Ok, fair enough. I was going from the assumption that political posts generally are removed from hn. But, clearly there's just some nuance that I didn't recognize.
So I specifically called out efficiency because 100X’ing your thrust is about scaling up technology. That generally involves solving engineering problems—figuring how to control vibration resonance would be one example in the case of the Saturn. 100X’ing efficiency, it seems to me, is another animal entirely—it’s often about legitimate scientific breakthroughs. Like going in, you don’t even know for sure of its possible.
I could be wrong, but these two things don’t seem like they’re really that comparable. Apollo was certainly a monumental engineering achievement, but did it require that we 100X the state of the art efficiency of some critical tech?
This is sort of how the mechanism of psychedelics fixing depression comes across to me as well. But, surely there must be much more to it, since, as you’re of course aware, fixing a Swiss watch with a sledgehammer will have a very low success rate. The other end of the analogy spectrum could be that it’s a bit like a chemical catalyst. There’s a lot of resistance to a reaction happening on its own, but will very likely happen if given the proper jolt.
This seems like a really backward way of thinking. You seem to be advocating for complex tax loopholes to be opened for individuals rather than advocating for simple, but lowered taxes.
So if I understand correctly, you create a network of fractures that connect to two boreholes and you pump water into one and out the other. Won’t the fractures erode significantly over time? Do we know what happens when we continuously erode a network of fractures deep underground? And won’t the amount of water that’s required to stay pressurized get larger and larger as the fractures erode?
I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than "The Biden admin cooked the initial numbers to make themselves look good", it's more "The process for generating the initial numbers has been influenced by politics over the years to favor initially higher numbers." That does make sense and is certainly a possible and perhaps partial explanation for what's going on.
The fact that revisions tend to be in one direction should tell us there’s probably some systemic/procedural reason for it, not that it’s political. I’m certainly cynical about politics, but the political explanation here just clearly doesn’t make sense.
This observation should be really obvious. The people who think this is nefarious believe they are thinking critically. What they fail to realize is that they are skipping the part where they critically examine their own thought process.
It seems to me that that logic could be applied to playgrounds in general regardless of whether they include shade.
Playgrounds have gotten much better than they were a few decades ago when I was a kid. I don’t see any reason that that can’t continue with putting an emphasis on including shade.
I don’t know if it’s just coincidence, but I’ve been seeing this so much lately. People reflexively responding that thing A is totally different than thing B, completely missing that the point is not to suggest similarity between A and B, but to challenge the reasoning being applied to A by noting that it would also apply to B (in most cases where applying it to B leads to a clearly wrong outcome).
This is a strangely belligerent statement from an organization tasked with being impartial observers. I don’t know what to make of it, but it seems very odd.
edit: The use of the term “opposition” seems like a bit of a tell.
They’re not that rare. The USGS statement references a few examples of similar events including one from 2009 in this same basin, one from 1989 in the Norris basin, and another (small) event in the Norris basin earlier this year.
What’s frustrating is that after falsely attributing pci to government regulation and being corrected, you’re probably not going to re-examine the thought process that led you to that false belief.
Honestly if someone were to send me a message that only required a simple acknowledgement, and that person hypothetically had disabled reactions, I would interpret that as that person not wanting their message to be acknowledged. But I suspect what you’re really wanting is typed acknowledgment?
Well I think many fund managers regularly take on risk to achieve higher returns. They just won’t take on 100% downside risk while being taxed 10% on the upside.
You’re probably aware that no fund manager would accept your offer. But it doesn’t prove that they don’t think they can beat the market (as misguided as that belief might be), it just means they’re not willing to take on an absurd amount of risk to prove it.
For a small device like this, I don’t think I’d want it to be thinner. Thick and rounded like this just seems like it would be the most comfortable design for using with one hand.