RobertRoberts

> - No blogs promoting hate speech, denial of climate change, anti-vax ideas, etc.

I've heard of Twitter accounts getting banned because they mentioned some of these subjects in context of criticizing them. (which is the opposite result that would be expected)

How their curation process work is just as important as the rules themselves. If it's transparent and there's a person (not just an automated algorithm), is there also a recourse process for false positives or bad decision making?

Vulnerable women and children are likely to avoid housing where mentally ill or high men would be because they _can_ (not saying all) be violent, aggressive and simply scary. (screaming is a common thing I've witnessed)

It simply does not work as universal idea. People need to feel safe in their homes.

It's a conflict of interest, no matter your politics, when an organization is supposed to be a neutral purveyor of knowledge. (unless I somehow misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, which is possible)

All conflict is resolved by appeasement, read up on history. Germany could have kept fighting to the last man, but eventually they appeased the allies in WWII.

All war ends in appeasement.

You are just arguing methods, I am arguing absolutes. I have no idea what the best way to achieve peace on an international scale, so my argument is pure because I don't pretend to know.

Looking back on history should give us clarity for today. The genocides that I know of were not the same as military invasions.

And in light of past civil wars, what is the best solution for neighboring nation? I am fairly certain every country has taken land this way, so maybe we should give Texas and California back to Mexico?

Russia is NOT in the right, but Russia's actions don't change how we should be pushing for peace.

Where have all the hippies gone?

Wanting peace is now a bad thing?

Does it matter that his method wasn't ideal, at least he wasn't pushing for nuclear war like many politicians.

Consider the Lenovo Nano: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/c/desktops/thinkcentre/m-nano-s...

I have a couple of the ThinkCentre Nano computers. They are tiny, a fat fit for a pocket, but easily transported if you wanted to. AMD Ryzen processor and plenty of ram with SSD.

Still need power though... and I am not crazy about the power connector though (seems too proprietary) but it seems very sturdy at least.

I am not sure why you are arguing against stopping crime. Maybe you misunderstood my posts.

"Damage caused by police that are not crimes" is so vague as to need clarification, as I can't imagine what that could even be...

My point about stopping ALL crime with data is a very clear statement that has validity and merit.

Is there data to show most crime in America is committed by Police? I find that hard to believe.

Eat a _lot_ less. Exercise (even just a little). Don't snack late into the evening. Be hungry, on a consistent and regular basis. Don't over-eat.

No magic, no cost, no special anything.

It's not easy, and most people can't do it, but it works. And even if some magic product helps you lose weight, you will still need to follow the above rules anyways.

It's like many smokers, they can't quit until they almost die, but then they just magically can quit, cause it's life and death. No magic product/idea, just time to make a change.

> That would be the police.

Yes, but the fact that we have to monitor them proves they aren't up to the job. The people need to do this, and we should use scraping data to prevent _ALL_ crimes.

How could we use that data to help prevent crime?

To best mimic the success of the original post, it would be good to be able to identify people doing the most damage to a neighborhood so we could help them first with tax relief, food, birth control, whatever would help the most.

Is their any data sources we could scrape to stop crimes in our neighborhoods so the police don't have any reason to come around and cause problems?

I hope that goes well for you. Have you considered taking a part time job or maybe in apprenticeship or internship in something you are interested in?

I imagine that if I was doing what you are describing, I'd enjoy keeping busy while still having most of my day to pursue something new. And having my side job (that pays or not, who cares?) help push me forward into learning something I couldn't easily do on my own.

Can someone explain the use of the word "vaccine" here?

My layman's understanding of medical industry is that a vaccine is only useful against a "virus". Has the word "vaccine" turned into a generic word for "medicine" in many cases?

They state "vaccine development strategies" as their motivations, but seem to skip over the idea what the actual definition of a vaccine is, but then allude to it by stating "drug-vaccine conjugation" after already stating (as fact) there is such a thing as "METH vaccine development strategies".

Maybe I am just too much an outsider, but the past 20 years I feel like a vaccine can cure more than it could in the past...

That is exactly my point, "diversity" by its very definition can't also mean exclusion. If it does, who's rules for exclusion are you using? (a diverse set of rules?)

This is the problem with this discussion, I can't stand MAGA ideals, I think they are ridiculous, but you assumed I support it because I used it to point out a flaw in a popular (but flawed) idea.

It's a very real example to show true diversity can't exist in our society across diverse groups.

True diversity would mean having to accept, even welcome, a MAGA wearing redneck onto the board of a black university. Therefore diversity discussions (almost always) are not about "diversity for everyone", but instead it's social cudgel for one side to use against another.

Your statement (maybe because of a massive pendulum swing in society) in some circles is considered racist, regardless of your motivations.

This is a major difficulty we face today, mass irrationality in society.

Just tested this, it stops at page 22 with no more next... wow.

I have never met a homeless person that wanted to get work, have a steady income and pay for housing that didn't eventually make it. (I lived on the streets)

Those that were overcome by drugs and mental issues would either destroy the housing or simply leave it or never take free housing.

(yes, there are many homeless that actually do _not_ want an apartment/house to take care of)

This is a lie I've heard for decades.

It's a lie people believe to justify loving themselves _more_.

The problem is selfishness (self love) leads to unhappiness, and the lie blinds them to the cause.

This subjective logic can be applied to every person that's ever lived.

If you have ever changed anything about yourself, I would start there.

I have had to relearn self change multiple times, because it feels just as hard every time.

I changed from a night person to a morning person by first declaring truthfully to myself "many things will be easier if I was a morning person." (work, sleep, schedules, etc...) When you state something truthful to yourself, and you believe it, then you can't let it go.

Then I go for a single moment of success, the first win. With food, I did it by accident by missing a meal because I was engrossed. Then I realized I was more hungry and enjoyed my dinner more than most I could recall in recent history, because I hadn't snacked, and I skipped lunch. I wanted this feeling again. But the next day, I was hungry again, and it sucked. I was in pain and just wanted to eat.

Eventually I read somewhere that hunger pain is temporary and you just need to be patient through it. I drank coffee, tea, water, hot cocoa, anything to get through hunger pain. And the first time that it worked was eye opening. I found that I (me, not a pill, coach, friend, wife) I successfully fought off hunger pain with reason, practice, environment, tools (drinks) and I made it through the day without snacking or eating a meal until dinner.

I have many stories of changing something about myself, the are all similar in the emotional turmoil you feel trying to take control.

> Hunger is mostly a trained response,

I agree as well.

> ...it is quite easy to fall off the bandwagon in irregular conditions

YES. So, this is where being _committed_ makes the difference.

I have many rules that help me with this one is "feeling hunger is normal" and "being uncomfortable getting back on track is normal". (this rule is less refined, but key to overcoming falling off the wagon) And "admit when you fail, and try again", very key to dealing with getting started, or restarted on a good thing in life.

The self-training you mention was what I signed on for at the beginning, knowing full well this is normal, so it's not so bad when I have to do it.

Likely others have similar experiences.

Self control is a fantastic way to quit cigarettes, alcohol, and other addictions, why would food be any different?

> None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters.

I found IF gave me a tool to help me control my appetite for the rest of my life.

Self control is best method for maintaining weight, as it's free and guaranteed to work if used.

Spin the unit and create a small gravitational force to separate the two mediums.

I agree, but it _could_ explain why it would happens here, if it's true that the larger HN audience/users like nuclear and don't like renewables.

While to many people nuclear is a backwaters idea (except fusion and other non-polluting nuke systems) there are possibly at lot that do like 50s style nuclear power. I just didn't want to really think it was possible with such a well educated/logical group.