beisner

Did the study measure revealed opinions, or does it just measure stated opinions? I would expect many participants, upon hearing that they were paid to watch CNN, would become primed to think that the study creators are expecting to see less-conservative answers, and some of them would answer less-conservatively than they actually believe. The effect doesn’t sound very large, in any event.

Are there any technologies in the works that will solve the charge time problem for EVs? Even with current quick charge, it’s pretty terrible UX to have to stop for an hour every 100 miles. Even stopping for that long every 200-300 miles is a pain. And congestion at charging stations (particularly on the west coast) amplifies the inconvenience.

The division would have been shuttered long ago if it weren't for that lucrative Government Cheese contract...

Back when IBM was cutting edge!

Clean Air/Water acts were pretty meaningful.

This is already the system. Brokers have no impact on the application process. It's all credit checks, which is basically the same thing as "AI from a company".

Such a system is not possible.

If they bring permanent change to the market and lead to the elimination of rental brokers entirely, I don't care what replaces it.

Presumably the loan period is quite long, and someone has some amount of income, so monthly payments are tiny. You can keep refinancing indefinitely until you die, after which your descendants can do a one-time liquidation (paying no cap gains tax) to pay off the balance.

You never have to pay back the loan yourself. Just make small monthly payments and refinance until death. This is actually a pretty widely-exploited part of our tax system, for very high net worth people.

There should be pretty strict regulation for fission reactor development, simply because radioactive materials in runaway reactions can have totally uncontrollable, millennia-spanning consequences. Very few other technologies have this potential - even a regular chemical explosion poses little risk to future generations in a large radius. Certain materials (plutonium, for instance) can reach criticality very quickly and in tiny quantities, and plutonium is a byproduct of fission. (I’m not a nuclear physicist, so my understanding of the real potential here might be wrong, because I have no sense of the quantities that might be experienced).

This isn’t a defense of the current regulatory process. The time frames, in particular, sound pretty egregious (4 years to approve a prototype, and 2m pages of documentation feels like a lot, too, but again I don’t know how these things are designed). But I would be extremely uncomfortable with lax regulatory oversight, given that nuclear accidents have permanent, irreversible impacts on society and geography.

Now, small-scale reactors may be a different beast entirely. If the quantity of materials is pretty much guaranteed not to have potential to cause problems for anyone but the operators for a short period of time…. Then there certainly seems to be a case for a shorter regulatory cycle. But I would be shocked if scale isn’t already taken into account for the current regulatory burden.

Sometimes rights conflict with one another.

This is very similar to Modern Monetary Theory, which views taxation as a means to control inflation rather than a source of funds for a sovereign government. Maybe only applies to a country whose currency is the reserve currency of the world tho…

Wirecutter recommends Coway

Thanks I hate it.

It's not an education problem. It's an ideology problem. A huge fraction of the country has basically lost all faith in public and academic institutions. In these polarized times, when many leaders that institution-skeptics listen to decided to make COVID a political issue in the ongoing culture war, listening to public health recommendations (including masking, vaccination) is akin to "letting the other side win".

Earlier in the vaccine rollout, some minority populations were skeptical of the vaccine for more historically-grounded reasons (i.e. historical discrimination/abuses in the healthcare system), but that skepticism has faded dramatically [1] as more and more people get the vaccine. Only one group [2] has been pretty consistently unwilling to get the vaccine, and it's tightly coupled to the same ideological alignments that are dividing society in all political and social arenas.

More education won't change deeply-held ideological beliefs.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-and-more-americans...

[2] https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/trump-covid-vaccine-re...

Even when a community has herd immunity, there are still individuals who won't have immunity within that group. Anyone who comes into the community with the virus can still spread it locally to the people around them - herd immunity only affects community spread, not individual spread. So when there's a pandemic raging on outside the country, free movement of unvaccinated people across the borders will necessarily mean that there will be cases domestically affecting the domestically unvaccinated. Until the entire world has herd immunity (a long time from now), if a community wants to drop caseloads to ~0, travel restrictions for the unvaccinated are one way to accomplish that.

Whether that's just or fair or good policy, certainly up for debate.

The article is ambiguous about that. One interpretation is "max 14 days of remote work per year where you can't be in the office 3 days a week" (which is separately mentioned later in the article).

We understand and can certify how bridges are constructed. Someone from the government can come in and check your work reasonably quickly and make sure it’s up to code. There’s a “trust” step and a “verify” step. And it often takes a lot of time to do iteration.

