcoin resource B be taxed instead, with no net "hands off" effect?
I wasn't aware Wayback Machine had a comparison tool, thank you. I like how its comparison picker view indicates degrees of change relative to a selected snapshot, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/changes/https://plato.stanford.e...
Worth mentioning: SEP hosts static quarterly snapshots at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ , but with no diff feature.
SEP is the leading encyclopedia in professional philosophy. I wish the site had a basic diff view e.g. a toggle to highlight all new/modified words in a text since last revision.
That's not at all how a steel man argument works
With steelmanning I mean "the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it."[1] If you dispute that definition[2] then mentally swap the term to one you think better fits what I proposed.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning
[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...
Put simply, if redistribution worked, we’d see poverty rates decrease rather than stagnate or increase.
That is what we see, in other countries with more robust (and more redistributive) welfare state systems than the US.
I have in the past read a few short pieces by Sowell. Impression: weak normative reasoning, shaky empirical claims. I'd be happy if you steelman Sowell for me. Point to at most 10 pages of text where you think he is at his best, giving an argument for something supported by sound reasoning and strong empirical evidence. It might update my view of him.
It does. This text picks it apart concisely. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/03/01/the-success-...
Short clip of a customer entering a competing swedish cashless store via BankID app https://youtu.be/Rbm_puP4PgA?t=13
Swedes also use the BankID app for online interactions with health care and other public services. Last year I did my taxes in under 60 seconds. (Get notification; BankID login; check prefilled values from bank, employer etcetera; BankID sign.)
I wonder if that behaviour is misconduct under the rules of the researcher's university. It seems at least highly questionable for a university employed researcher to, in effect, feature request a privacy vulnerability in order to later be able to publish an academic paper on that vulnerability.