pinkmuffinere

for the most part mass == weight on Earth.

The thread above us discusses neither mass nor weight. Here it is copied in full -- I encourage you to use ctrl-f

mediumsmart 1 hour ago

One could eat healthy instead of course but hey, the good life.

shlant 1 hour ago

you didn't read the article did you? Or are you actually here to claim that people with hypercholesterolemia just need to eat better?

Do you have the same simplistic ideas about GLP-1's?

moi2388 1 hour ago

For all people? No. For the vast majority of people? Yes. Eat healthy and exercise more

I'm a bit upset that I put in effort to genuinely engage in your claims, and you're not willing to go back and read the thread to confirm claims that _you made_. In fact, you suckered me into re-reading the same thread _for the third time_ looking for some throwaway line I missed about mass or weight. I could just decide that internet discussion doesn't matter, and stop engaging on HN, but I'd rather not do that. Can you please try a bit more?

I'm not going to reply to the Triglycerides & HDL comment without a link. It was your claim initially, and I was nice enough to provide a link with evidence against it, so surely you can do the same in support.

It’s possible the comments have changed, but I see nothing in the thread about mass loss. I do agree about weight though — losing weight is largely diet.

Go from obese to not obese and the median person's cholesterol will drop quite a bit.

This is really interesting, I don’t think I’ve heard that before. Do you have a source you could share?

Edit: this doesn’t necessarily prove you wrong, but this paper argues there’s little correlation between bmi and cholesterol [1]

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11695-010-0170-7

The dietary impact on cholesterol in the blood is surprisingly low. Looking it up, this source says diet can affect 20-30% of your blood levels [1]. I don’t have a great statistic about exercise, but I’d encourage you to question what you think you know — at the very least I’ll claim you’re mistaken about the importance of dietary impacts on cholesterol, which perhaps should give you pause about your other beliefs

[1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/16867-cholest...

To be clear, I'm not endorsing Amazon writ large, I'm just saying I like the framing (ha!) as "two-way doors". This is maybe equivalent to your concept of reversible decisions, just by another name.

While we are griping about Amazon, my main complaints are about the fulfillment centers/working conditions, the anti-union activity, building their own versions of products that sell well on their platform, and the penalizing of companies that price higher on-amazon than off-amazon.

This creates a level of bias, even if banks didn't have incentives to write bullish projections.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this is misleading. The bad estimate of fair price is _overwhelmingly_ due to incentives for bullish projections. I have no source to back this up, aside from common sense. SPCX is supposedly an AI-company now, even though we all know this is a lie. It's AI-only revenue within 5 years[1] is projected to be larger than most SP500 companies' full revenue today[2]. On the face of it, this is silly, and I don't accept that all the analysts group-thought their way to believing it.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/goldma...

[2] https://stockanalysis.com/list/sp-500-stocks/

+1! I've fallen in love with many of Amazon's in-group concepts, and maybe I'm just drinking the koolaide, but they have the concept of a "two-way door", which is exactly this -- a decision that can be made, unmade, remade, etc relatively cheaply. If you can identify that a choice isn't very dangerous, you can focus on the things that really are instead.

Wouldn't your beams start cracking at the bottom, where they are subject to traction?

You have a few mistakes here. I’m not trying to demean you, but I’m going to number them just for clarity, as it can get confusing when there are many misunderstandings.

1. You are intending to ask about tension (which the rebar helps with), not traction (the force your tires exert against a road).

2. Tension is not only experienced at the bottom of beams, the location with the most tension will depend on the geometry. For a vertical beam, I think tension will probably be pretty even through the whole beam in most “normal” designs and loading configurations. But it will really depend on the geometry and on the loads being applied.

3. I think when you say concrete beams you’re meaning columns (apologies if I’m wrong about this). Concrete columns are remarkably good at holding up without rebar, because they experience almost exclusively compression! And indeed, ancient Roman designs did not use rebar at all :). It’s certainly possible.

As somebody with not-enough self control, I would love this for myself. Self-locks help, but the temptation is always there.

1. If you looked up the average tuition in the US and found the UC system is an outlier, then quoting CSU prices is a red herring — just tell us the average tuition and perhaps the standard deviation.

2. The question that started this thread was “does anyone really pay 250k for college?” Even as an outlier, the UC system price is relevant. It is an existence proof that many people _do_ pay close to that sum for undergrad.

The discussion is about what the average person pays.... surely student body size _is_ the relevant metric? What else would you propose?

That is very much a real sum of money people pay. The UC system is (I believe) 30k per year tuition if you’re in state. Add rent and you’re probably looking at 45k per year. Out of state is higher. And many systems are more expensive as well

85k should definitely cover your expenses. You can rent out a bedroom instead of a house. Buy a cheap car. Eat canned beans. Even in SF, it’s doable on 85k.

