PhasmaFelis

Does it do that? Why?

> I've wanted this for ages, Laptop ergonomics are horrible. When traveling I use a portable monitor, keyboard, mouse. Yes it's annoying to travel with all that but worth it not to end my work days with neck pain and a migraine.

Have you considered dropping the portable monitor for an angled laptop stand that will elevate the screen to eye level? I've got one that collapses down small enough to fit in a reasonably deep pocket.

You can do your own research on how much disposable monthly income the typical low-to-middle-class American has, and how much good (i.e. significantly better than employer-provided) insurance costs.

A lot more. More than the majority of people are able to.

It is indeed privilege, and that's worth noting, but acting like having privilege makes you a bad person really misses the point.

Everything Brian Thompson did was legal, which is not the same thing as being "innocent."

Agreed. Not monstrous, but troubling.

It is bizarre that people are smugly dogpiling on you for showing a shred of empathy.

We are talking about an all-infecting pandemic. You can certainly weaponize it, if you think global collapse sounds fun. What you can't do is target it.

I've read that he had cronies in the military. My only guess is that he was hoping they'd back him hard enough to suppress the opposition. (Either by ignoring the vote, or by preventing them from voting in the first place--which it seems came close to happening.)

I'm suddenly feeling very naive for assuming all this time that Y-Combinator/Hacker News was, in some sense, the good guys.

I mean, personally, I would also hang up on a human who called trying to sell me shit. I don't need to know the difference.

We're not talking about a targeted weapon, we're talking about accidentally unleashing an unstoppable global pandemic. If only China is risking that, the odds are better for everyone.

Microscopic organisms mutate rapidly and unpredictably, so this sounds like a "swallow a spider to catch the fly" situation.

If you can't get funding for your research, or publish under your real name if you do, it's certainly going curtail research at least. It could still happen if some nations refuse to endorse the ban, but there will at least be less of it, which means less risk.

> Look at the quote from Zuckerberg where he expresses regret for the poor choices he and his company made

I'm sure Zuckerberg does have regrets, but I think it's a mistake to assume they align with actual human interest except by coincidence. The state of Facebook today, and for many years before, has nothing to do with any honest concern for human welfare, however misguided.

> Am I missing something here?

This is a graphics card.

Source?

Ugh, "Ninite." Thanks, autocorrect.

Also a good point. One time I couldn't remember what Minute (multi-app installer) was called, so I googled "the thing what downloads all the things" and lo and behold, Google found it. Their algo used to be really clever.

In this particular case, it seems like the attackers were trying for plausible deniability (making it look like an accident with an anchor). A comprehensive series of "accidents" wouldn't fit that goal.

(And if they decide they don't care about plausible deniability, they could use sub-deployed timed mines to take out every cable at once.)

Not for more than five years or so, at least.

> You don't notice that it isn't giving you the best result

That's fine. It's always been fine. I don't need Google to read my mind and fulfill my dreams.

The problem isn't that they're not divinely perfect. The problem is that they used to be good enough, and now they're not.

> There are more intelligent, more accurate, more safe, ways to solve the problems people have, that are not "a search engine". It's time we start implementing them.

What solutions are there that fulfill all the use cases of a search engine, while definitively not being a search engine? An AI chatbot that gives me synopses of the same websites that I was searching for does not count.

That is impressive and terrifying.

As far as I can tell, you're both saying the same thing: that registering a ship in China does not mean China is responsible for that ship's actions. If you've got a different point to make, please make it clear.

> Mr. Wurth, who tended bar in Chicago for 10 years before moving down South, takes Polaroids of Malört first-timers and asks them to write descriptions of the drink on the border. Hundreds of snapshots plaster the walls of the bar’s two bathrooms. A sampling of their tiny captions: “Swamp grass in July,” “Pain” and, Mr. Wurth’s favorite, “The powder inside of a balloon.” Malört turns even the most prosaic into unexpected poets.

I have not had Malort, but I have had absinthe, which I believe is similar? And I'd like to contribute.

I wouldn't say it tastes bad. If you drank boiling bleach, you wouldn't say it "tastes bad." That's not the right category of word. It tastes like something that should never, ever go in your mouth.

"FireDucks: Pandas but Faster" sounds like it's about something much more interesting than a Python library. I'd like to read that article.

The Idiocracy theory. The trouble is that the traits behind the birthrate differences you're observing aren't genetic but financial: it's not genetically "dumb" people who have more kids, it's poor people, and genetic lines that transition out of poverty generally see commensurate birthrate drops.

If poor people were going to "outcompete" and wipe out rich people, it would have happened a long time ago.

Also, "religious" have been steadily declining for a while, so that theory doesn't work out. (Of course, the idea that most bad behavior stems from religion, and everyone would be nice to each other without it, is another fallacy.)

These experiments are exactly why people were excited about cryonics, until they realized that it doesn't work on anything much larger than a rat.

You have to thaw them right down to the core very quickly; you need to get the heart pumping or the thawed extremities will die with no bloodflow. There's no way to heat a human's core that fast without causing unsurvivable burns to their outside. (Even the rats wound up with nasty, sometimes fatal burns.)

It's on the front page right now.

This is a really weird thing to get paranoid about. Alex Jones was no exemplar of conservative values, for all that he repeated some conservative talking points.

Interestingly, you can freeze a rat solid in liquid nitrogen--completely solid right through--and then thaw them out in a microwave and they actually survive. Well, many of them survive. For a while. Okay, it's not good for the rats but it's still crazy that it works.