HN user
It’s changed, I’m in the same boat. The only new channels I’ve found that I love are after seeing them promoted outside of YouTube. They clearly intersect with other channels I’ve subscribed to and watch regularly but were never recommended. I also notice that the recommendation queue for videos on these channels tries to steer you away to larger more mainstream channels that are only tenuously related.
Build a shed first. There are lots of free designs online. Choose one with a window so you’ll know how to frame openings and fit windows and doors. Put the type of siding you’d want for the house on it.
Then build a detached garage, get experience with pouring a slab, attaching walls to a foundation, trusses, more practice with exterior doors and windows, insulation, wiring. If you’re really feeling confident you could put a half bath in it to practice plumbing.
You should be ready for the house at this point. You’ll either love it or hate it so much you’ll just hire someone to do it for you. Having a shed and garage on site is a big plus for building a house since it gives you a warm dry place to work and store your tools. I’ve known people who built their garage first so they could live out of it while building the house, only works if you’re a bachelor though.
It doesn’t seem far fetched to me, evolution cannot see nor understand mistakes it makes. There is still plenty of room for optimization.
Here’s one from reality, bacteria. If we create self replicating machines, even if we do not intentionally introduce variation, they will vary from generation to generation. They will presumably not be indestructible and so some form of selection will be possible. If their reproduction cycle is fast enough they could potentially deviate from their intended purpose in a very short time.
To be clear, I am not opposed to vaccines. I think the current vaccine is the best option for people at high risk of negative outcomes due to COVID. What I am opposed to is coercion by the state on something that is a personal choice. Calling this argument “antivaxx” is another example of the disingenuous way people are behaving. It’s a smear campaign that is being parroted without any critical thought.
Would the people who were infected even want to press charges? Assuming they were vaccinated, they would probably have an extremely mild case, if they were unvaccinated then they would essentially be arguing a case against themselves.
To be clear I was not advocating banning all of those things, I was saying that mandating vaccines is as counterproductive as trying to revive prohibition or enforce weight loss.
I think it’s still too early to draw conclusions about how effective vaccine passports are. There is still a significant proportion of people not accepting them, there is also another group who have been vaccinated but are now protesting the use of vaccine passports, and with the requirement of a third shot and the potential requirement for a fourth or continuing boosters we cannot know how the sizes of those groups will change. If vaccine passports become permanent my money is on it following a similar progression as prohibition or the war on drugs, it will eventually become a law that everyone flaunts. The human cost will depend on how much violence the state is willing to pursue enforcing laws that no one wants. If history is a reliable measure it will be horrific, biased, and long lasting.
The only people they would need to protect are other unvaccinated people who have made the choice to take whatever risk there is in going unvaccinated. The choice to not be vaccinated involves knowing that you may contact the virus from someone else and may become very ill or die. Attempting to protect someone by taking away their ability to make that choice is equivalent to removing the option to eat enough food to become obese.
Those who are downvoting this are being blatantly disingenuous. Tobacco alone kills over 480,000 people per year in the US. There is a very strong case for banning it if your fundamental concern is the health of others and the upkeep of the health system.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...
Alcohol kills another 95,000 per year in the US
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...
Obesity related deaths are around 300,000 per year.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032
No one can honestly look at these figures and come away with with the opinion that we need to protect the unvaccinated from themselves through mandates while turning a blind eye to these other self inflicted diseases. Argue for or against limiting personal choice to preserve health but be prepared to defend your position on all of these fronts.
Every day 28 people die in the US from drunk driving crashes
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
261 per day from excessive alcohol use
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...
Alcohol consumption directly affects people who do not consume it in a multitude of ways from the monetary cost of increased demand on the health care system, police, prisons and damage to public property to the emotional and psychological burden of interacting with the inebriated or dependent to the physical impact of abuse and accidents caused by intoxication.
This is snarky but poses a real question. If we ban people from spaces or events due to their vulnerability to COVID then why do we not do the same for those vulnerable to other diseases? Flu is a good example for the young and elderly since it poses a significant risk. It would strain the argument but you could make a case for banning the obese from fast food restaurants based on this reasoning as well.
Have you done pure MDMA? Like actually tested it before hand to make sure? It’s an extremely different experience to alcohol or other psychedelics. Your description sounds more like the cut E that is mostly just speed or other drugs.
A billion minds are better than one.
Bad example considering censorship is also a tool of murderous and totalitarian regimes.
To me it seems he’s clearly saying that if they decide to use force then we should be prepared to respond in kind not that we should use force to suppress irrational argument. The end of the first sentence maps to the end of the second.
Conversely, what if your assumed truth is false and you successfully censor any attempt to disprove it?
In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all rights.
Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don’t agree with, ok but you aren’t allowed to use public roads since we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station.
Freedom of assembly: we don’t support your protests cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at your own house.
Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but if you attempt to record it in any way we’ll block you.
A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all. You’re arguing for a society built like a prison. You should be ashamed.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it.
All these calls for censorship make me think we really are doomed to repeat history forever.
Could something like this be leveraged for a physical representation of crypto currency? So that you could spend it like cash.
Fossil-fueled Development – Taking the Highway (High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation) This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.
Compared to the other four scenarios this one sounds a lot better even with the massive environmental challenge it would pose. The economic outcome of the “best case” scenario sounds more like universal poverty.
inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower resource and energy intensity
Use reader mode
Best answer and a good metaphor. Paying more only goes so far in attracting talent. You need the job to be manageable, the environment needs to be at the least not actively hostile, and the system the job exists within to not be completely broken.
Out survives
We have no predators but we do have a lot of existential threats. The more we spread out the more chances we have of surviving. If we sit on our hands and stay put we’ll wind up like the dinosaurs one way or another.
For most cars there isn’t much room to increase tire size but maybe you’re thinking of putting a lift kit on a civic, might be a bit hard to pass inspection.
Odometers benefit from the fact that they’re supposed to be a permanent recording, I’m sure we could come up with a non digital way of making a permanent mark. I doubt even that would be necessary though since most people don’t cheat on their taxes and auditing a physical system is easier than tracking cash flow.
That’s the current situation with the gas tax. Why are we trying to change it? Right now road usage is calculated based on observations made of the roads in question. You deploy some method of counting cars over a period of time and then make your estimates. Why do we need perfect surveillance when a rough count gives us all the data we need to know to determine service schedules? I’d bet that the current methods also cost a fraction of the amount it would to develop multiple apps plus car integration plus reporting systems plus training and salaries for the people that now manage that data and the ongoing maintenance of the apps and infrastructure. I’d also bet all those new costs would be pork for someone’s district.
I think even dramatically simpler might be an understatement. Neurons are cells, living organisms capable of growth, movement, and some fairly intelligent interaction with their environment. A transistor doesn’t even approach that, it’s more on the level of a single protein within a neuron and not a very complex one.
Asking basic questions might be annoying for a spectator who is already an expert and is just trying to find the latest tid bits of information in the field but for the vast majority of people the basic questions are the ones they want answered. Having a specialist engage in an open ended conversation with a non expert is often more interesting because it is a better approximation of the conversation the listener would have with the same person. I’m not sure what you mean by filler, to me shorter interviews have a higher percentage of filler since people usually have about 40 minutes of standard dialogue on hand. It’s only when you go well past the hour mark that you start to get the unscripted stuff that you wouldn’t normally hear without getting to know the person.
Everyone always thinks along the lines of current biological limitations when talking about space travel while ignoring the huge advances that are being made in biotechnology. Given another 100 years I think we’ll be pretty good at customizing our biology to suit our needs. Hell, we probably have the required technical ability right now, we just lack the theoretical understanding.