This sounds very fun! I would love to hear more stories if you have 'em!

The emissions from chinas coal burning plants is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 times worse than chucking nuclear waste in the desert at random

I don't think you're wrong per-se, but I think your claim could be simplified to "the impact of the common alternatives are 1000000000000000 times worse than nuclear waste"

this is a glorified side project

Personally I'd guess this is a big part of the issue. If this is a glorified side project, you really don't / can't care _too_ much about everything. I don't mean that as a criticism, it's just if you have little time to give the product will improve little, and the customers will get a just-ok experience. It's not surprising that translates poorly to customers. People like devotion; luke-warm commitment is dissapointing.

lol I like you, you can stay.

One suggestion — when you have an unsatisfying answer for a customer like “I can’t reproduce that”, or “I won’t build that feature”, the customer may not appreciate the amount of effort you have invested in that decision. A 30 minute phone call/video call may communicate more effectively the depth of care you have. Even if you convey the same information, people _love_ talking to the owner/founder, it is a very strong indication that you care about their thoughts.

I agree his responses could be more compassionate and show more effort, but i feel your characterization is over-critical. There _isnt time_ to chase bugs that aren’t reproducible. The software _cant_ have every form factor, _some things_ need to be set in stone as a North Star. These aren’t scummy practices, these are realities of a time-bounded existence.

I imagine that the top 100 of anything (that a lot of people do) that brings in income or fame will still be there in 5 years.

This sort of blanket assumption is exactly what the parent is arguing against. The mortality rate of top-n things is relatively easy to measure, and should be baselined first. Then we can compare recent performance vs historical performance, and actually say if something has changed. There's no need to start with the assumption "not much changes over 5 years" -- it can be measured instead.

You’re right, that’s much worse. I should have read tfa before posting.

Oh oops, I should have read tfa. You’re right, this is much worse.

I know you’re joking, but possible causal path here: People with Alzheimer’s lose ability to use stove -> eat simpler less involved breakfasts -> eats less eggs

I’m copying this comment from discussion two months ago

Caveat:

> Funding [...] The analyses in this study were supported by an investigator-initiated grant from the American Egg Board. [...]

Wow, "purchasing a revokable license" is an insane concept. Purchase of something revokable in general feels like... not purchasing? If there was a definite time bound that's one thing, but imagine if I sell a revokable license and then revoke it a week later -- it seems like that would be allowed?

I don't mean to disagree with you, and I have basically no expertise in this area, just shocked by the whole thing.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it really sounds like you knew the policy in depth, and even contributed to the design of the policy, but when it came to your pet project you ignored it by skipping the release process? Am I missing something?

Somebody should make a website visualizing the data we do have, perhaps with uncertainty bounds, and a recursive breakdown locale-by-locale… Nose goes!!

Edit: wow I bet this is a project that would be _way_ too difficult to vibe code with AI, with well documented data sources and what not. Sure would be a shame if somebody proved me wrong.

the ideal number of unsolved crimes is not zero and the ideal number of crimes committed using state apparatus is also not zero

I feel this is an _extremely_ good point, the kind that seems obvious only once you hear it. But i feel there’s an implication that could be made explicit here — we should be looking at the distribution of both apparatus-enabled-crimes and unsolved-crimes when we’re discussing this sort of thing. And if those metrics aren’t tabulated for easy access, they probably should be.

*Nominative Determinism. Named after John Nominative, who first proposed the effect.

Yes, you’re absolutely right, systems that are default-stable are much easier to tune, and large inertia does make the system more stable. For those sorts of systems, any minimal feedback is often enough to get the performance you want. If you have high requirements you might need something fancier, but frankly most systems don’t have high performance requirements. Having very fast feedback loops helps too, so with digital controllers getting better and better you can be a bit sloppier with control design and it will still work.

There are indeed a large number of control problems where proper tuning doesn't matter much. I think we’ve built many of our tools to be “easy” to work with, and one aspect of this is that they’re intentionally made in a way that’s easy to control. Another factor here is that the “difficult” problems need some serious thought, which require research, measurement, and advanced degrees, making them more expensive. Many of these are just not worth the cost (yet). And even if you _do_ design a well-performing complex controller, you need to hire controls engineers to maintain and update it as designs change. I _love_ using LQR, optimal control, robust control, etc, but can almost never justify it. As a result, probably 90%+ of control applications by count just use PID. The remaining 10% are of course where most of the research happens, they’re much more fun.

I’d totally believe that. You can buy devices that even tune themselves automatically, using model-free methods like Ziegler-nichols. I’m not familiar with the domains where you would use that sort of thing, but I guess it would be applications that aren’t safety-critical, maybe air conditioning or something like that. I bet many people put the thing in place, and then it works well enough that they never even click the “tune” button