erispoe

Fiat currency is a state monopoly. That's how it's designed to work.

As a random citizen you cannot make that cost benefit analysis. For anything else than a serious crime, you're better off not talking to the police. If you need to talk to the police, only do so after consultation with, and accompanied by, an attorney.

I have filed police reports for stolen bikes for instance, that's fine. Especially if you can do it electronically. But never agree to talk to them without an attorney supervision, under any circumstances.

If you are a victim of a severe crime, please talk to an attorney first.

The point is you never know what police is looking for. What looks like a simple traffic stop to you can be police looking for a suspect, and by being cooperative, you risk incriminating yourself. It's not worth it, never.

Even if the intention is a simple traffic stop, police is incentivized to bring their numbers up, so anything you say during a traffic stop can and routinely will be used to pin higher offenses on you. Again, it's not worth it.

This is indeed the best advice: do not talk to the police. It can never help and you are likely to incriminate yourself even if you are innocent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

The paragraph you quoted references (but does not cite) studies about the effect of excessive iron consumption, not evidence for a causal link from blood donation to reduced cardiovascular risks.

It seems that there is some correlation between cardiovascular risk and blood donation, but this might just be due to a confounding factor: healthy people tend to donate blood more.

E.g. this study [1]:

Despite the significant difference in QRISK2 parameters between study groups, none of these parameters was correlated to the extent of donation when controlling for age, BMI and smoking status.

Or this one [2]:

No significant associations were found between blood donation and the risk of myocardial infarction in analyses restricted to men with hypercholesterolemia or those who never used antioxidant supplements or aspirin. The study results do not support the hypothesis that reduced body iron stores lower CHD risk.

Ironically this other Dutch study [3], shows an association (not causal) between frequent blood donation and cardiovascular health in women but not in men.

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28797569/ [2]: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.cir.103.1.52 [3]: https://heart.bmj.com/content/105/16/1260

> Men get advised to donate blood to lower their risk of heart disease.

I had never heard of that and did not find any article supporting that from a quick search. I found observational studies concluding that men who donate blood are less at risk for heart attacks, but did not control for selection bias (men who choose to or can donate blood are healthier) or for causes associated with the blood donation (e.g. you might discover you have high blood pressure while donating and seek treatment afterwards).

Open Systems | Site Reliability Engineer | Full-time (80% possible) | Redwood City, CA or Remote US / Canada

We are looking for Site Reliability Engineers (SRE) at different seniority levels to help us scale our cybersecurity and secure network services. Looking for US or Europe based engineers, remote-friendly and 80% friendly. One interesting specificity is that our services are highly distributed in all the network nodes of our customers (cloud & on-prem), which makes understanding service levels and building for reliability especially challenging and interesting. We have to think creatively when it’s not only what can go wrong in your DC or your cloud setup, but what can go wrong in the world.

We also have an operations center in Honolulu which you’ll be able to go to for a few months from time to time, if you want to. If you’re interested or know someone who might be, get in touch!

Email me at tfavre[at]open-systems.com or apply directly from the job description (see careers page for different locations): https://opench.bamboohr.com/jobs/view.php?id=293 https://www.open-systems.com/

The argument in your link boils down to: it will bring the economy down to a deflationary halt, so it's friendly to the environment. Great.

The planet might be ok after us, but still might not be able to birth another potentially space faring civilization, dooming earth life to extinction.

Look at how:

- no other earth based space faring civilization has evolved before us.

- other intelligent species do not seem well equipped to do so, as it's hard to evolve tools without hands / prehensile organs (cetaceans), or when your lifespan is short or you're not social (octopuses & squids).

- we used up pretty much all easily accessible fossil fuels for our industrial revolution and they may take hundreds of millions of years to reconstitute, and it's unclear if anyone could evolve an industrial civilization without that kickstart of easy energy.

It's far from certain that if we disappear earth will get another good shot at evolving a space faring civilization before it's too late.

Are you bringing the PinDuoDuo experience to the US?

The danger (both to the consumer and to others) of magic mushrooms is extremely low, much much lower than alcohol.

We only have one earth but there are trillions of planets. Both are true at the same time.

> It is just a number in the bank's database.

Yes, this is how money works and is created today through fractional reserve lending. This has the tremendous advantage of being able to finance economic growth on credit, with a corresponding inflation risk that needs to be managed. That's a feature not a bug.

| Government gets its money comes from taxes.

No this is the reverse: the money you use to pay your taxes comes from the state (the currency issuer). Taxes are useful to achieve policy goals or control the money supply to avoid too much inflation, but the government doesn't need to collect money from taxes before it can spend it.

ÖBB (Austrian Federal Railways), who are slowly taking over night train service all over Europe, have single or double Deluxe cabins [1]. You can have your privacy and your own bathroom with shower. It can be pretty private and comfortable.

