danhak

Friend in question was mining bitcoin out of his NYC co-op apartment on a master electricity meter.

A crypto enthusiast friend once made that argument to me and it was so baffling.

By this logic, we should all leave our lights and air conditioners on while we're at work or on vacation because it will increase demand and hasten the transition to renewables.

I’m a little confused by the reasoning here.

You state that peak (commute) traffic is recovering but off-peak is still low, due to WFH?

Wouldn’t WFH be impacting peak hours, with off-peak at all-time-low due to other things like leisure travel?

Thank you for this extremely helpful response

I'm experiencing this right now with my site https://www.dropspotter.com

I've done everything right according to Google, set up the search console, uploaded a site map, addressed all mobile usability issues. And yet only a tiny fraction of my content is being indexed.

I'm a bit at the end of my rope here as I've poured a year into this project and getting a historically normal amount of search traffic may be the difference between this project being viable or not. The most frustrating part here is having zero visibility into what's going on.

Glad I’m not alone in this. It’s rare that an interface makes me feel as dumb and frustrated as GA4

One of the more baffling choices they made was to have “today” and “yesterday” as options on the user reporting tab, even though it can take up to 48 hours to process the data and my dashboard always shows zero users for “today”. Took a while to figure out what was going on there…

Meanwhile the real-time reporting works reasonably well but is limited to a 30 minute window. Some real head-scratching choices were made here.

Narco-states (and the ensuing migrant crisis), the US carceral state, fentanyl overdoses, organized crime, gang violence and many other second-order effects are consequences of drug prohibition, not consequences of the fact that we are too lax with drugs.

  But it’s fun to watch them fail to circle the wagons when it’s Theranos or FTX or Y Combinator.

Ummm...one of these things is not like the others

Yes, I’ve been a print subscriber to Harper’s and The Atlantic for many years.

I find myself easily distracted reading any long form content on a screen. The temptation to check email or social media is strong.

I also prefer to read print materials when I am alone sitting at a coffee shop or a lunch counter or riding the train.

I feel more aware of my surroundings. People tend to engage me more, ask me what I’m reading etc. than if I have my face buried in my phone. It feels less antisocial.

The experience just feels qualitatively different. When I’m reading print, some part of my mind feels—in a pleasant way—that it is in the physical not digital world.

I've had a lot of success using the pixelmatch library for image comparison / deduping

https://github.com/mapbox/pixelmatch

Of course a country’s stock market will perform well as that country ascends to become the world’s dominant superpower.

The question is whether the power and influence of the U.S. will grow similarly over the next 150 years as it has over the last 150.

To invest mechanically without thinking about what’s actually happening in the world is cargo cult behavior.

What about my position seems insincere to you?

You see no philosophical difference between the government mandating vaccination records for schools and public institutions like the military vs. them mandating vaccination records for private establishments such as gyms, irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those establishments?

Should the government have the right to mandate vaccination records for entry to a private home, irrespective of the wishes of the homeowner?

The issue is that there were coercive government mandates.

"Almost everyone should get vaccinated" does not mean the government should coerce everyone into making the correct medical decision by barring them from employment or access to private establishments.

Absent a very compelling reason, people should be free to go against medical advice. People have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. People have the right to make the wrong choice.

In this case, the reason given for overriding that freedom was a highly specious argument that the unvaccinated were putting other people at significant risk. That argument did not pass the smell test from the very beginning.

We coerced young, low-risk people into receiving these treatments despite known side effects on pain of losing their education or employment or being able to enter privately-owned establishments (irrespective of the wishes of the owners of those privately-owned establishments).

We justified it with the specious argument that they were putting other people at undue risk by remaining unvaccinated. We claimed that vaccinated people would not spread the virus.

And we gave the companies producing these vaccines blanket legal immunity from any potential liability.

Yup. Prices will lag rates, and the market is already seeing significant softening

What's insane about it? 8% is a pretty normal rate, historically speaking. The average rate for a 30 year fixed mortgage since 1971 is 7.76%

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US

On the contrary, the article concludes on this note:

> But if I truly have the good of the world at heart, then I must not fall prey to the conceit of perfect knowledge, and must be willing to entertain new and better ways to serve my ultimate goal: creating a happier world.

According to one recent study, yes:

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/startup-founders-are-...

IG jumped and chased Snapchat with stories and that was an incredibly smart / successful move.

The same strategy isn't panning out with reels, for whatever reason.

It's not crazy when you consider the risk to that population is miniscule, and that the vaccine does have side effects, particularly for young people.

You don't seem to be engaging with the main point here: there were places that DID take COVID seriously--that shut down overnight, paid the price of mass unemployment, homelessness and growing tent cities, increasing substance abuse / overdose, loss of education that will never be recovered and countless other second-order effects.

And those places did not emerge with a significantly better COVID outcome.

Without an answer for addressing the second-order effects of green policy, there will be no consensus.

Here in the U.S., at least, what has widely been maligned as "COVID denialism" was actually a deeper and more nuanced conversation about whether sudden, sweeping changes to society would prevent more harm than they cause.

And now looking at outcomes across different states (e.g. Florida vs. California)--and considering ALL outcomes (public health, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, mental health, truancy, graduation rates, violent crime)--it's indeed unclear that draconian policies in the name of public health were a net positive.

I am extremely concerned about climate change. But there seems to be little introspection from those who propose sweeping policy change about the need to consider second-order effects on those whose lives and livelihoods will be upturned. The general disdain for people in places like West Virginia gives me little hope that will change.

About 90% of energy is lost from one trophic level to the next

It's true that 2021 saw the highest rate of GDP growth in 30 years, but that came immediately after the largest GDP decline in 30 years during 2020. So that can be explained as an aberration due to the pandemic shutdowns and subsequent rebound:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth...

At any rate, GDP growth is currently negative for 2022 and China's economy is still projected to overtake the U.S. in a matter of years.

Like what for example?

> The stock market as a whole will always bounce back

Japan is the common counterexample. It is entirely possible the stock market will stagnate in the future as the era of American economic hegemony comes to an end.

Because the policy will bankrupt founders.

Imagine you're the founder of NFLX and you held $1 billion worth of stock at the peak last year ($690 / share)

The IRS says you owe $300 million (30% of your unrealized gains)

Fast forward to spring 2022. The stock has crashed to $186, your shares are worth only $270 million but you owe a $300 million tax bill.

Not to mention the impossible situation this creates for corporate governance and the general functioning of a business when founders / board members are constantly forced to divest and therefore no one can know who will even control the company from quarter to quarter.

Unlike a painting, software can be continually improved and enhanced after it's released.

The Fed wants to raise unemployment because they are concerned about the economy entering a price/wage spiral.

It's a terrible feedback loop that can occur in a tight labor market such as this. Higher inflation --> higher wage demands --> higher business expenses --> higher inflation

> It's a solved problem.

I'm curious how Airbnb specifically is solving it. I can think of four bookings off the top of my head--expensive ones--where they've missed out on my money because the hosts solicited offers to circumvent the platform. It's worked out fine for me each time.