dsizzle

There's no sitemap (https://chess.maxmcd.com/sitemap.xml) - I was hoping to find a list of all possible chess states lol

I get that things are complicated, but I can't help but notice the inherent bias toward fear, present in the subtitile "scientists are worried." Or maybe it's a bias against change. What are the odds that the state without any human intervention is optimal?

Seems that greenhouse experiments would allow us to get a pretty good estimate for the effect of CO2 on yields, so actually I wouldn't think we'd need to do that much assuming?

If the price isn't listed, I always take it as a sign that nobody is buying it for price reasons ("if you have to ask, you can't afford it"). Outside of the blog, I don't even see a claim that it's cheaper so that's consistent.

Why aren't there prices on the website? (Seems weird that there isn't given that blog post, where costs are pretty central.)

Not really a ranking either (it's ordered chronologically e.g.), but true it is a very specific form of outlier, and not what I expected based on the name.

Yes, and specifically cars intentionally made to be loud. One obnoxious car with a loud muffler can disturb people in their homes many blocks away!

In those cases presumably there's not a more interesting question that's consistent with the question and that uses that information. I'd start with the assumption that the tweet isn't a dumb trick question.

Another way of making your point: it would also make the information about the distribution of n irrelevant, so it's a bad interpretation of the question.

Listed status is "experimental" but only two relatively minor commits in the last two years. Maybe it's more stable than that implies or the author is looking to pick it back up?

All this focus on Waymo supposedly acting "unexpectedly" but I don't see that word in the original article, and the statistics here implies the opposite -- Waymo gets in fewer accidents overall!

Also, only the 2nd item is even consistent with Waymo behaving unexpectedly (we're not given enough info to know why it stopped). In the first item, the "unexpected" thing is the branch, not the behavior (stopping), and in the third Waymo's behavior didn't contribute to the accident at all -- instead it nearly avoided it despite the other car's bad driving.

Now 13 (but still only $1529/mo)

The title has a typo: "l earn" vs "learn"

One of his points is that NVIDIA is unlikely to maintain its current high margins, and becoming a low-cost leader would lead to lower margins, so that part is consistent.

I like how at the end the PDF teases another research gem: "You're not going to give me the umbrella, are you?"

100%. To take it a step further -- we can also find more efficient forms of energy (e.g. nuclear energy), and get more energy / economic growth while using fewer atoms.

You get different translations depending on the name. Some variations I see "Screw you", "Get over it", "Brace yourself"

> I wonder if the person asking the question would be happy to let someone do a job in his home with an uncapped budget and timeline?

The author made the claim that software engineering is fundamentally different from carpentry ("Almost everything a developer writes is unique, they have never built that particular thing before. We are not cabinet makers...")

But does that hold up? Many software projects do in fact have a similar analogue, and each house is unique and carpentry projects will thus run into unexpected snags.

Weird how it doesn't say anything about what it does.

No additional context. They don't even specify which you used (I have both a Mac and an iPhone and both are up to date). The full text is below:

"Update your iOS software and Safari® browser to keep your device(s) secure

We noticed the iOS software version you’re using on your mobile device and/or the Safari browser on your computer may need to be updated. <Instructions on how to update>"

You missed my point. I don't actually think the quote was offhand either (another comment suggested that possibility), but the lines from the paper I cited also uses causal language. My point is that using causal language is fine (understanding that it's provisional as all science is), and I think the scientist quote is fine.

You think the scientist quote is dishonest? It seems you too conflate causality with something like proven mathematically or 100% confidence.

This comment (and often the "correlation != causation" discussion more generally) seems to equate "causation" with "proof of causation" (in a mathematical sense), which is a flawed criteria for science IMO. The causation part (not the mere association) is the substance, so it's appropriate to use causal language.

Of course any such explanation is provisional. I might think your comment is just to complain the provisional aspect isn't mentioned in the quote (I think it'd be tiresome to say that in every statement, and the public's understanding of science being provisional is underestimated), but you seem to think it's a problem that causal language is used at all?

While quote may have been offhand, look at what the actual paper says [1]: "[the study] design prevent[s] strong conclusions regarding causation." Note that it doesn't say it prevents any conclusions regarding causation.

By the way, it seems weird that you yourself have come to believe it's causal, while seemingly denying that this paper provides any basis. How did you come to that conclusion then?

[1] In the last paragraph: https://content.iospress.com/download/journal-of-alzheimers-...

Wasn’t the first time it was misspelled and wouldn’t be the last

Per the reference in the article above (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm) 8% of bicyclists were going against traffic.

Yeah relative speed goes hand-in-hand with head-on collision and less reaction time and expectation that I mentioned. I do bike a fair amount, but not on major roads. I am coming to realize that going with traffic is safer, despite it being hard to see cars coming from behind you. I also didn't realize that it's illegal in most places to bike against traffic https://roadbikebasics.com/ride-with-or-against-traffic/

Source #2 indicates that "wrong-way" biking is more dangerous, but my intuition is that it's safer: I like being able to see the traffic that is closest to me. I guess whatever advantage that provides is more than offset by the accident being head-on, and having less time for the driver to react (and maybe there's an expectation aspect too).

So you'd be fine with expats in Portugal if they learned Portuguese? (Doesn't say one way or the other if the person in the article learned the language.)

Conversely, are you upset by immigrants in the US that don't speak English?

They both sound terrible and shouldn't be allowed off a racetrack! :P

How do you feel about expats where ever it is you live now?