anonymars

Who could have imagined such a thing from the "move fast and break things" techbro crowd

Funny enough Terminator 2 was briefly back in theatres for its 35th (!) anniversary

It aged pretty well...depending on how you look at it

Do they need advertisers for garbage like this? Just another entry in the decades-long disinformation campaign

"Who bears responsibility for reducing the carbon footprint of those products? Shell, the companies that pumped the oil, the carmakers whose engines burn the fuel, or the people who drive the vehicles? The answer is probably a combination of all of them.

To heap the blame for global warming on the oil industry alone would be to oversimplify the emissions problem. True, companies like Shell could have been more open about evidence of the risks from climate change, and they sometimes lobby against steps to reduce emissions. But everyone bears responsibility."

https://www.economist.com/business/2019/07/06/shells-boss-de...

Like a carbon tax?

By that logic shouldn't petrol be a lot cheaper than it is in Europe?

I don't know, the last few years have taught me that humans have exceedingly short memories

This is an interesting thought, but perhaps AI is an extension of the general case of the internet itself. Among the examples that come to mind:

1. buying/scalping concert/event tickets: in the past it would have been unrealistic to scalp tickets for faraway venues

2. fraud/identity verification: now anyone can apply for an account in your name anywhere as long as they enough personal information about you without a human confirming you are who you say

3. public shaming/harassment: any moment of yours in public now has a non-zero risk of going public throughout the world

4. spread of conspiracy theories/propaganda: now all the village idiots can find each other

i before e except after c

or when sounded as 'a' as in neighbor or weigh

or just because fuck you, it's English

https://www.espressoenglish.net/i-before-e-except-after-c-ru...

Someone without children asks an apparent good faith question about why parenting is more significant and meaningful [than other pursuits]

An answer is provided, but with an "isn't it obvious?" at the end

On the one hand, one could argue that the question wouldn't have been asked if it were obvious (which would be an equally unnecessary riposte), but it might be worth reflecting on what that part adds to the conversation or whether it's a habit, especially in the context of parenting

You mean like the SAVE act?

Or restrictions on mail-in voting?

If you click "reply" and copy the resulting link, there is no difference in behavior if you go straight to that link vs clicking "reply" to get there instead

Think of a state diagram: "you are at the reply screen" is one and only one state. "The tooltip is shown" is a behavior of more than one state, with different paths to get to those states

Is this the one? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20080619-00/?p=21...

Related implication: the slow floppy formatting (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20090102-00/?p=19...)

> Americans very consistently show the most emissions per Capita.

Even beyond that, it is simply a false statement. Among the most, yes but consistently "the most", no

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

From Network (1976):

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West.

There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

"The system continues to function because it contains so many redundancies and because people can make it function, despite the presence of many flaws. After accident reviews nearly always note that the system has a history of prior ‘proto-accidents’ that nearly generated catastrophe. Arguments that these degraded conditions should have been recognized before the overt accident are usually predicated on naïve notions of system performance. System operations are dynamic, with components (organizational, human, technical) failing and being replaced continuously."

This very much resembles Admiral Cloudberg's write-up of the National Airport collision:

"No human being can look at a complex system and predict with any degree of accuracy how exactly it will fail. But with sufficient data, prediction becomes possible because of something known in the occupational safety field as Heinrich’s Law, which states that there are approximately 300 “near misses” for every serious accident; or as the latest version of the law puts it, each fatal accident is accompanied by about 3,000 near misses and about 30,000 “at-risk behaviors.”[39] Statistically, hundreds or thousands of at-risk behaviors and near misses are likely to occur prior to the first fatal accident, providing an opportunity to identify the risk before lives are lost."

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/reaping-the-whirlwind-in...

I'm guessing it's more about "abolish the Senate"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/senate-representat...

Incidentally, if I wanted to sabotage a movement, I'd probably try to convince it to adopt ideas I know would be controversial with the wider public

Iran looks to have figured it out too

Remember, if your vote didn't matter there wouldn't be so much effort to restrict it!

You're not wrong - https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20051107-20/?p=33...

"Alcohol causes hangovers" is a true statement.

"Alcohol does not always cause hangovers" is also true.

"Some people don't get hangovers from alcohol" is also true.

"Some hangovers are not caused by alcohol" is also true.

"Alcohol does not cause hangovers" is a false statement.

So it is with UV radiation from the sun and skin cancer.

