It's not about the concept, it's about the specific UI they used to do it. However, there are not many ways to represent the concept in a UI, which is where Google is running into a problem.
I'm pretty sure a vented mask is at least as effective as a cloth or surgical mask in that regard, both of which mostly contain the aerosol spray rather than actually filter out small particles. I doubt the stores you go to require true respirators?
> Yes, an N95 filtering facepiece respirator will protect you and provide source control to protect others. A NIOSH-approved N95 filtering facepiece respirator with an exhalation valve offers the same protection to the wearer as one that does not have a valve. As source control, findings from NIOSH research suggest that, even without covering the valve, N95 respirators with exhalation valves provide the same or better source control than surgical masks, procedure masks, cloth masks, or fabric coverings.
So much focus is on N95 masks, but P100 full-face respirators are AMAZING. I bought one for a home construction project I as doing. I was fully expecting fully labored breathing. To my surprise, my breath was completely unhindered. You also have full visibility and your glasses don't fog up, which is nice. I could definitely wear a full-face respirator all day.
I believe the theory that Google is optimizing for ad revenue. Sites without ads get ranked lower. The biggest example I can think of is Wikipedia. When I search a proper noun with a Wikipedia article, I almost want to go look at that article. Recently, I feel like I really have to dig for it.
I'm curious, what do you do for a living? Do you not do what you choose to do, rather than what is of the most importance? Many people on HN work at Google, for instance. Is an ad-tech really the most important issue facing humanity? The "research community" isn't a single organization that is gate kept by a centrally planned authority. It's comprised of individuals and organizations of varying sizes, all operating independently. You are free to join the research community yourself and study the things you think are important. Most people I know don't choose their jobs based on what is most important, but rather what fits their lifestyle, what is most lucrative, etc. These people still do good work and are trustworthy.
This is not a good take. If you care whether or not the list of chemicals you provided are cancerous, then you are free to study that yourself or support scientists that do study it. Just because a group of scientists chooses to study something you're not interested in doesn't mean that you can discount their work as "untrustworthy." Well you can, but it would be to your, and society's, detriment.
That would definitely make sense. Something about the wording made it seem like the increasing population specifically was responsible for the increase in food demand, but it was probably an editing oversight.
That doesn't make sense, unless the amount of food waste, measured as a percentage of total food, increases as the total amount of food produced increases.
Not super related, but one interesting thing mentioned in the article is that the population will increase from 8 billion to 10 billion by 2050, "increasing global food demand by 50%." Why would a 25% increase in population cause a 50% increase in food demand?
Have you ever heard of threat analysis? If someone was already doing something, it may be too late. I assume you use a password even though your sensitive accounts may have never been hacked.
I spent a few days making a (very) basic 2D game engine in Rust for fun. One thing I found is that I didn't find Rust that helpful in preventing bugs due to the nature of game engine code. For instance, I was using a generational array to store components. At some point I had a use-after-free bug in the generational array code that the Rust compiler could never catch. Also, components tend to have circular references to one another, which was very annoying to program in Rust. I'm curious if you've experienced something similar and what your thoughts are now, after many months in the trenches, on Rust's suitability for a game engine.
I’m not claiming that all public companies are unethical. I’m claiming that all public companies have some unethical investors. That is, the operations of the company directly benefit some unethical actors. This has nothing to do with “money being tainted” in general.
Just to be clear, this is what you said that I was responding to:
> I think the concern is that they are taking money from someone with highly debatable/questionable ethics.
Some investors in almost all public companies have highly debatable ethics.
But what is the likelihood that this result applies to humans vs. doesn't apply to humans? It doesn't sound like you can say. There are also differences even between two different humans. Simply being different is not enough to discount a result using a model that has otherwise proven successful.
Outwardly, Europeans are very tolerant. However, their society is pretty homogeneous, especially outside of large metropolitan areas. In my opinion, a lot of their tolerance is lip service because its not really a problem they need to confront on a daily basis.
This is just an anecdote, but I was walking with a friend in Berlin and we went to get on the subway. A group of guys came up to us, pushed us out of the car and said "No Asians allowed." No one else on the car really cared.
But you wouldn't actually have to do the work. The value of the land should increase because the work could be done. It really comes down to whether or not the 3-year provision of SB9 can be enforced, because then there is some value in the homeowner staying in their home while the work is done. Apparently, this is enforced by making the home owner sign an affidavit and then charging them with perjury if they lie. It will be interesting to see if that holds up in court.
Now that SB9 is in effect, shouldn't the ability to split a lot and build on it be priced in to the price of the original lot? It seems like you would just be extracting your 20% from wealth the owner already has, leaving them poorer. I guess this could be good if they really didn't want to move.
I'm not finding an excuse. I'm just accepting that my lifestyle is a huge source of carbon emissions. I'm also accepting that the last time the earth was more-or-less carbon neutral was prior to the industrial revolution. No one is clamoring for a return to that type of lifestyle, especially because doing so would require a massive decrease in the population. You can rattle your saber about Bitcoin all you want, but it's not going to change reality: there is no way to sustain this many humans with our quality of life and be carbon neutral, let alone negative.
This isn't true because you need to pay income tax on both RSUs and salary, but if you were given more salary to invest yourself, then you'd also be subject to capital gains tax. There are no capital gains on RSUs prior to vesting.
In this case, I'm not trying to impart wisdom. I'm just trying to show what a hypocritical position it is to criticize Bitcoin for being a waste of resources when the entire western lifestyle is predicated on waste. In many ways, it's a form of armchair activism. Like, "Hmm, how could we solve global warming? I know, let's start by banning this thing that doesn't impact me at all, even though my wasteful lifestyle is a much larger contributor to the problem by many orders of magnitude."
No, it wouldn't have applied because computers (and eventually cell phones) did those things better. For instance, using Map Quest was way more convenient than using a map. Using iTunes was way more convenient than a CD. If someone asked me, "Do you want iTunes on your phone?" The answer would have been yes. What does a car do better?