[1]: https://www.nightjet.com/en/komfortkategorien/schlafwagen

Highway infrastructure in the US is largely publicly funded. It's no surprise that a mode of transport which doesn't pay for its infrastructure and externalities (long-distance road transport) is more competitive than a mode that does (long-distance rail).

Animals that do not have a language they can describe the world in still have knowledge about the world.

Your explanation makes sense but is predicated on the VC being able to reliably rank these companies along expected returns.

The perfect VC with perfect foresight might be able to pick just 1 investment and get the best returns from that.

If returns are distributed on a power-law distribution (with the top performer returning a multiple of the second one and so on), then any deviation between the VC ranking and the outcome distribution of returns is very costly. What if I only invest in my predicted top 5, but the real top 1 is ranked 6 in my estimate?

If what matters is to reliably capture the top performers, then the perfect VC would get the top 5 with only 5 investments. But for imperfect VCs, it might be worth it to invest in 50 just to approach 100% chance of capturing these 5 top performers, the 45 others are just the cost of doing that.

It's redistributed to people who spend it, fueling consumption. Switzerland has a higher GDP per capita than the US. The country has a wealth tax, but no tax on capital gains though.

The more stages, the less favorable your ratio fuel+propellant / dry mass. When you add stages, you add engines, tanks, systems... that you then have to haul up to the next stage, making your lower stages heavier. Rocket equation again.

Sure it's possible that if you had super lightweight material for all the dry mass, 3 stages would make more sense.

You're right, there is a "real-world tradeoffs between efficiencies in the rocket equation and engineering parameters". This trade-off is unfavorable to SSTOs.

It take 2 to 3 days to reach the ISS from the ground. Getting to orbit is only 8min of that. The rest is a slow approach of the station.

If you want to deliver cargo or people to a specific orbit and a specific place, say the ISS, you're not gonna be able to turnover a SSTO in a day. Even a week might not be enough for a quick return trip to and from the ISS. All this time your expensive ground to orbit capacity is idle.

A first stage can launch a second stage into orbit and return to launch site in less than 15min. How fast you can turn it around for relaunch is an engineering challenge, but there's no fundamental reason you couldn't do it in a day or even in an hour.

No these are fundamentally different. SSTOs make things expensive because the rocket equation is unforgiving: every kilogram you haul into orbit needs fuel and propellant, which in turn makes the rocket bigger and heavier, which in turns requires more fuel and propellant, which in turns... So, you don't want to bring up anything unnecessary, like taking your first stage into orbit SSTO style.

Landing boosters is an incredible engineering feat. The rocket equation is just derived from the laws of physics, it's not something you can change with great engineering.

SSTOs trade-off is very unfavorable, which is why no one is seriously considering one anymore, for Earth's gravity well. In order to avoid solving the relative simple task of efficient stage mating and assembly, an engineering challenge you have to solve once per launch system and can amortize over the whole life of the system, you end up paying the cost of hauling into orbit a huge amount of unnecessary mass, every single launch. That's a very expensive trade-off.

Uber is not in the S&P500. And no fund manager is consistently doing better than the market. "Stupid index fund money" looks pretty smart in that regard.

As long as productivity grows faster than population, there's effectively no end to how much population can grow. You might argue that productivity gains will stop at some point, but then you need to provide arguments for that, not take as a given that there is a limit.

People's preferences for family size in a developed world seems to be providing a much more tangible limit to population growth than resources. People simply don't want to have as many children as it takes to substantially grow population when they're rich enough.

This is not how psychedelics for treatment resistant depression is tested. The most common treatment protocol is a single psychedelics session assisted by 2 therapists (preceded by a few therapy sessions and some follow-ups). Overwhelmingly the evidence point to very significant effects lasting months after the session.

This is far from "a never-ending psychedelic trip". If you follow the evidence for the most researched treatment protocol, this would involve a session every year or half-year.

Because Juul gets teens addicted to nicotine, and this outweights the public health benefits or providing an alternative to cigarettes for adult cigarette addicts.

Each director gets a vote on a company board. Being a majority shareholder gets you to control who sits on the board, but you don't control board votes directly. A company officer still has a duty towards the company as a whole and all the shareholders, even if they also control the majority of votes. Facebook is a public company, which creates additional safeguards to protect the interests of all shareholders.

It took me more than 5 minutes, reading through more than half the article, and watching the video clip in its entirety, to realize what this blog post what about. Is this good writing?

In the end, the proof is in the pudding. Is this selling cars? It's very hard to measure the marginal effect of one ad, but to the extent that we can do it, this is what the yardstick of advertisement is.

edit: putting -> pudding typo