maxerickson

If nothing matters, people who have reason to use technical countermeasures aren't really taking extra risk by doing it.

There's not really any need for sophisticated arguments, it's a constant shit show and we should abolish it for the simplicity.

I guess that or go full on Judge Dredd.

Right, I put it that way because they are real, hard problems.

Still, we've come a long way from impossible if we are merely looking at a hard problem.

Renewables are basically an industrial product at this point, they will get cheaper (raw material prices can throw that off, but technology will be working to make them cheaper no matter what).

The way I look at it, everyone being better off as far as energy in 2035 is a political and logistical problem, not a fundamental problem.

Make sure you aren't comparing the wellhead to the outlet.

It's gonna get cheaper.

The main thing is that it takes a long time to hit operating temperature at idle. Of course it still requires warming up, but every knows the other poster meant sitting at idle, not driving easy for a couple minutes.

If your car is relatively new (couple decades) you don't need to warm it up, just drive easy for a couple minutes.

What do you think is in the reference information?

Have you considered adding this information to the Wikipedia article?

You seem to have advanced knowledge that is contrary to ~everyone else. It would be helpful if you would simply state 2 numbers. First, what you think it costs, and second, what you think an economically viable cost would be.

Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?

When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.

So what's your definition of economically viable?

There's lots of sites on oceans that are making water for fractions of a cent per gallon. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minjur_Seawater_Desalination_P...

Israel is using desalination for agriculture. What's your definition of economically viable?

You complained that they funded things that weren't science. I said "how it limits the scope of the agency to doing science." and you went off about how you don't like things.

The mission statement is not limited to doing science, which is the misrepresentation you tried to make.

Right, you have an opinion about those things, but here we are with you having abandoned your previous line of argument.

Go read the NSF mission statement and then come back and explain how it limits the scope of the agency to doing science.

Lots of other efficiencies to look at. Tons of them are directly bad for the patient (capturing more of the surplus is an efficiency that businesses generally go hard at).

Ultimately, I think the issue is when people making decisions are able to treat the impact as an abstraction.

If you look at it in terms of abstract benefit rather than profit, it makes sense. We shouldn't be doing things where the cost is much more than the benefit.

A lot of political issues sort of boil down to how you estimate the upside of things.

Maybe review who was president in 2020 during the most severe phases of the restrictions.

You can complete a water crossing by phone or so (so like in some random harbor in Wiscansin).

That doesn't justify a random search of course, but if there was some reason to believe that you were importing something illegal they could come search ya boat.

It's more or less incoherent to pair the statement about those topics with the sentence that follows.

Charitably, they can be thinking that it's fine to have LLMs organize information intended for LLMs.

More likely something like describing Trumpism.

I mean, no it doesn't, first principles aren't worth more than actual outcomes.

It used to be public health recommendation (bathrooms in commercial buildings will often only have warm water, for example, because code required it).

There's been studies demonstrating that soap is what matters.

You argument is that it could have some long term value, which is different than a lottery ticket (which has a calculable minimum expected value at time of purchase).

I attempted to say perpendicular to the wind and failed.

The force is perpendicular to the sail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_rotor

It's a lot of extra stuff to deal with for adding a few tags to a few POIs, with no real benefit for those tasks vs the editor on the site.

There's usually a reasonably clear consensus within a region or country.

That's less true for niche stuff (vs stuff where two different ideas are in wide use), but there probably isn't all that much of it either.

One way to approach it is to not worry too much about it, consistency can come later.

The main method of prevention is blocks on users that make malicious edits. Obviously that doesn't prevent all malicious edits.

The larger users of the data are doing some degree of validation of changes before showing them to users.