goatcode

That domain name could have been chosen with a bit more care...

Would you be cool if the ruling party in Russia had the same data?

Walking is good. Walking faster is better. Walking even slightly faster? Slightly better. Running? Running is right out. However, walking EVEN faster than slightly faster? Guess what: even better.

I feel the same about pre-sliced bagels. That some jurisdictions have an additional tax on sliced bagels makes the notion, to me, even more absurd.

The delete verb would be preferable, imo.

You forgot "ridiculously expensive." I got excited by this project several years ago, but like most of its sort: it's completely inaccessible for what it is.

Alright, I'm on board. Thank you for the information & references.

> temporarily beneficial

This was the crux of my point.

In nature, it makes no sense for a virus to be both highly transmissible and highly deadly. Any such virus would cease to exist after having run amok in such a way in its hosts. Therefore, any extremely deadly virus should be looked at with similarly extreme criticism, especially if / when it adapts and becomes a better behaving parasite.

>MiB

That 'i' is silly. As is the one in "GiB."

Strong communities + mesh is a vision for a bright future. The former has become a difficult hill to climb, though.

I'd agree with that. The rules and regulations that are in place in the United States would make the founding fathers weep, by their existence alone and that they're open to use to targeting people in a way that does not speak to equal justice for all.

I have trouble taking this article seriously when Canada, where a bill is under consideration to regulate posting on social media, is colored more free than the United States (at least if that awful heat diagram is accurate).

I've honestly never heard any story pushed as much as are the Tesla ones. Maybe it's just there isn't as venomous anti-following attached to other manufacturers as there is to Tesla.

Since private entities don't have to obey the 1st, I'd imagine not.

I'm of the position that speech we don't like should be countered with more speech. Therefore, I'd look forward to airing all the dirty laundry of every other EV manufacturer.

I prefer this take: https://genius.com/National-lampoon-deteriorata-annotated

Indeed not insurmountable, but a plan is necessary. From the article, it doesn't seem that California are taking it too seriously, though.

Challenges as I understand them:

1. Rare minerals and their amounts needed to support wide-scale adoption of EVs

2. Similarly, massively increased electricity needs to maintain EVs' usability.

I wonder whether they're going to lay out a bulletproof plan to have these, and any other, fundamental issues 100% solved before enacting changes that absolutely require them to be solved.

FTA:

"Whether the state’s goals can be reached, he added, depends on many factors, including “inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing, and the ongoing semiconductor shortage.”"

"...Yet California doesn’t want to wait."

So that tells me "probably not." Therefore, the eventual legislation will focus on reducing (or, for average people, potentially eliminating altogether) personal vehicle availability, I'd imagine.

It may seem simple, but there is a deep rabbit hole when you pair liberty and things seen to reduce the impact of illness on a population. For example: it is statistically more likely for homosexual men to have HIV and other fatal transmissible illnesses. Therefore, they should not be free to donate blood, so goes the tradition, since this overall increases the health of a population. This rule has come under contention lately, and if you agree that gay men should be able to donate blood, you now have a counterexample. Notwithstanding of course the arguments about better testing, and so on; statistically: it helps.

I'm not presenting an argument in either direction. I'm simply saying it's a more complex issue than "this thing makes everyone healthier, therefore it should be law."

>sparing countless people from infections and deaths

Lumping those two categories together is a disservice to truth, and possibly health. If everyone died to whom you're referring when you talk about how "apparently we're not," then perhaps we're not good at dealing with the consequences. However, if most recovered, I'd say we are. Furthermore, the consequences of what? I'd say factory farming as opposed to drinking milk in the way it was drunk for thousands of years prior. If you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it's best to make sure you know that the baby is indeed the problem.

So perhaps without these regulations, we wouldn't have tripped down the hill of factory farming so hard. I'd say that would have been a great alternative direction than the one we're now stuck in.

>US is a nation of germophobes[sic]

The regulators sure are. The people want to buy raw milk, and are told we're not grown up enough to handle the consequences.

>Presumably is it instead the expectation that some of the food is taken home.

I'd imagine that it might differ based on where you are. Remember that the US is pretty close in size to the entirety of Western Europe. There are a lot of different places here.

This seems overly pessimistic, and perhaps very myopically metropolitan. I can't imagine wasting food from a restaurant -- I always have taken my leftovers home and eaten them later. Even at home, stuff gets used or I feel shame, and unusable scraps go into the compost.

Most developers I've interacted with have extreme limitations outside of their immediate expertise, and some (especially those who seem to be getting culled lately) are barely functional. With that, I'd suspect one of two possible futures:

1. Insufficient skill to make such automation work

2. A large enough number of people are capable of making this happen, and after that, everyone else('s career) dies.

I for one welcome our new overlords.

>large resources causing bot spam

>large resources are the solution

To those who have been recently pondering the history of antivirus companies of the 90s and 00s, and suspiciously wondering how they were always able to so quickly come up with definitions for the newest infections, this all feels so familiar. What a sad world we live in, sometimes.

I'm of the comfortable opinion that legality and biology should not be so tightly bound, and that the more complex a law becomes to maintain, the less likely it is that it should be a law. It's a bit of a cop-out, but I believe localized tradition should rule the day-to-day for most people, most places. Laws and those who work in them are far too full of themselves, imo.

The important discussion of sex and gender I think is done a disservice by every anomaly being presented as overwhelming evidence of a need for "redefinition." Nearly everything in biology that has a definition is defined along a median. If you take a single hair from a non-bald man, is he bald? One more? How about one more? It's an interesting question whose pondering may one day lead to a definitive answer, or it may not. Yet in the meantime we still generally know what baldness is (and sometimes we may disagree, and that's fine).

Anomalies exist, but each one is not a call to a radical change in thinking. It's a call to be examined, soberly and honestly, and to have the result of careful consideration submitted to further discussion and possibly inclusion in our knowledge of the natural world. Starting with a conclusion in science is destructive to both science and society.