johnmorrison

I think your beliefs of what is factual and false regarding COVID are actually the opposite of reality.

You likely think the same of me.

If you could magically be granted "objective" factual understanding, your point would be right, and I would agree with you. But you haven't been, in reality you do not know the facts for certain, neither do any of the 270 doctors/etc who wrote that letter trying to censor Joe, neither does Joe, neither does Robert Malone or any other heterodox intellectual on the topic, and neither does Fauci or any other orthodox intellectual on the topic.

Besides mathematics/logical fundamentals, nobody knows facts for sure. Outside of physics we aren't even quite sure. To pretend that you know the facts, and that you know Joe and his guests are wrong, and that their falsehoods are dangerous --- this is altogether delusional, quite frankly. You may very well be right, but you do not know that you are, you cannot know that you are. The subject matter is too complicated.

My apologies for the harsh words. This is how it is.

---

Edit: and no, I am not being flippant. I am being objective.

Not calling Young a terrorist, I'm using the term "don't negotiate with terrorists" loosely - the point is, when two peers in a network end up in a situation where one is making a violent ultimatum about both of them, the moral high ground is automatically biased in favor of the victim of this ultimatum, not the one who threatened it.

The principle of "don't negotiate with terrorists" is applicable far beyond literal terrorism and I think it's exactly the moral calculus necessary for Spotify to reach the conclusion they did. Network members who think they can yield violent ultimatums to control the administrating entity are toxic to all of their peers.

100% right.

Good ideas do not require the censorship of bad ideas.

I don't see a reasonable compromise to make here, here's why:

There is nothing wrong with what Rogan has been criticized by Young for; other than many people including Young being ideologically possessed in the opposite direction.

Disagreement is not grounds for censorship.

In any case, it was Young who issued an ultimatum. His music or Joe's podcast, off the platform. There is no room for a compromise there - this is a rude and violent threat.

No. It is.

Peterson's claims about climate objectively match leading science. You may disagree with him, but what he says is not rubbish. (For credibility, see the studies included in IPCC reports.)

Disagree.

Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product.

When one creator on a platform threatens an ultimatum to remove themselves or another creator, that is a rude and aggressive unprovoked attack.

Even if Young had 10x the financial value to Spotify as JRE, I believe they still would've made the same decision: "Do not negotiate with terrorists."

The decisionmaker for who gets to be on Spotify is Spotify. Not Neil Young, not Joe Rogan, not Drake, not Ed Sheeran, not anybody.

I love it, accurate description

This article gave me a random push to nuke the size of my site - just brought it down from ~50 kB on text pages all the way to ~1.5 kB now, and from 14 files to 1 HTML file.

I absolutely love these things.

Keeps interfaces clean and improves UX simultaneously (in almost all cases) - a win/win.

I've started building my projects with shorcuts + command palettes as the default execution mode for new features, where the rule is:

- Build the feature with keyboard shortcuts + command palette first

- Add GUI/modals/buttons/etc either at the same time or later

Insanely cool! Ran through the tutorial. Excited to give it a shot for real soon & see the project's progress over time.

Dumb Q - why is it called Second Quarter results when this is the end of the first quarter of the calendar year?

What portion of Volkswagens sold are outfitted with an array of HD cameras passively collecting data?

This one has been in dev since over a year ago I think but yeah I have no idea where all the new ones are coming from!

Exactly

Earlier alternate -> https://valyr.io/

Planned support for also Email (first priority), SMS, Signal, matrix, etc

Hey Oren,

I appreciate your civil clarification, however, I still honestly don't see a reasonable path to your view.

If we find extraterrestrial life, this poses perhaps the greatest opportunity we've ever had to learn more about the limits and fundamentals of life on Earth, as we will finally have a sample size of more than one rise of life in multiple environments.

If we learn to inhabit other planets or moons, this requires perhaps the greatest project in engineering across many specializations ever attempted, constraining us to stricter boundaries than we face on Earth, and thereby inevitably teaching us a lot more about improving life on Earth.

If you can play football against the pros, you can definitely play it against amateurs. Training in the NFL doesn't take away from your ability to play at home, it improves it.

A sufficiently large country is always on fire, somewhere :p

Completely agree.

The only people I've ever heard mention the space utopia argument are people who are pushing anti-space ideology.

If it weren't for what we already spent on space exploration, we wouldn't have nearly as much understanding of climate change, and we wouldn't have the variety of satellites we rely on to address the climate.

Both is more than one.

This is frankly a blatantly wrong and quite foolish argument. Space exploration has already created many significant benefits for humanity on Earth, by advancing hundreds of new technologies with terrestrial applications and launching satellite networks that support a safer, more peaceful world for humans, with improved agricultural efficiencies as well as advanced warning and a better understanding of extreme weather events and climate trends.

Also, spending on space continues to be and has been a very small expense, not only smaller than cosmetics, but entirely dwarfed by military spending and welfare, both of which are highly contested as to whether they provide net benefit at all to the people of Earth.

You'd have to be ideologically possessed or completely ignorant of reality to believe this anti-space bs.

> American citizens need to decide what they prioritize. Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? Is it the moon, Mars, or Earth?

No they don't.

