dahinds

the bond example is a return on your money, the profit margin example is a return on other people's money.

If this was copy-pasted, isn't it much more likely that it was copy-pasted from a document describing the performance of the SA3000 chip, than from a document that was written before the SA3000 was developed?

The only overlap from the document with the text you quote is the "106", which is a pretty common mis-formatting issue.

Here's a comparison of the Medieval Warm Period with recent temperatures (so no model based speculation).

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=31

There's a lot to unpack here:

- the warming in the Medieval Warming Period is modest compared to projected modern warming

- The Alps are currently "warm enough" to be crossed without special gear much of the year. Otzi was found wearing multiple layers of hides and furs that would have provided good protection against the elements and is supposed to have been killed in late spring/early summer, not the depths of winter. Glaciers are active things and where he was found could be some distance from where he died.

- Yes the earth has been warmer and colder in the past, climate scientists are aware of these facts, it can also be true that climate is changing quickly in ways that may be very inconvenient for many modern humans.

- Regarding California climate, I don't know who "these same scientists" were, and popular press about climate change is often misleading and superficial. I have lived here for ~35 years and we have had a handful of very wet years but most of that period has been classified as "drought". Yes at the moment we are not but this was a very poor water year and we've benefited from carryover storage from last year. As far as I know, the scientific consensus is still that California is getting warmer and drier on average, and the large year to year fluctuations do not nullify that trend.

For the past ~60 years... with maybe just a bit of slack on the start of that, it would include tremendously impactful things like: - the clean air act and clean water act - endangered species act and restrictions on international trade for protected animals and plants - creation of the EPA, and reductions and regulation of pesticides and herbicides - the emergence of the organic food industry - the Montreal protocol and global reduction in CFC production - contribution to the development of clean energy technology -- you could argue that now the boom in clean energy is just economics in action but that comes after decades of basic science and technical innovation motivated by environmental concerns.

This isn't really the issue, most of the cost of reviewing new drug applications is covered by user fees. And most of the cost and time required for getting a drug approved is in the clinical trials. FDA resources aren't really the bottleneck, the FDA is generally faster than its counterparts in other countries.

protein and carbohydrate are both 4 calories per gram?

I don't think they're asserting that all of human existence can be subsumed as text, though? Just that "consciousness", or "understanding", in some meaningful sense could be exhibited by a system that can only interact with the world through text?

That's a bookkeeping issue, it doesn't affect the argument at all (which is that the capex has a finite useful life over which it would need to pay for itself).

The claim could be true even if every customer is exactly like you. The implication is that Costco doesn't really make money selling stuff, they just need to roughly break even. And "breaking even" here includes paying rewards on purchases. The fact that you earn a lot of rewards doesn't stop your membership dues from contributing to Costco's bottom line.

Not sure how that follows. It seems mostly irrelevant whether the new incident is related to the github issue.

The cheapest option might be to buy the index and sell short the appropriate amount of Musk companies.

Mostly never -- most of the deferral was an accounting adjustment for the value of future tax credits that they could no longer take advantage of, so there is no actual tax liability here that will eventually be paid.

Yes but if the solar panel area scales linearly with radiator area, the problem doesn't get worse?

This isn't really true, though? The ISS does it with radiators that are ~1/2 the area of its solar panels, and both should scale linearly with power?

What does it mean to "fund protests"? I'm also a "normal" person who has been to a couple No Kings protests, and no one paid me. Someone spent some money on fliers, I suppose.

The major No Kings events were in June and October last year. January is not a great time for outdoors protests in much of the country. Does it somehow make the protests inauthentic if focus has now shifted towards ICE?

"With Bitcoin you do not get government bailouts" -- yeah maybe not yet? Is it beyond belief that a government with leadership deeply invested in crypto currencies might take action if something super disruptive happens?

It is often illegal to purchase drugs from other sources?

The named drugs are injectable and require cold storage so it is not trivial to safely source them from overseas.

I think I'm not understanding what comparison you're trying to make. I thought you were expressing some doubt about whether H1B, or temporary skilled worker visas generally, were beneficial for the host country. You asked, "why don't other countries encourage this specific type of immigration" and I pointed out that they do have similar programs. Now you ask "why don't they have even higher rates of skilled worker immigration?"

Japan's SSW program has close to 300k workers. The U.S. H1B program has about 700k workers, so by population, Japan's program appears to be a bit larger. New Zealand's AEWV program has 80k workers with a population of 5 million so proportionally that's much larger.

All the countries you mention offer temporary work visas for skilled workers, of varying similarity to an H1B.

They cheated because their cars didn't meet new emissions standards. They were fine by the standards of the year before.

So a bureaucracy just declared that a legal level of emissions was now illegal.

That is not at all what happened and not how emissions standards are deployed. The EPA's Tier 2 standards were finalized in 2000 to phase in during the 2004-2008 model years [1].

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/02/10/00-19/c...

Can you reference where Krugman made the claim you're criticizing?

The terminations so far focus on anything with any mention of a DEI related objective and that may seem "fine", but these don't constitute a lot of the NSF's budget (the terminated grants total < $1 billion and if you click through them you'll see that for many, that's 5 years of funding). The planned cuts are much deeper[1], DEI is just not where the "big bucks" are.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...

are you asking about methods to improve privacy of aggregated datasets? They seem to be not super popular with people in the field, I think because they sharply curtail how data can be used compared to having access to datasets with no strong privacy guarantees. I think the maybe more impactful recent shift is toward "trusted research environments" where you get to work with a particular dataset only in a controlled setting with actively monitored egress.

The top-of-thread linked to an article that was specifically about aggregated data sharing, not individual-level data sharing. The consent document you're linking to did not exist when that article was written; our general research consent only covers aggregated data sharing. It was only in 2018 that we added the second-level consent for individual-level data sharing.

I think we've generally been pretty careful to present only scientifically well supported results, which has not helped the perceived utility of our health product. There are certainly valid arguments to be had about the business model.

I would not argue with you on that it is "selling your data". But I also think there are meaningful differences in harm levels for different kinds of "selling your data", and fully identified data has more potential harms than de-identified data where you have to assume that an adversary is willing to violate contracts and/or the law to learn about particular individuals.

There is considerable confusion about the distinction between aggregated data and de-identified individual-level data. I would say that I don't consider sufficiently aggregated data to be "your data" in a particularly meaningful personal sense of "your", even though there are still some re-identification risks from these types of datasets.

I was contesting the statement that "The data has already been sold... [and] the damage is already done" which I still think is highly misleading.

I can go to a data broker and purchase access to de-identified EMR data for most of the U.S. population. There are much more useful de-identified datasets around than ours, if someone is motivated to try to re-identify those datasets. That data is all bought and sold without anyone's consent and this is all fine under HIPAA.

Indeed, but here "re-identification" generally means the sort of attack where you have an aggregated genomic dataset, and you already have access to full genomic data for a target individual, and you use the genomic dataset to infer something about that target that you didn't know, like whether or not they participated in that study. Not to entirely minimize this sort of attack, but the NIH decided it was a sufficiently low risk that most of the sorts of datasets it applies to (like GWAS) are routinely shared with no access controls.

Here "de-identified" means stripped of PII (name, address, phone number, email, etc). You are correct that genetic information is intrinsically identifiABLE (in the sense that it is stable and uniquely distinguishing for individuals). When we've shared individual-level data with a partner, it was with consent of the participants involved, and under a contract that prohibits re-identification.

Click on the "Scientific Details" instead of the Summary.