i_love_limes

So, there are quite a few well known metrics for this in the public health world

* Years of Life Lost (YLL) * Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) * Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY)

They are calculated in an interesting way that is open for arguing and interpretation, but it provides a good baseline for the ability to compare them.

As for the double counting, this is in fact a real problem, as a lot of health problems are interlinked, and having multiple health problems have a multiplying affect on health in general.

The most salient aspect of this article for me was this:

"Graeber asserts that the barter myth implies humans have always had a sort of quid pro quo, exchange-based mentality, since barter is just a less efficient version of money. But if you consider that other, completely different systems existed, then money starts to look like less of a natural outgrowth of human nature, and more of a choice."

It also is fascinating how deeply rooted in story telling, not historical accuracy, these ideas are.

This unfortunately didn't answer any of my questions.

I have a question for other former/current employees of Amazon.

I worked there for 4 years on the AIV / Prime Video platform across a few teams (2012-2016). Obviously we had performance reviews every year, and I did ok. I transferred 3 or 4 times (within AIV), never a problem. I never heard of mandatory quotas to fit in the under-performing category, I didn't hear my colleagues talk about it either, "under-performing" laid off employees were rare (and unsurprising). Was I ignorant of what was going on around me?

From my perspective, the 'bar raising' in Amazon worked through the hiring process, of which I did many interviews. You only hired someone if you thought they were better than average either technically or on leadership principals.

Did this PIP quota thing always go on? Does this go on now to the same effect as people are talking about, or is this an echo chamber magnification of something that happened within a subset of one org?

This is a very popular and quite detailed pop science book on sleep written by a prof of neuroscience: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep

I don't know how many people here have interacted with toddlers on phones, but I'm not sure this will take off.

The thing that kids love about communicating on mobile phones is video. They love to see themselves and love to see you. I would be very surprised if a 3 year old would prefer this over a WhatsApp video call / facetime.

I think by your definition, the best wine is grape juice, which is never vinegary and never gives you a headache.

This article doesn't talk about another really interesting aspect of the Atacama. Many observatories are set up there, as it's one of the best places in the world for stargazing, and

The reason it's so good is due to the lack of clouds most times, and the extreme dryness of the air as the article pointed out.

It's definitely on my list of places to visit!

I am just an interested layman, but I have found Historians as prime examples of academics who get this balance right. This, to me, seems to be because they have to squarely level with their own biases and preconceived ideas of what they are studying from the outset.

Once that is addressed upfront (whether it is personal preference, or cultural bias/context), the authors are able to both express themselves more freely as well as be more critical of their own perspective.

I think other social sciences researchers are more OK with this idea, and unfortunately STEM researchers seem to go out of their way to assume they have no perspectives or biases, as the assumption is that 'pure research' is unable to be tainted by such things.

To expose my own personal bias, I find this article to be very heavy handed and reactionary.

This has been a hot topic of research in the public health community, and from more legitimate researchers there is still a lot of debate. However this kind of move is striking in it's similarity to the known tried and tested maneuvers of the tobacco industry to undercut public understanding of the risks with their products.

This is the 21st century equivalent of attempting to disprove the links between smoking and cancer.

Do you not feel the issues of commercialization and scientific quality are more closely linked?

The state of quantity over quality in academic publishing, which is a force that is compounded by commercially focused journals, does not incentivize deep consideration or rebuttal, and only occurs because the academics care about what they do.

If I could buy an NFT of the source code of this, would I have reached peak blockchain meta?

I have read elsewhere that possibly another good starting point to think about Bitcoin is via the "Keynesian Beauty Content" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

This is additionally interesting because of the critiques that Keynes leveled at the Gold standard when it was being widely used in the 19th and early 20th century, which have turned out to hold the test of time.

Explorations hits a great spot for me. But Village Vanguard is probably my fav.

As a slight tangent... has a successor to couchsurfing gained any traction yet? It is such a great concept, and one that can still provide so many great experiences.

They do that already... Distinguishing between 'results' and 'discussion'...

You started off with the idea that research papers "can't tell you what should be done", which it seems like you disagree with now?

> 'Discussion' is normally an invitation to scientific discussion, not a political one

To think that those are so distinct is perhaps naive.

Thanks for the link, it does seem to be a call to action as you said, but backed by many studies across many disciplines. Which would make it both a scientific and political.

Ehhh, most studies in this realm have a 'results' section and 'discussion' section. I disagree that experts in their field can't have an opinion laid out in the discussion section, given that it follows from the analysis and results from the previous sections.

That being said, the page is currently timing out, so I can' even read the article...

Apologies, the distinction wasn't some Vs all, it was that they hadn't even considered how the information got there. Then when they found out, they were immediately sceptical of the idea. Which was hilarious.

But also, unless you have a much better understanding than me, it is community driven. Even those who have some official capacity at Wikipedia only got there through countless hours of being a good community member

I'll add my own anecdote. I have donated to Wikipedia sporadically over the years, and they asked me to take part in a sort of round table interview / qualitative study.

In a room of other Wikipedia donators, maybe 1/3 of the people there didn't know that the information was entirely community driven, and when they learned, a handful of didn't think it was a good idea!

It just shows how much Wikipedia is just taken for granted, when in reality so so much effort goes in to keeping it free, ad free, open, and accessible to everyone.

SARS and MERS didn't reach anywhere close to spreading through the population, so cross immunity (if it's strong, which we don't know), wouldn't have done much. The fact that you bring that up as a rebuttal is telling.

One difference with those is that their governance and infrastructure to tackle a pandemic already existed, which counts. You could write that off to existing 'public health', as you have tried to stretch from the paper, but that is a disingenuous of that research.

A quick search implies that you are also not looking very hard to find studies that don't find linkages. "The results presented in this paper suggest that policy interventions may well explain the majority of cross-country variation in officially reported Covid-19 deaths."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00466-5

I'm not arguing it's not complex or that a lot of factors go into the response. I am however suggesting your original claim that non pharmaceutical interventions had little effect is demonstrably false. Comparing the 1 death in Taiwan and the to tens of thousands in the UK, including strong quarantines and contact tracing quite obviously had an impact.

The first point is already demonstrably false. Similar countries right next to each other have different death tolls in the order of multiples (Sweden vs. other Nordics).

Also, similar geographic and demographic countries have performed vastly different in different parts of the of world (eg. South Korea or Japan vs. UK in order of magnitude)

I agree far more with the top response to that quote than I do to the quote.

I think a lot of people (myself included when I've felt the pressure to) lowball how long things like this take because a) it makes me look smart and b) people could judge of they knew who much time I actually wasted on it.

So when was this pinnacle of education, out of curiosity? It's interesting you mention meritocracy, considering how classist education has always been

Not sure about you, but universities as institutions that historically had only places for upper class men with no room or tolerance for anyone who didn't look like them isn't exactly the pinnacle of morality. One might even consider that a morally bankrupt starting point...

Many epidemiologists and public health scientists are questioning our current approach to COVID, namely lockdown measures.

I think this will become a very interesting debate as both our understanding of COVID deepens, and our understanding of the negative impact of lockdown measures become clearer.

You chose and interesting and very moderated forums there... Aren't the worst places on the internet unmoderated pseudonymous forums? 4chan, the horrible bits of Reddit, and the like?

Eh, they have elastic beanstalk which serves that purpose. This is for Kubernetes, which almost explicitly states is for more fine tuned control of a system that needs scalability.

I think it's both unfair and ill advised to want that type of simplicity with Kubernetes.

That being said, I don't really understand why this is necessary when there are already a lot of tools out there to manage clusters (other than AWS wanting everything to live in their console)