Klinky

Reduce White Point doesn't solve the problem, but helps reduce brightness while leaving the phone at a higher brightness to reduce the modulation depth. This also results in color and contrast changes. Apple is still one of the worst offenders for flicker sensitive people.

Pretty sure people used or even still use RSS for this.

There's already Expanded Access / Compassionate Care options for terminal patients. It doesn't require the FDA rushing through unproven medications.

You're citing some blog copy that doesn't link to or correctly cite its sources that seems to be trying to sell shady psychological services.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if AI played a part in constructing this post. For example, what's up with the last paragraph about Nicholas Carr? It says "Dr Nicholas Carr", but he's a journalist who doesn't seem to have a doctorate degree and I cannot find any indication he refers himself as "Dr Nicholas Carr", did an AI hallucinate this? Also Carr has a bone to pick with the Internet, not AI, his book was written back in 2011.

This is a good first step. Ideally it turns into a "verify this all looks correct & add anything we're missing" kinda thing.

They would pay more if there were fewer market options, but there aren't, so not sure your point.

The cost is not relatively tiny, it's actually quite significant. Nuclear at least allows for better accountability & management of the waste it produces. Unfortunately accountability & management has been rather poor, diminishing the potential.

I am not entirely sure what your point is about reactor design. Did you mean we shouldn't build more BWRs? Agreed. If you mean we should focus on HWR like CANDU or experimental molten salt reactors, those have their downside. Deuterium is expensive & molten salt is corrosive & not commercially proven. If you really want nuclear you go with off the shelf proven designs like AP1000, but even then there are hurdles to build these as these boondoggle projects have shown. Yes every sector has scandal, but massive rate hikes & tens of billions in overruns is atypical & undermines the promise of what nuclear was sold as to those ratepayers.

Nuclear is go big or go home, and we can't socialize losses & liability while privatizing profit. Nuclear is also unattractive to the commercial market due to long-term ROI & project/liability risks. Effectively it needs to be a massive energy independence program funded by the government. I don't see that happening though.

The fears I was talking about were around the toxicity and dangers, not the cost. While we're on costs why didn't you highlight the $7B/yr for Fukushima or the $68B to date for Chernobyl? What about the 200% cost overruns and scandals involving Virgil C. Summer & Vogtle in the US that have cost tax/ratepayers tens of billions? $2B/yr doesn't look that bad in comparison.

You clearly did not read the second sentence in my tiny comment. Hand wavy nuclear apologia is what's actually incredibly disingenuous.

You don't just need to keep tabs on it for 100 years. Much longer & ideally in a coordinated fashion.

If there's such demand for nuclear waste, why aren't companies making bank off of it? The demand isn't as high as you think.

We'll build magical breeder reactors that aren't actually commercially viable & use reprocessing facilities with the same process drawbacks that created some of these messes in the first place? Sounds like a bad idea.

Poo pooing the fears and dangers of nuclear is how we got into this mess where nuclear has a bad rap, deservedly so, from very poor management of very powerful substances.

The realities are that nuclear is incredibly complex & costly to implement & manage in a way where its full potential is realized. That's not a reason we shouldn't do it, but let's stop pretending commercial nuclear is viable.

Nuclear & fossil fuels both look bad when considering long-term sequestration of their waste.

That said many of these sites are so polluted due to fast & loose early nuclear weapons programs.

interesting, I wonder why. I guess it's saving via current reductions despite higher vcore.

You can do more power optimizations with efficiency cores than the performance cores. There are power tradeoffs to get max perf. You can significantly reduce vcore if your max frequency is much lower. Cache is also power hungry & takes up space.

Some of the Microsoft deal was due to the antitrust pressures MSFT was under in the late 90's, seeing Apple go under would've removed any deniability and put them under the microscope.

That said it's hard to argue that Jobs didn't have vision, or wasn't at least able to find people who had vision & talent, even if he was a polarizing figure.

Why couldn't he just turn NeXT into the wealthiest company in the world? Perhaps you could say that's what he did by getting bought out by Apple, but Ives was an Amelio hire, and hard to say Ives wasn't as pivotal to Apple's future success as Jobs.

Jobs takes a lot of the credit, and some of it is due, but there were many other people involved in bringing him back on board & the transition back to profitability/dominance.

How? Jobs did have some original ideas, but it's not like NeXT was a resounding success on its own that toppled Apple & Microsoft. Being the ideas guy is different than the implementation guy, and in some cases he was neither.

None of that is really his call to make alone, upper management & the board also has influence & burdens much of the load. This idea that he's the only man in the room or on the planet that could do this position seems pretty absurd.

