arijun

It’s totally fair to point the first domino being his. In fact, most of your comment seems to be arguing against a position I don’t hold. However, unlike a blender, Iran has agency. You cannot rewrite history because you don’t like the actors.

The first example was just the first that came to mind. The second was chosen in the opposite direction because that poster didn’t like the unintentional insinuation that the US was in the moral right; I chose something that has the opposite framing to show that it holds independently of who’s wrong.

I wasn't trying to talk about the morality of the US's actions (not that the police are inherently moral), only point how it seems purposefully misleading to remove the direct actor from the equation.

If you want, we can change the moral insinuations. "The bully hit himself in the face." No, the poor kid being teased hit the bully in the face.

And in fact, rhetorical tools like that make it easier for people who disagree with the authors stance to discard the author's argument on the whole. "This person either doesn't understand the situation well enough, or is willingly lying to me. Why would I listen to them."

If you want to read it as one would normally, where the X axis is the input variable, you could read it as "For a given quantity of demand, what is the maximum price the market can sustain?" So if you want to sell higher quantities of oil, the price has to decrease. The supply side is the opposite direction since costs go up as quantities go up (ignoring efficiencies of scale).

Since the graph is without units, the only relevant of their positions are the signs of the slopes, and that you need a higher price to supply oil at any given quantity (hence the Straight closed" line being higher on the graph).

> the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz

Am I the only one who finds this disingenuous? It's like saying: "the police's arrival to the bank robbery took someone hostage." The police's arrival may have triggered the hostage taker's actions but it was still their actions. It's like the author let their dislike of Trump get in the way of accuracy.

It's easy enough to argue that the war is a disaster without being misleading about who did what.

Did you click the link? Are you a bot? This is not about a physical scope, it's an online tool showing jaw/tooth anatomy.

I won’t buy Chevy since they removed CarPlay. I’m not paying $10/month for an ability my phone gives me for free (to say nothing of the other integrations CarPlay gives you).

I thought fuel cells were an energy storage system, not an energy generation system. Surely it’s cheaper to just connect the data center to the generation directly (either by upgrading the grid to handle it or building generators nearby).

How do you compare your experience with fearless_simd vs std::simd? Besides the nightly aspect of course.

Isn’t copyright duration like 70 years? How could it have left copyright (one of the editions were published in 2013)?

The internet archive has a copy of the epub, but I have no idea if it’s a legal copy or piracy:

https://archive.org/details/the-biology-of-cancer-3rd-editio...

Care to elaborate? How is eclipse a disaster, and how does that pertain to pushing new ideas for an OS?

It might never beat out grep, but it could beat some more expensive to call tools, similar to how heuristics will often be faster than exact answers. Rust Analyzer can be slow at times, I could see an AI tool taking over a subset of its work.

Theres something ironic about the top comment being an AI summary of everything, so I don’t have think or synthesize a view for myself.

I assume cutting a trench is far cheaper than making the massive pipes that would be needed to move that amount of water.

But I would be interested to see how a solar panel covering compares economically to some other, cheaper setup.

The point is to lose less water, you’re talking about leaking water into the surrounding soil.

“You should prefer it, because it’s simple” is just restating Occam’s razor, not giving any explanation. “The simplest is more likely to be accurate” is a much better interpretation than yours.

I think the most accessible example of Occam’s razor is fitting a line to some points; you can always use a high enough order polynomial to fit the seen points exactly, but a straight line is likely closer to representing the underlying distribution.

> skills/unique_and_interesting.md

Yes, I’m sure the thousands of LLMs running the exact same instructions will all be unique.

I don't want to be tracked by x.com, but still want to be able to read links people send me to tweets. It's pretty reductive to say that people are using it because they "hate Elon so much," or even that they "want to engage with it.'

I do take your point, that someone against using twitter for training data in AI who then uses a service that might be violating copyright seems hypocritical. But first of all, the people voicing these opinions may not be the same person, despite commenting on the same website.

But more directly addressing your point, I do think you could easily find a consistent moral stance that thinks taking tweets to train AI is worse than republishing those same tweets on a website. An argument can be made that the person writing those tweets wants to be heard, so republishing the tweet is in line with (your best guess of) what they want. Whereas consumption of the tweet for AI training is less likely to be consistent with the wants of the original author.

Yes? I don't trust big corporations for a lot, but I do trust them to act in their own self interest. If they are all doing something, I would assume they know better than me (or other couch economists) what makes them more money. I don't understand why this is a controversial take.

The video they have showing off taking photos has one scene where they open the phone like a laptop to hold the phone to take a photo. That means the front screen was face down on the concrete. Has the durability of the displays gone way up or is this just a scenario no one would ever do?

I mean, regular employees have done that as well. As with any risk, it’s possible that the probability•cost is less than reward. And since it seems most large tech companies are using the technology despite those risks, I will have to defer to their more researched judgment.

How much thinking is going on beyond the spoken-aloud “thinking”? Does it have enough capability to have goals it doesn’t express explicitly? I suspect not, but I’m no expert.

That is my understanding as well. But having another band allows for error correction as a side benefit.

The noise wouldn't be significantly lower during takeoff/landing, only during taxi, right? Good for workers on the tarmac, but doesn't get rid of the largest noise pollution issue.

Oh interesting, I think I conflated two things; Selective Availability and the military-only bands on GPS. While it's true that access to the military band could improve accuracy with dual-band receivers, consumer devices can use dual-band as well (as your link shows), since there are multiple unencrypted bands from navigation satellites nowadays.

I am not sure how to interpret your link, though. It doesn't measure accuracy on it's own, and doesn't include a number for precision between the two units.

It seems that all the device manufacturers (they mention Apple, Samsung, and Google) are using BeiDou anyway. I don't know if that includes Garmin watches, though.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-agency-probes-risks-fo...

> BeiDou GPS blows away US GPS for number of sats and precision

Both BeiDou and GPS are supposed to be limited to 10m precision for civilians.

But, going down a rabbit hole, I found that BeiDou is way more accurate than 10m--3.6m and 2.6m outside and inside the Asia-Pacific region, respectively [1]. And that's with the most simple algorithm. It goes down to ~2.5m using dual-frequencies to account for atmospheric error.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-12012-y

> You talk about poison, but that is pure lie

I think it's fairly well accepted that the high obesity rates are caused by the shifting American diet. Yes it's more available than the 1950s (although I suspect not terribly so), but the effect it has on public health has been a nightmare.