Wolfenstein98k

Don't confuse "Ben can answer these emails in 20 minutes" with "anyone could answer these emails in 20 minutes"

Imagine you could get Elon to answer your emails. Is that perfectly interchangeable with any other human?

If that's true, you're claiming that it only accurately measures about 27% of the population yet somehow returns 66% accuracy.

Go for waist-to-hip.

It's actually still useful. It doesn't function as well as a measure of fatness for you as an individual, but that was only ever a proxy anyway.

It still functions well as a measure of load on your circulatory system, joints, you name it.

Your body is working harder than a typical 6'2" person, even if you have a great waist-to-hip ratio.

(But you'd still be better off with a smaller WTH ratio!)

Are they cognitively damaged by ads in ways they don't realise, or are you just uniquely cognitively damaged by them?

Maybe they prompted "make it sound like the guitars have D'addario strings"

I would expect anxious/insecure parents to use placating behaviours (like device use) themselves, and I would expect their children to be anxious/insecure too.

So I would expect the study to find that the children of phone-overusers were more likely to be anxious/insecure.

Still, I would also expect that less phone use (subbed with more attention to kid) would help the kid with this.

I always wonder how much of the West's wealth(- holding capabilities) come from centralising and rationalising our superstitions through central authorities like the church.

Not really, because notes do double duty.

You might play a G# note in the context of an E chord (where it's the third), and then you might play it in the context of a C# (where it's the fifth).

These are discernably different pitches, but the same "note", in the same key, in the same song!

Who didn't allow it to succeed?

Hard to make a school designed for a very small group of students. Who's paying?

Great stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Great way to help nudge people along in musical interest.

I completely agree.

While the other person replying is not technically wrong about why these things are grouped, it is kind of offensive to sufferers of Type 1.

In one case, a 3yo starts randomly getting sick one day, worse by the day, and will be dead if they don't get a diagnosis soon. From that day forth, their parents need to manage EVERY single bite of food they have, stab them with needles multiple times a day no matter what, and inject them with a insulin - where, if you miscalculate, will cause a seizure within an ~hour and death within a few hours. From a single typo.

Nothing will cure them, their life will be much shorter, filled with work and pain and expense with absolutely no relief, and nothing could've avoided it.

Now compare to Type 2, where you basically cannot get it if you maintain a reasonable diet and a reasonable weight.

Once you start showing symptoms, if you listen to your doctor and reform your diet (particularly with the 5% shock weight loss approach), you will almost definitely avoid it.

You will avoid it for the rest of your life just by eating well, which has the added benefit of extending your lifespan and healthspan and saving you money.

These things have nothing in common, for the sufferer or their family.

Type 2, most likely. It changes for people as it progresses.

But even Type 1 people will have a different experience in the early days versus years later - you don't lose all beta cell function in one moment.

But once it matters, you will wish you did!

All the listed countries have low fertility rates, increasing screentime rates, etc.

I suspect if you cornered a parent of a 2yo in any of those countries, they would not say it is meaningfully more social and child-friendly TODAY that the USA is, or Australia (for which I can speak) is.

Last bit is not quite right: a lot of people want to be inside. That contributes strongly to the feedback loop you rightly identify.

(WHY they want to stay inside is another matter, but I suspect a large part is the stereotypical answer: unending seas of digital content highly optimised to hack the consumer's brain.)

Isn't the problem here that third parties can use it as an attack vector?

As I clearly stated in the comment you read, it's not "in my mind" and it's not my opinion.

It was an intentionally bananas statement. As I clearly stated.

Yeah, I didn't say it was wrong.

But it's not new to me, I've seen hundreds of comments just like it.

It just stood out to me because it doesn't appeal to any facts, or anything you would expect in this commentariat - just a bunch of pretty low resolution, low-brow opinions.

Not if they have to compete with China on price, they won't

Thanks, I've been looking for a way to swipe right on your wife.

Do houses and land cost more, or less, there than the US?

Of course we might both be wrong. We probably are. In the long run, all of us are.

It's not very helpful to point that out, especially if you can't do it with specifics so that people can correct themselves and move closer to the truth.

Your contribution is destructive, not constructive.

Then give a better one.

Your objection boils down to "sure you're right, but there's more to it, man"

So, what more is there to it?

Unless there is a physical agent that receives its instructions from an LLM, the prediction that the OP described is correct.

This is a way to sledge Trump, even though it's unrelated to him.

Very shallow definition of "capitalism".

It doesn't dictate externalising cost as much as possible unless you have a very short-term view.

Short-term view businesses get eaten pretty quickly in a free capitalist system.

People forget that half of capitalism's advantage is the "creative destruction" part - if businesses are allowed to fail, capitalism works well and creates net value.

This is couched because he doesn't express a view, not because there's reason to doubt or to assume a level of acceptance.

Be charitable.

Why did this person write an essay about an essay, condemning it with a lot of serious accusations about potential future harm, while also stating they didn't fully read it?

He does some throat-clearing that help address some of these complaints.

It is a very bad essay that says "I am unfamiliar with the target of this essay, but I felt strong emotions when I read bits of it, which qualifies me to pontificate and condemn".

No, that just means the identities split into smaller groups that constantly fight for power within larger coalitions. Instead of Red vs Blue you get racial groupings and all sorts of subdivisions.

Lebanon is a good example of what happens when you try to enshrine smaller subdivisions than A vs B.