It's hard to know what you find spurious. Much of religious apologetics involves dismissing every criticism as spurious. Given that multiple authors over long periods of time wrote these religious texts, contradictions do arise, or at least conflicting themes.

I can think of counter examples to the attributes you gave earlier, but if you've read the texts and have not found them yourself, it is unlikely any logical or philosophical analysis would be persuasive.

Some things are spelled out, claimed or alluded to, then later contradicted. It would be interesting for an AI to analyze the claims and the actions, then see if those attributes hold true, or if God is a contradictory character, one that is still hard to define with absolutes.

Let's say a treatment kills 9 out of 10 people. Maybe those 9 were terminally ill & that's why they died, but maybe the company was just lying and their treatment was doing nothing or killing people more quickly. How do you determine that? When would you shutdown a "death factory"? Would you require mandatory disclosures of the death rate & risks, or could a company hide those facts from prospective patients, only talking about the patients who survived? If they can't show efficacy, should they still be allowed to sell to patients?

I think the ideal of regulation is to try to remove the guesswork & expertise required for the end user to do due diligence. It's not perfect, but at least some minimum level of regulation, such as mandatory efficacy disclosures, would be needed.

Who defines calcification and comfort zone? Be careful you don't confuse a mature stack with subject matter experts who can execute effectively as "outdated calcification". I would be wary of someone who wants to hop around a lot. Are they adding tangible value to every team or disrupting things before bailing to the next team?

The entire second paragraph is about finding optimum turnover to keep the team fresh and dynamic. I think it's impossible to control organic voluntary turnover, as you don't control people's lives/desires. The alternative would be artificial turnover, moving people in and out of teams as needed to meet this goal. I think people joining and leaving is disruptive regardless of it being organic or artificial.

I don't think artificial turnover is the solution. Teams need good documentation and design or else onboarding/offboarding will be painful and a huge distraction. If you've got good documentation and design methodology, then there is no need to churn the team artificially. Keep documentation up to date, design well, and redesign areas that are tech debt or not done well. That's easier said than done though. There is no magic bullet.

Science is a method/study, not an isolated entity. Who is "they"? You mean "scientists"? Which ones? The ones paid off by Big Tobacco? Often the negative issues we face are ignored due to conflicts of interest, bias, and societies/economies valuing certain things (wealth of few) over other things (health of many). That is not the fault of "science".

It feels like a quarter of the time screenshare doesn't even work in Teams and it's noticably choppier when it does work.

Code blocks working in Teams is inconsistent, and it seems to add additional spaces when copying.

Quoting & mentions also sucks. The channels, chats, activity screens are always a mess, feel like UX bandaid.

Private channel limits are garbage.

Search and discovery sucks.

There's inconsistent options for the calendar between Outlook & Teams. Don't you dare expect functional compatibility between MS products. Scheduling assistant sucks, sometimes confuses itself when people are busy.

The UX seems to rely on a myriad of nested menus & modals that are XHR backed, so each one lags. Even just typing text feels slow. It's as fluid as molasses.

It sure seemed like you were saying the "Bill Gates wants to kill/control you with COVID-19/Vaccine" conspiracies had more merit than the "5G Causes COVID-19" conspiracies. Both of them were crackpot theories.

Yes, appreciate the transparency, but it's kind of embarrassing "22 second launch time" was considered acceptable for so long, and "more than twice as fast" now means "almost a 10 second launch time".

Why would I ignore the parts of a cited source they don't agree with or that's counter to the claim being made? You don't think that's important?

>made no claim that those two links were definitive proof

They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a genuine question.

> circumstantial evidence can still be provably true

Circumstantial evidence MUST be true to be usable.

The circumstantial evidence provided in the articles was:

- There was a denied research grant that was going to look into modifying the furin site of coronaviruses. It was denied though, and as far as we know, never done.

- The furin site was complex, but could've evolved naturally.

- Some scientists think it could have been of lab origin.

- Some scientists think it could have been zoonotic origin.

All of this is true, but it doesn't mean a lab leak is "probable" or "more than likely".

>Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin

So even the studies that lean towards the theory qualify that the evidence is not definitive. We're back where we started.

Definitive or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: No

Probable or More Likely Than Not: No

A strong possibility: Yes

There is not a consensus on the origin of COVID-19 at this time.

Is this true? I saw NIH lifted a moratorium in 2017. There's currently an unpassed bill to stop Fed funding of gain-of-function research. It does not seem banned either completely or from federal funding.

> discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence

Didn't discount or argue against using circumstantial evidence, nor did I argue against speculating. I am stating the evidence only supports the possibility, it does not prove it happened. Please stop making up false arguments.

>neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence

Agreed.