SteveGregory

I think a software approach that should be considered is to dim the screen during throttle events. This has multiple benefits:

- clear user feedback in the moment of stress on the phone

- it would feel more like a battery issue, rather than feeling like a bug

- saves some power that can be used to make the processor throttling less dramatic

What kind of response would you like to see from the West?

Gene drive is a very scary thing from a strict biological standpoint. Just imagine a gene that must be passed on to all offspring, rather than randomly chosen. We could quite easily wipe out entire biomes with such a technology.

This should not be underestimated, or thought to be less relevant of a weapon than, say, the atomic bomb. It's just slightly more subtle than explosives.

Yes, there may be benefits if used well. And yes, nuclear technology can be (very) useful for generating power. I'm just saying that there needs to be more attention here. The particular uses need to be more widely understood and talked about.

Does this seem like a trend that goes beyond just tech products? Clothes, appliances, furniture (with fiberboard) all seem to have lower longevity today, whether it's from lacking updates/service or just lacking durability.

This is the classic Simpson's Paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

Also in hawaii, and I had the same bug

Really? I don't know if Reddit has been AB testing, but they seem pretty reasonable to me with their app ads. It's always been easy to clear and stays cleared for a while for me.

Concrete production actually does have crazy CO2 emissions. Wikipedia says it's up to 5% globally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...

That math doesn't seem right. 100M devices sending 10Mbps is 1,000,000,000Mbps = 1,000Tbps, not 1GB/s.

For an attack of 1.2Tbps, you only need 120k devices at 10Mbps.

if the IPO is anywhere near the expected 25B, then it will be in the S&P 500, and a component of VOO

Probably too late to really contribute, but either way -

I feel like health is a degenerate case of free markets. In any free market, the price is set by the consumers assessing their utility for the goods or services purchased. In cases of pencils, productivity software, energy, raw materials, etc, consumers compare the methods of resolving the need, or at baseline the cost of not addressing the need.

In healthcare, there are lots of situations where the cost is X dollars vs literal death. Of course, death is not an acceptable alternative, so an acceptable X ends up being very, very high for the treatment. Most people would pay their life savings to treat themselves of any life-threatoning ailment.

I honestly believe that free markets setting prices is good for most industries, but I cannot see it working in situations where the benefit categorically supercedes any amount of money.

It seems like we need to either rethink IP law surrounding healthcare, or have a monopsony (single payer or something else) setting prices.

This is a hard thing for me to resolve, as somebody who normally likes a libertarian approach.

It actually is most of the funding for Mozilla, at least in 2011:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/15/mozilla-releases-annual-rep...