dbsmith83

This is a great point. The author's examples seemed cherry-picked to justify a cynical anti-establishment diatribe.

Have you ever tried suspending the more toxic crystals in epoxy resin so they would be safe to handle?

> Their range is 1460-1580 with a mean of 1520

I wonder what this will do to the mean once it becomes optional. It seems mostly people with very high scores would be the ones to bother submitting them because otherwise it could hurt the applicant.

> “No, you should do some basic research first.”

Why should I? I read the article and can ask/talk about it here--discussion is literally the point.

> ...cited the apparent poor performance of what Tesla calls Full Self-Driving beta, a $10,000 option that gives owners advanced automated driving features and allows them to test cutting-edge autonomous technologies on public roads. (Beta is a software term that describes a product not quite ready for general sale to the public.)

Wait, does this mean people are actually paying extra money to become test dummies for this?

> You need all of them. Everyone has their own swagger...

Love this. It's also interesting how when someone leaves a team, oftentimes teammates will step in a little to fill in the role the ex-teammate used to provide. It is kind of like a form a growth. I find myself thinking "What would ____ say about this?"

Do you have a source for this?

> Sounds like boomer logic.

A little ageist, are we?

So, I bought one and it was great, but then randomly the CO2 sensor seemed to stop working after a few weeks. It stayed at the exact same ppm level without changing for a while. I sent an email to customer support and they shipped me a new one for free, and didn't even require me to send back the old one. Haven't had any issues since. I'm pretty happy with it.

You can just open a window and circulate air in the home to lower CO2 levels. I use a uHoo sensor https://getuhoo.com/

> Vaccination slightly reduces the risk of transmission for individual interactions (at least for a while) but that just stretches the curve out a little...

That's a disingenuous statement though because vaccines also help prevent getting infected in the first place, which reduces transmission. This study seems to focus on vaccinated people who had a breakthrough infection. If you read the 'Interpretation' section:

> Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.

The first sentence implies vaccination reduces the risk of getting infection. The second sentence is talking about vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection having similar viral load. Therefore saying "Vaccination slightly reduces the risk of transmission for individual interactions" is untrue because it ignores the infection prevention mechanism of the vaccine. It's a lot better than 'slightly'

> ...but it does little to prevent spread.

Actually it does reduce transmission

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

No: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

No: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

No, looking at the data is observation or analysis by definition...whether or not you make a prediction about it. Experimentation is when you make a hypothesis first (after observation) and then test it. Looking at data is not a test--it's either observation or analysis.

I'm no physicist, but the QBism interpretation of quantum mechanics smells a lot like "The Secret" type of pseudoscience.

Core positions of QBism:

1. All probabilities, including those equal to zero or one, are valuations that an agent ascribes to his or her degrees of belief in possible outcomes. As they define and update probabilities, quantum states (density operators), channels (completely positive trace-preserving maps), and measurements (positive operator-valued measures) are also the personal judgements of an agent.

2. The Born rule is normative, not descriptive. It is a relation to which an agent should strive to adhere in his or her probability and quantum state assignments.

3. Quantum measurement outcomes are personal experiences for the agent gambling on them. Different agents may confer and agree upon the consequences of a measurement, but the outcome is the experience each of them individually has.

4. A measurement apparatus is conceptually an extension of the agent. It should be considered analogous to a sense organ or prosthetic limb—simultaneously a tool and a part of the individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism#Core_posit...

I'd recommend reading the wiki page since this article seems to say a lot of words yet not say much.

Ah then this is where our difference of opinion is. I can see now why you think it's relevant. For me, I always viewed the Russian responses to criticism as diversionary in nature, meant to just essentially say "Well you're not perfect either!". To me, that is just a diversionary tactic to disregard the subject at hand

> To believe that humanity has now arrived at the be all and end all of economic systems is sheer human arrogance and folly.

Says the guy trying to dictate what everyone should get paid. Also, that is a strawman argument since no one claimed we are at the 'end all be all' of economic systems.

You give them too much credit. People will come up with their own justifications for what they do, and thus believe they are doing what is just

> Why should a founder/CEO earn 10 to 100 times more than that NBA star (10,000 to 100,000 times more than the strawberry picker) for a social media company that profits off of social media addiction, undermining privacy to harvest information to sell advertising that in turn is used to manipulate people's emotions and weaknesses? If your answer is that "the market says so", you are begging the question. If your answer is that it's because of "human nature", we've made that a self-fulfilling prophesy by adopting a system where "selfishness is a virtue".

No one will ever come to a consensus about what they think the economic reward for a particular thing should be. Why should we listen to you about what is fair and how much an NBA star should make? Markets should decide, with people voting with their money

> Anarchists and solarpunks alike abhor unjust hierarchies

Pretty sure everyone dislikes 'unjust' hierarchies. The difference is what people think is just or unjust

It's a little clickbaity. Here is the core of the article:

> A Facebook representative told Insider that it allows users to report abuse, and those reports are then reviewed by contractors. When a user reports abuse, WhatsApp moderators are sent "the most recent messages sent to you by the reported user or group, according to WhatsApp's FAQ.

> WhatsApp is founded on so-called "end-to-end" encryption, which means that messages are scrambled before being sent and only unscrambled when they're received by the intended user. But when a user reports abuse, unencrypted versions of the message are sent to WhatsApp's moderation contractors, ProPublica reports.

"But what about the US/UK!? They do it too!"

Combined with the fact that the Assange situation is not at all similar, I don't see it as relevant.

The Assange situation is very different than this one on many levels. I can't see much similarity. It came across as a poor attempt to defend the CCP with the old "America is no better" trope

And relevant usually refers to something that relates to the topic. Again, I ask, what does it have to do with the story?

Perhaps, but that's off-topic what aboutism. What does that have to do with the story?

That's an interesting point, but I'd contend there is a difference between scanning for known virus patterns vs. feeding your email into ML algorithms to do God knows what with.

Maybe they don't serve targeted ads, but they still read your gmail

> So why is Tesla being investigated for being involved in 0.25% of these crashes when they made up 3% of car sales in 2020?

How does the proportion of sales in one year have anything to do with the proportion of crashes that involve cars on the road which were purchased at any time? Furthermore, this is Teslas on autopilot mode--not Teslas in manual driving mode

Thank goodness. How could a journalist not make that joke with this story?