HardlyCurious

Well, this was held up as a universal truth because it doesn't depend on units, and so those don't need to be defined... But we still can't just show them the image '1/137' and have them understand the characters and operations. Our presentation isn't universal.

And I would argue that showing the length of distance we use isn't fundamentally different than explaining which syntax we use for division.

Nobody of any reputation would claim global warming is going to end civilization.

I took the study to imply sales / revenue went down as much as salaries.

Sadly, there are probably businesses out there that would see this study as a argument for hiring business managers over operational business units.

Your comment lacks any distinction between limits which are set by users or at least very decentralized vs limits set by what is mostly centralized authority.

I will fight to the death to protect your right to yell obscenities in a public place, but I'll kick you out of my house for doing the same. Nothing hypocritical about that.

I think most US citizens would associate Un-american activities with maga / Jan 6th / oath keepers stuff. I think that is more analogous to the modern 'red scare'.

I would challenge you to show the effects of foreign influence. I haven't seen anything about what Russia did that even looked remotely effective. I recall reading an arstechnica article about it and I was shocked that they were citing posts with ~1.5k views... When facts aren't presented, the media make it sound like Russia had a major impact, but I can't find any facts that back that up.

I am much more concerned about foreign influence on the relatively centralized media outlets. For example, Bezos owns the Washington Post and does billions of dollars of business with China every year. All that economic activity gives china leverage they can use to suppress stories they don't like.

That is the real foreign influence to be worried about. Not them making posts and competing for attention with the same rules as everyone else.

You talk about this danger as if it is new and not proven to have existed prior to the 21st century. You are in conflict with demonstrable reality.

I haven't watch many of his videos, but I didn't get any sense of a predatory relationship. For what I saw, I was impressed with the content. He shows us a side of humanity normally left in the shadows. There is merit in that.

There is certainly slimy YouTube tactics for attention and clicks, but not all successful YouTubers are doing slimy things.

If your videos are genuinely interesting and / or useful, you need to be able to convey that fact to users, before they watch it. It isn't too much to ask.

Just imagine a viewer asking you the question, "ok so why should I watch your videos over someone else's?". It is a fair question. And replying back, "you don't get to know that until you watch it" isn't a reasonable response.

"Has plant growth increased alongside rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

It turns out the answer is Yes – in a big way. A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2), spurring plant growth." - https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-...

You made it sound like adding CO2 was only a byproduct of an attempt to keep the greenhouse warm, not part of the intention. Yet your source says

" The supply of extra carbon dioxide is an often applied method to increase the yield of greenhouse crops."

So I'm not sure what your point is.

Yes, but we can't do anything about that. So co2 is the most significant that is due to human activities.

Just to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying they CO2 in as an alternative to having the greenhouse ventilate to the atmosphere?

I guess the reason being that the plants would convert all the CO2 to O2 in the greenhouse and then suffocate without the vent or pumped CO2.

Is that the most economical way to keep the greenhouse warm enough?

There are heat exchangers which are passive devices you can attached to an intake and exhaust to reclaim heat.

Increased CO2 concentrations do impare human cognition, but that is more about relatively sealed spaces with lots of people like a classroom where CO2 concentrations can be 3 times atmospheric levels or more.

Plants lose less water to the environment when CO2 concentrations are higher because they don't have to open their pores as much to effectively breath. That is why CO2 helps plants grow in more arid environments.

And CO2 is definitely not pumped into greenhouses to help them stay warm. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and the tens of vertical feet in a greenhouse couldn't possibly trap any measurable amount of heat from heightened CO2 concentrations.

The glass of a greenhouse is responsible for the 'greenhouse' effect, not CO2.

This isnt completely true. The biggest greenhouse gas CO2 is not a pollutant in any conventional sense. The gas is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants grow faster, and helps plants grow in more arid environments, and reduces water consumption by plants.

So efforts to reduce CO2 might not bear environmental benefits beyond fighting global warming.

I think the real answer is that doomsday studies get clicks and the capitalist engine is at work, and being worked by scientists for attention.

Why would the architect provide proof of concept code? Feels like a completely different role than large scale planning. This is something I would expect a manager or senior dev to assist a junior with.

I would argue the exact opposite. Understanding how marginal taxes work is the perfect reason to stop working so hard to climb the ladder.

But in reality, income taxes mostly contribute shifting income to non income benefits for employees.

There might be people who move due to taxes if they are unattached singles doing remote work, or people who aren't dependent on a job to live. But I think the vast majority move to where they can get a job that pays well ... Relative to the cost of living.

Yeah I agree, when I said 'large enough scales' I was referring to the amount of deficit spending in a fixed time, not how long that spending lasts.

One thing to remember here is that the only reason for us to even tax is to reduce the deficit. If we didn't care about the deficit we could just eliminate all taxes and make 100% of government spending deficit spending.

Well, logically the second order negative effects of deficit spending must overcome the beneficial first and second order effects on large enough scales.

Otherwise we could just deficit spend ourselves into perpetual prosperity.

By saying 'not a good fit' requires additional details to be valid you are actually acknowledging that 'not a good fit' is not a valid reason to not hire someone, those additional details are the valid reason to not hire someone.

The entire premise of the argument is flawed anyway. There are many factors for cases and hospitalizations / deaths. You can't cherry pick one comparison, at one point of time, and determine the attribution of one specific policy out of all the noise.

However, the only gold standard study done on cloth masks to my knowledge found no statistically significant benefit. If we are talking about cloth masks, I think we would have to accept that any benefit from them is very minimal at best.

Other types of masks like surgical or of course n95 do prove beneficial.

What happens when, and I know this will be rare, our ideas of reasonable are wrong? Seems like that ends up being a dead end where the research needed to correct our misunderstanding can't get funded.

I think the issue here is using science / evidence to push for policy changes when there isn't actually sound science or evidence. That can be done with sound policies that work just as well as it can be done with bad policies. But we should always be concerned when unsound science gets used. It can be used to shut down valid policy debates. And eventually, on a long enough time line, it will get abused by bad actors.

I'm not sure it is useful to lump nudging on decisions users don't want to or don't know how to make in with nudging on decisions users either want to or have to make.

It's a no brainer that defaults will alter outcomes for users who aren't willing or capable of making a selection for the choice in question.

It doesn't discredit medication as an option, which is a really open ended statement, but it does redefine the role medication plays. It moves medication from a necessary status to a non-necessary status. Where it's role is to provide a mental break for the patient so they can make other necessary changes more easily. The medication could probably be fully replaced with a wellness retreat, but the medication is a lot more feasible for most people.

Ah found it.

https://youtu.be/4_qJptwikRc

6:50 or so for relevant piece.