dsizzle

The kicker for me was his follow-up tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1531867103854317568?s=20 It's one thing to troll for kicks or whatever but he's now implying people at Tesla working remotely haven't really been working?

If you never watch it yourself, then there's no problem -- they're the primary and only household. If you do watch it sometimes but not enough to justify the cost then the question becomes what is the dollar threshold? The options they describe involve paying slightly more, not a complete ban.

I would think Disney/Amazon wait to see how things pan out with Netflix first. In the short term, don't they stand to gain subscribers? Seems the only way they lose out is if the effort is a net positive, but that's not guaranteed, and it may be sensitive to how it's how it's rolled out.

Since they're also considering an ad-based tier, I wonder if instead of requesting a surcharge they just start showing ads in the secondary households.

There's likely a flip side to that -- how many people show similar signs of trouble and never end up as a shooter?

Clicking around one thing that stands out to me is a striking increase in assault rifle usage https://www.theviolenceproject.org/data-on-social-media/prev...

To the extent that school shooting are, statistically, a "tail" event, you would expect that to change more sensitively than the "average" (guns per capita). So a tripling of the average gun measure (going from Serbia to US), might correspond to a much larger change in these extreme events. I doubt it's a simple statistical consequence, but it also doesn't follow that amount of guns would be (linearly) proportional to extreme events.

What are some takeaways? Normally I can get a sense from reading summaries and reviews, but finding it hard in this case.

Wasn't sure if these were rhetorical questions (I didn't know so I just looked), but gun laws in Serbia are relatively restrictive. You can't buy automatic or semiautomatic weapons, and registration — including background checks and safety training — is required for all gun owners. https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/serbia

> This is the case for vitamin D from sun vs oral D supplements.

Wait, has there been a study suggesting this? This implies that there's a narrow optimal range and exceeding it causes problems. Seems you would see this in the supplement trials. Vitamin D toxicity doesn't occur until you take many times the RDA for months, and presumably none of the supplementation trials went anywhere near that high. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...

The conclusion that vitamin D levels are an effect not a cause came from exploring the mechanisms. And yes, it may turn out that NO similarly is a marker.

It's ironic that the author didn't consider that getting sunlight may similarly be the side effect of the true cause of the stated benefits (being active?).

Well, I never said "orally." If it's beneficial to get NO via sunlight on your skin, it doesn't seem crazy that it might work via some lotion. Even considering oral supplements, one might also take a precursor if the molecule itself isn't stable in the stomach.

It's true there may be some important difference between sunlight-induced NO generation and whatever other supplement/injection/lotion/etc, but my point here is that the right approach is to focus on the mechanism, and avoid the naturalistic fallacy.

By "observational" studies I realize you probably just meant studies where they don't manipulate a variable (which, while less than ideal, it is indeed science), whereas I was making a more philosophical point, a la Popper https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/778918-the-belief-that-scie...

GP didn't say that the science of sun exposure is "settled."

Also, that UV damages DNA and causes cancer isn't simply a "proposed" mechanism, it's been tested many times.

I would say pure "observation" per se has little value -- for it to be scientifically valid it needs to seek explanations.

The article did describe some mechanisms, for instance the skin uses UV to make nitric oxide, which is known to lower blood pressure. That said, I'm not sure why this would be better than just taking nitric oxide. The same question comes up for vitamin D, and it's noted that supplements don't seem to help there -- with no explanation for that. So I would agree that the explanations for the pro-sunlight case are weaker.

This deck describes people being let go for performance reasons, whereas Netflix clarified this was different:

> These changes are primarily driven by business needs rather than individual performance, which makes them especially tough as none of us want to say goodbye to such great colleagues.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/17/23103131/netflix-layoffs-...

It seems Siberia is one of the places where living conditions might actually improve https://eos.org/articles/climate-change-could-make-siberia-a... (the "big bog" scenario does cast doubt on that -- e.g. existing structures may collapse).

I guess, but after seeing videos of people screaming from their balconies because they can't leave their homes even to get food https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/shanghai-residents-... it seems odd to focus on no one buying cars.

Weird proxy to illustrate the problem with lockdowns. On the one hand it's a huge city, so there's lots of people who could be buying cars, but on the other hand... it's a huge city, so you probably don't need a car?

The author can do what they want, but if they care what associations people have about the name and they didn't consider this, they now have new information.

FWIW my first thought was the same as GP, and then only later did I consider that maybe it's punning on bastard, but I still wasn't sure. Probably better to pick another name and not have to keep explaining it.

Weird how this supposedly only casts doubt on the supply chain explanation, and not on another favorite culprit: stimulus. Japan has been doing stimulus too: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/japan-eyes-record-stimulu...

I'm slightly sympathetic to the road safety argument -- it's at least plausible [1] -- but it's weird how it only applies to motorcycles. Taking the logic seriously, everyone should make more noise for safety? Bicyclists are at least as vulnerable as motorcyclists, yet they're silent -- should they be blasting some sound, like a siren or whatever? And why stop there -- maybe all cars should make noise -- just honk their horns continuously for safety? It starts to get absurd.

[1] However, it seems it's not true: https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a35952569/loud-p...

Not following.

Turbo makes a car faster and increases air intake -- yet make an engine quieter, not louder https://www.torque.com.sg/features/turbocharged-cars-why-qui...

You're saying the mufflers are optimized to be as quiet as possible for the given powertrain?

Anyway, why the focus on the "powertrain"? I can understand wanting to accelerate quickly. Are you saying there's a relationship between acceleration and noise level? Clearly that's not true for electric cars, but is it even true for ICE cars? Turbo increases acceleration and yet lowers sound levels.

I don't see the problem. Are you opposed to automation more generally?

I'm sure you can make a car that's quieter than these limits no matter how you drive them; they were designed to be loud because some people think it's cool.

EDIT: Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Look at the ad copy of some of these cars. https://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/ Literally the first line is "Hear the roar of a Mustang..."

So speed cameras are fascist?

That only really makes sense where there's a tradeoff: with carbon taxes, you can at least understand why carbon-based energy sources are being used. With loud cars, there's no benefit to tradeoff against! IMO, bans make more sense. That said, your proposal is better than nothing, and I would be in favor of anything that reduces the amount of noise pollution.

> Some cars and many motorcycles, depending on the road and driving style, will easily exceed the 95 and 80 decibel limits straight from the factory. Based on Car and Driver testing, examples include the 2016 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (108 decibels) and the 2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 and 2019 McLaren 720S Spider, both at 99 decibels.

Seems crazy to me that manufacturers are selling cars that are basically designed to be a nuisance.