There are truths in there, but you seem to be looking only for evidence that supports your beliefs (and misreading evidence against your beliefs) instead of tailoring your beliefs based on evidence. Additionally you make blanket, definitive assertions like "sun exposure does not cause skin cancer" which no one should be listening to

Multiple things can be true at the same time:

1. Skin cancer can be successfully treated if found and removed early

2. Vitamin D is healthy and necessary, but at the same time too much sun exposure is harmful. That harm depends on different factors (like skin tone)

3. Some kinds of sunscreen might be problematic or bad for the environment, but there are different kinds of sunscreen (mineral-based, reef-safe)

4. There are multiple ways to mitigate sun exposure, not just sunscreen (avoid peak UV times, wear sun-protective clothing). Mitigation doesn't mean "complete avoidance"

5. Sun exposure is not the only cause of skin cancer, but it is a cause of skin cancer and a common one at that

Question for you: what is the goal of these comments? What is it would you like people to do or think differently after reading what you've written?

I'll go first: my hope is that someone who has read what I've written will be more likely to take seriously something suspicious they see on their skin rather than ignore it as unimportant, and be more inclined to take seriously protection from sun exposure when possible

I wandered into a stupid thread that said "single-payer healthcare." The article/study that spawned this thread is about single-payer healthcare

Public option is not single-payer/universal healthcare. Medicare for All is generally used as a synonym for single-payer healthcare in the US. The article stated it models the results of implementing a plan like Medicare for All

"Public option" still results in a vast bureaucracy of "paying for healthcare machinery", and so is scarcely comparable. Note: that does not mean a public option would be a bad thing. But it is not the same thing

I've already wasted way too much time on this, against my better judgement. I tried to leave twice, but third time will be the charm. Be well

That being said: the whole thing is a complicated clusterfuck. Someone's health care spending is someone else's income. If one just snaps their fingers and enacts whatever ideal healthcare plan, what happens to those now-redundant workers? How does provider capacity ramp up to match the increased demand? I can understand why politicians might be hesitant to jump into such a woodchipper

As the joke goes, "how did God create the universe in 7 days? No installed base"

I do believe it's mostly partisan. I don't believe it's exclusively partisan nor the most partisan

In the 2020 debate, Joe Biden said he would veto Medicare for all*. Just this week, Hakeem Jeffries said he did not support Medicare for all and wouldn't vote for it. You already mentioned Joe Lieberman

None of what I just said implies "it's not partisan" nor does it imply "both sides are the same" -- multiple things can be true at the same time

It sure does, however, reinforce the original, plain statement: "The issue is that the people in Washington won’t make it a 'votable' decision."

*By April 8, 2020, Biden was the "presumptive Democratic nominee" -- at that time, 22 states still hadn't yet held their primary elections. As such, for those 22 states it was quite literally not a votable decision

Your reading comprehension is way off. The article says "Each year in Australia, up to 420 people are diagnosed with acral or mucosal melanomas. They affect people of all ethnic backgrounds, and are the most common forms of melanoma in people with very dark skin."

That is a discussion of specific subtypes of melanoma. You've turned that into a general statement about melanoma:

> not all skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, and this is more true for Melenoma which occur both more frequently in darker skinned people and in place where there is little sun exposure.

These are "Two rare ... forms of melanoma" not "melanoma as a whole." The article does not say melanoma as a whole is more frequent in darker-skinned people and in places with little sun exposure. Those two subtypes are.

Let's also quote from https://wasatchdermatology.com/blogs/basal-cell-vs-squamous-...

> BCC ... can cause significant local tissue damage if left untreated. Most cases are linked to chronic sun exposure, especially in fair-skinned individuals.

> While it often remains localized at first, SCC can invade deeper tissues and, in some cases, metastasize to lymph nodes or other organs. Risk factors include cumulative sun exposure, a history of sunburns, and immunosuppression.

> While not all skin cancers can be prevented, effective sun protection and healthy habits can greatly reduce your risk for basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma.

That does not support "most skin cancers are not a big deal"

> Melanomas can vanish on their own

Your link does not support that statement https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-021-00870-2

"Whilst some studies reported an association with improved survival ... others did not find any significant association, and some even reported worse outcomes in patients whose tumors showed regression"

You seem to have read this as "melanoma just goes away and the problem is gone" rather than "the primary tumor can recede, and in that case survival odds are somewhat better by a few percentage points (but actually worse for Stage III patients!)"

If you think I'm merely "tone policing" then you still miss the point. I don't agree with your translation of "Washington didn't make it a voteable decision" to "both sides are the same" (with the added irony of accusing others of strawmanning).

Edit: and even now you still put words in my mouth with your edit (so that's every message in this thread that does so). Best of luck to you

Article: "two forms of rare melanoma are not caused by exposure to the sun.."

> Most skin cancers are not a big deal, and even Melanomas can vanish on their own

PSA: don't take medical advice from internet comments