We can prioritize both, and frankly, life on Earth will be better the more we priotitize space exploration, not worse.

Love it!

The average price I paid for electricity in Ontario over a couple years vs. the average of a number of sources I found for cost of electricity across Germany. I don't have any links saved, but yeah it was like ~0.05 CAD vs 0.55 CAD per kWh iirc.

You're right that solar has become very price competitive. We're pushing that at Tesla & I do think as the current regulatory environment around nuclear continues to stay roughly the same, solar will be much cheaper in the coming decade.

It should be noted that subsidies, regulatory fees, and economies of scale play a MUCH larger role in the LCOE of energy sources today than the fundamental physics, efficiency, material costs etc do.

Therefore it is wiser to look at the options from a first principles perspective and consider the potential costs of sources after equally large effort is put into scaling and optimization, and ignoring political factors. When you analyze the options in this way, nuclear wins every single time.

They're extremely cheap to build by LCOE if you take away the extra regulatatory fees. Fission has several orders of magnitude less levelized material throughput per unit power than any other source of electricity.

If the world got to the point where corporations could successfully scale up mass production of reactors, this could drop by a further order or two of magnitude.

Nuclear energy is regularly significantly (usually more than an order of magnitude, from what I've seen) cheaper for electricity than any other source in comparable countries (e.g. nuclear electricity in Toronto >10x cheaper than coal/solar electricity in Berlin)

Nuclear energy is and always has been inherently competitive on total profitability over the course of a plant's lifetime.

The main issue is the time it takes to get a plant built, and the heavy upfront investment. Both of these extend painfully the time before investors reach nonnegative ROI, which is (imo) part of why despite the actual profitability being much better human investors with inherently limited lifetimes opt for, for example, natural gas or solar installations.

+ Also of course, nuclear is much more heavily regulated than other sources of energy, which leads to good things like reduced accident deaths, but also heavily increases cost and time to build.

There is no non environmentally damaging solution, really, and there probably never will be.

Steps in the right direction are all we can ever take.

Asteroid mining might be a bit of a solution to this resource extraction problem, but not really.

We won't know which small startups right now are and aren't until several years from now.

All of the big cos right now that have changed the world were a startup not long ago. Yes, not all of the startups will succeed, but there will be yet another trillion dollar company some day which is today somewhere in the realm of early stage startups.

How? Take people's word. If they say vector, assume they just mean some element of a vector space. No need to be rude to somebody based on an assumption.

It only has direction + magnitude right? (±h/4π)e_i for some unit vector e_i.

So it can be written as a vector? No?

> Establishing causality can be difficult but not impossible - the standard is "necessary and sufficient". You must show necessity: CO2 increase (for example) is necessary for global warming; if CO2 remains constant, no matter what else happens to the system global temperatures remain constant. And you must also demonstrate sufficiency: temperatures will increase if you increase CO2 while holding everything else constant. Those are experiments that can't be done.

No. What is the basis for these claims?

They're both wrong.

It's not true that CO2 increase is necessary for global warming. If the sun got a lot hotter, global temperatures would rise. If non-CO2 GHGs increased, global temperatures would rise. If the overall albedo of the planet changes, global temperatures can rise. There are literally thousands of things that could cause the temperature to rise.

It's also not true that CO2 increase, holding everything else constant, would lead to long term or even medium term warning. We have no idea what the ecosystem will do for any given change in CO2 levels, since there are countless species both who are net producers and net consumers of atmospheric CO2, all of whom have exponential growth and feedback loops.

Even still, even since both of those claims are wrong, CO2 increase may still cause global warming.

Furthermore, the things you claim are proven, are not proven, they are true by definition. All molecules carry information, and the fact that DNA carries genetic information is a direct consequence of the fact that it is DNA. V=IR by definition. F=ma by definition. There's no such thing as a "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" entity per se, these are metrics that are by definition equal in a given physical framework.

There is no way to 'technically' prove anything in science, and the reasons are simple:

(1) The past is gone - you can't access it

(2) You can't see the future

(3) Your knowledge of the present is extremely limited and inaccurate

These are the limitations of the real world, and science does its best to provide utility within that. It only focuses on making future predictions using the observed past as evidence, because you only can do that. You can't check your model in the present, because you can't instantaneously observe anywhere you aren't already observing. Checking your model on the past relies on what you think happened, i.e. what allegedly happened, but there is absolutely no way to truly know.

You can't even really prove anything 'novel' in mathematics, which is the only place where you can actually prove anything, but even there all proofs are effectively just framing something that was already implied axiomatically in a way that allows our limited human minds to see the relevant/useful patterns that aren't immediately obvious to us.

My point is, acting as though you can truly prove anything in science,

> what's really absurd is to think that no scientific questions can be settled

is not only wrong, but in my opinion is a distraction from what science is actually for. It's not about settling questions. Science is never settled, and that's part of what's beautiful about it. It's about reducing our own ignorance and proving our past selves wrong, discovering patterns and models that equip us with the knowledge to build a better world for ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Why lie about being a great soccer player when you're already great at basketball? Let's focus on the beauty of science as a great journey of growth and exploration that accelerates the progress of humanity, instead of trying to make it do something that isn't possible in the real world.