3,959 karma · joined July 4, 2013
I speculate it's due to archive.today wanting granular (not overly broad) legal censorship compliance. Which is somewhat related to this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak...
I guess I fall into that group, since I had a few sips, given to my by my parents.
> 47.1% had reached regular drinking levels defined by at least 12 drinks within a given year
So less than half.
> drug use by 42.5%
Also less than half. I wonder how many tried it just once.
> drug abuse by 16.4%
According to [2], there are 203 countries listed. I'll look at "on request" abortions.
* North Korea is marked "unclear".
* 6 allow abortion at 23 weeks (24 weeks is also an identical list): China, Colombia, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, South Ossetia
* 2 additional allow abortion at 22 weeks: Iceland, Vietnam
* 191 ban abortion at 22 weeks.
* Australia ranges from completely prohibited to no limit, depending on region.
* Canada ranges from 12 weeks and 6 days to 24 weeks and 6 days depending on region.
* United states ranges from (ignoring the recent laws that prompted the ongoing cases) 20 weeks to no limit depending on region.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Planned_Parenthood...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Independent_count...
How is that? There still would be no federal law against killing fetuses, whereas there is a federal law against killing born people.
That's an interesting point, but I don't think that's the case for Youtube.
My ISP caps me at 1.2TB/month. That would be $1200/month, but I don't pay anywhere near that.
25kWh in 15 minutes is 100kW. That's 150x the max amount of power my overpowered desktop uses.
On HN people claim AWS overcharges on egress pricing. They charge between $0.05/GB and $0.09/GB[2]. Their "overcharging" price is much lower (5% - 11%) than the cost of electricity if your numbers are correct, which doesn't make sense. Their ingress price is free, so they're not making up for lost money there.
"1/59th the price of AWS" is clear because you take the price of AWS and multiply it by 1/59. Probably more clear would be "1.7% the price of AWS".
When I think there's an opportunity for misunderstanding, I point it out. I don't think I'm more likely to misunderstand something than the average person, but I am more likely to speak out if I see something potentially confusing.
I would be interested in seeing a poll where we ask people to estimate "59x cheaper than $200", vs "1/59th of $200" vs "1.7% of $200". Obviously the last one is easiest to do exactly in your head, but we can still get a fair comparison by just seeing whether people are at least in the neighborhood vs way off.
I would also like to see it with 2x, 1/2 and 50%.
And it still makes me feel nervous that 3x improvement = 200% increase. It seems to me like a big opportunity for misunderstanding.
Is that a typical way to describe cost savings? I would have said 1/2 the cost of AWS. It almost sounds like cloudflare would pay them money (e.g. you go to the store and see something marked 200% off, so you get paid to buy it, like when oil prices went negative).
Related: I've always found the 2x, 10x, etc notation confusing. Does a 2x improvement mean a 100% increase (e.g. 10 -> 20) or a 200% increase (e.g. 10 -> 30)? Would someone ever say a 1x improvement or a 0.5x improvement?
I agree that whether she has grandchildren or not doesn't matter much, but people say grandma to be more polite than saying old lady.
I don't think courting is trying to front-load the effort, but rather to avoid back-loading effort. Raising kids is a lot of work, and to prove that the two of you are willing to put effort into that, you put effort into planning cool dates while courting. Once the kids come along less effort is spent on cool dates, and more effort is spent on the kids.
Your analogies kind of contradict each other. If someone goes hunting for several days but doesn't get a kill, would that person say they're owed an animal? Hunting isn't a transactional activity. Dating/courting aren't transactional either.
They are telling the government they will pay out if the insured party is at fault for an accident, but in some (many?) cases they don't actually pay out. That sounds like a scam to me.
Umm no
The usual perspective is that white people fleeing during white flight are racist themselves.
What you are saying is that racism causes violence, and rich white people who are victims of violence flee that violence. So they're not racist themselves but rather second-order victims of racism.
If heroin use leads to crime then maybe it could be forbidden for similar reasons. Or if the government can determine that people don't love heroin and instead only use it as an escape or due to addiction, then forbidding it might help those people to attain what they actually love.