YokoZar

Likely the victim's medical or comprehensive insurance - most states only require very small liability limit policies that won't really cover much in a big crash.

California, for instance only requires ~30k injury coverage and ~5k property damage, not even enough to replace a cheap used car when totaled these days.

This is why designs usually require the voter to be able to inspect the paper ballot before finalizing it. Shenanigans like that would be caught, as the machine has no way of knowing how close the voter will look.

>The author is suggesting replacing a bad plan (everyone discuss each intersection) with another bad plan (just drive however you like).

The author is suggesting replacing it with the normal rules of the road, which are as close to not planning as possible (following basic heuristics like go on green). The example in the parable didn't have "unjust" stop signs or traffic lights for a reason.

There are other rules. Always yield to pedestrians. Two cars can sometimes go at the same time if they're not on a collision course. If pedestrians are blocking the person whose turn it is, you can go instead. Order is based on arrival time, unless there's a lot of cars then it's yield to the right if you're unsure.

These rules combine in such a way that it's genuinely unclear who should go in some situations - the above rules might contradict, or you might need information you don't have cause you got there after something broke "the order". But if you think it's your turn and start to go, people will let you, and ultimately no one gets stuck forever.

Sentences feel different from lines of code. "One statement doing one thing per line of code" seems a reasonable idea but "one sentence per line of text" seems a bit absurd.

Retaliating against employees for discussing their working conditions is in fact enormously legally risky for a company. Doubly-so when doing it via SLAPP lawsuits. Why on earth would Valve take the risk?

The vast majority of affordable cars are used cars. Used cars are cheaper when there's tons of new cars, and they get more expensive when new car production slows - prices jumped so much in the past two years that some used cars were sold for more than they were originally purchased for.

We treat that weird situation as obvious undersupply in the car market, but somehow expect it with houses. Why should old, used houses sell for more than their purchase price?

Stocks and bonds are traded something on the order of 1 million times more frequently than a given house, making price discovery much more transparent even without an open bidding process.

> It's nonsense of course, if investment bankers were unnecessary, they woudn't have jobs.

By this logic, con artists are necessary.

One "real number" is actually rather far off - survey respondents estimated that 49% of people "own a home" but the article implies the actual number is 65%.

65% is the oft-cited "home ownership rate", however that is defined as the fraction of occupied homes with an owner in them. Move back in with your parents after college? Rent from a live-in landlord? Congrats, you "own a home" according to this absurd statistic.

A much more reasonable number would be something like the percent of adults who either own a home or are married to someone who does.

Are they allowed to dilute it with wastewater?

Why not combine the two and require using the secure VMs only from enrolled devices?

I'm not sure you even clicked the link your point is so orthogonal.

> Cook some identical roasts or steaks. Cook one bone-in, cook one with the bone removed but tied back on, and cook a third with the bone removed and tied back on with a layer of impermeable aluminum foil in between. Then cut them all up and taste them (preferably with a large group of people in a blind setting). You'll find that they all taste pretty much identical.

This "scientific cooking" is all about the taste that results. People aren't applying these myths because they've tried it both ways and their senses tell them one is better than the other, that's the whole point of making an article like this.

Also note that these days Windows itself is an "emulator" in much the same way Wine is when running apps in the various compatibility modes for earlier Windows versions.

Still, even today people tend to think of emulation as implying some sort of required slowdown. Unlike something like ARM or console emulation, most slowness in Wine has just been bugs rather than an inherent limitation of the concept.

If intuition is consistently biased in the "stay" direction then it's not exactly wrong to say "if even your intuition says you should quit then the case for doing so is most likely overwhelming"

> The issue is still the same: what do you do in the second year (or the third), after you've fixed all the low hanging fruit.

Then you destaff the team, collect your tens of millions of dollars, and be happy about a successfully finished project? The problem with going too far down this line of reasoning is that you leave even low-hanging fruit laying around forever.

> The gains for doing this for individual large services are significant (in the case of service-1, it's [mid 7 figures per year] for the service and [low 8 figures per year] including services that are clones of it, but tuning every service by hand isn't scalable.

This point seems wrong to me, bound too much by requiring solutions to be done by a small team of engineers who already have a mandate to work on the problem.

With numbers like that Twitter could, profitably, hire dozens of engineers that do literally nothing else. Just tweak thread pool sizes all day, every day, for service after service. Even though it's a boring, manual, "noncomplex" thing, this type of work is clearly valuable and should have happened years ago.

Most likely Twitter's job ladder, promotion process, and hiring pipeline is highly incentivizing people to avoid such work even when it has clear impact. They are very much not alone in that regard.

> Do people actually need next-gen wifi?

Streaming VR to a wireless headset (SteamVR on Oculus Quest) is generally considered to require Wifi 6, though that is admittedly a niche use currently.

I called someone today and they appeared to be using a generic call screening service that offers exactly this feature - a computerized voice asks you to enter a random number to be connected.

Given that narcissism is fueled by past trauma and by beliefs of having greatness being unrecognized, that sounds like the exact opposite of helpful.

By far the most common complaint from support groups for people with sleep disorders is the sheer lack of respect people have for different sleep schedules. We get called lazy even when we work past midnight. By coworkers, and even family.

The usual advice is to find a different job with actually flexible scheduling or night shifts, for good reason.

Chesterton's fence is satisfied here: it asks us to know why a rule was put into place so that we know we aren't missing something when we change it.

In this case we do know the reason why: aesthetics. The side effects are just greater now, so out the rule goes.

> Economics is the study of the statistical, game theoretic, and computational properties of a market.

I was taught in my Econ 1 textbooks that Economics is the study of scarcity. Game theory and stats didn't enter into it until much later.

Either way, it's just a semantics question about what "economics" means. The author has a real point about what's actually scarce here, and the contrast with people's expectations is a good one.

You don't need to bring irrational individual behavior into it: you can get rock-paper-scissors group cycles even when every voter has a well-ordered list of preferences.

As a basic example, imagine voters prefer whoever is closer to them on some 2-dimensional politics. 3 candidates form a triangle. Draw the altitudes to form six regions, and put a voter in alternating ones. That's a rock-paper-scissors cycle, with very simple rational voters.

The "theoretically possible" case of voters having cyclic preferences is actually quite reasonable! A rock-paper-scissors situation among the top 3 candidates doesn't require irrational voters or anything of the sort: all you need is for there to be at least 2 issues.

This is the rational response to Arrow's theorem - not to cynically conclude all voting systems are "bad", or that "dictatorship" makes some sort of sense, but rather just to say that if there's a rock-paper-scissors situation among the top candidates, one of them should win.

"Strategy-proof" is a really strange thing to strive for. Making dishonest strategic voting "really really hard" is more than good enough.

By way of example, exploiting a strategic voting vulnerability in certain ranked ballot elections can require both near-perfect information about how everyone else is voting and then solving an NP-hard math problem.

Saying that such an exploit is theoretically possible and then to start talking about dictatorships as being immune is like saying there's a risk someone will win the lottery unless we ban earning money.

Food-soiled paper was never recyclable.

The energy and water costs of cleaning and sanitizing reusable containers can be very substantial. It seems nicer to "reuse" a bottle, but it may genuinely be the case that it's less impactful to just make a new one (preferably out of recycled materials).

The Pfizer vaccine was fully approved on August 23

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

I don't know how it compares exactly but there is a non-alcoholic product also known as "Irish Cream". If you want to find it (or recipes for home made versions) the best thing to do is search for "Irish Cream Coffee Creamer".