Software engineering isn’t like that. Not only are the tools changing every year, but 95% of the work in a project isn’t actually design or construction, it’s figuring out what the client wants or the product should be! Requirements are discovered as construction happens because most of the time software is solving a business problem not a physics problem.

There’s no certification because there isn’t something to standardize. Every company has different problems, technical solutions are always changing. Interview processes are trying to look at generic problem solving + communication + ability to translate some easy algorithmic idea into code. They don’t do a great job of assessing that, but the point is that two CS degrees can look identical on paper but there’s so much fuzzy interpersonal/business/requirement-assessment work that basically isnt captured at all by a degree, and is really hard to demonstrate on a resume.

... it’s dang.

To be fair, neither is red meat. Unclear which is worse, though.

I have one rule when driving: “stay the fuck away from me”. All other rules follow, including leaving tons of space, signaling, passing appropriately. Also includes moving right when someone is too close to me.

I consider myself an extremely safe driver, and I’ve definitely been in way more close calls when someone else was driving than when I was.

I don’t think that logic you’ve proposed really holds in the parts of the US that I’ve lived in (East coast, Midwest).

I hear what you're saying, but I would push back a bit that the gun purchase vs. voting analogy needs a bit more nuance. There's ALSO a long tradition that individual rights enumerated in the Constitution+Amendments are not absolute, but are limited insofar as they infringe on others' individual rights and public safety.

The threshold where "public safety" is considered with respect to limiting individual rights is certainly up for debate in various cases - including gun ownership. That said, I think there are pretty clear differences between the public safety risk surface of "voting" and "owning a firearm", so I think it's not reasonable to assume that they should require the same standard of restriction (i.e. in the form of tracking/ID requirement).

Acquiring an ID is typically a very lengthy and tedious process in most states, which entails:

1) knowing enough about the process to find all the documents required to get an ID (usually includes birth certificate and SSN card if you don’t already have an ID, which not everyone is able to keep track of)

2) taking a day (or multiple days) off work to go to the DMV, depending on wait times and if you’ve brought enough documentation

3) paying $40+

4) waiting days or weeks for the ID to come

All for what? If you don’t have a car, and you don’t really interact with the government or banks in any meaningful way (you would be SHOCKED how many people are in this position) you basically don’t need an ID at all to function. So if the ONLY reason to get an ID is because it’s required to vote, this ends up being a MASSIVE hurdle. All that effort just to vote? And you need to do it many weeks before the election? Of course that will suppress turnout from populations who don’t already have IDs!

This isn’t even considering populations who have pretty deep-seated (and reasonable!) wariness of giving too much information to government institutions, when historically that information (especially demographic) has been used to oppress/discriminate in things like housing policy, policing policy, etc.

If America issued a federal government ID at birth for free that auto-renewed, maybe these laws wouldn’t be as insidious. But that almost certainly will never happen.

I pointed it out because referencing a questionable mode of transmission undermined the punch of your original "snarky response".

Probably won’t catch COVID from a doorknob either:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4

Because the larger an organization grows, the fewer and fewer shared values employees in a company have. A small organization can be very value-driven: ideology is easily aligned between 10 people that have selected one another directly.

At a certain scale for a corporation, the only value that people inside a company share is the desire to make money. Literally the only value. Nothing else matters to everyone. Of course, every individual or small group will have their own unique set of values, but the only value and incentive that is aligned across everyone in the company is the pursuit of money. And so businesses, without fail, converge on this singular focus, no matter what the company convinces its employees or consumers it values.

In theory a smaller economy might be able to run this sort of scheme by hand. Just depends on the crypto scheme used.

This is a bit misleading, not all fat is created equal. Saturated fat in particular has been clearly shown to correlate with heart disease, and there’s a ton of saturated fat in butter, cream, red meat, cheese, etc. So much so that if you’re trying to lower your cholesterol it’s basically impossible to order something satisfactory at a typical restaurant.

It's a simple as the perception that Apple is a hardware company and Google/Facebook are information services company. It's much easier to draw a connection between Google/Facebook operating legally in China (and having their products subject to PRC information controls) and suppression of liberal/democratic ideals, than Apple selling hardware devices that are information-agnostic to the same.

Not minor, making eye contact when communicating is a super deep instinct. Even animals make eye contact. It totally takes you out of the moment when it isn’t there.