msandford

I realize I didn't make the point clearly enough. This is nothing new. It's politics, always has been. The left labels people on the right they don't like with bad names. The right is absolutely going to do it back to the left. That's the game. I don't like it, but that's clearly how it goes.

Don't read what I'm saying as an endorsement of what the right is going to the left right now. Nor should you read it as an endorsement of what the left did to the right back then. They're both bad.

Back during Obama's tenure lots of right sympathetic groups got labeled domestic terror organizations. It's always political. Don't like the state calling you bad names? The solution is to reduce its power not to just get the "correct" people in charge. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/year-hate-and-ex...

There was a time when one of the virtues was not to brag about how virtuous you were. I think that's why a lot of folks have a problem with virtue signalling. In their minds if you're signalling by doing something publicly it karmically negates what you're doing and almost alchemically turns it into something resembling vice.

I'm merely trying to explain how it is that people can have a problem with virtue signalling and to them it doesn't really contradict what is to them true virtue where you do something good and stay quiet about it.

Thanks for the response! I agree that it's not obvious the reservoir possibilities.

I don't agree that we're selecting against birds that get infected in the first place, or at least I don't think that's how it works. My understanding is that if any birds on a farm get sick, the whole house is killed. Maybe the whole farm.

To me that seems like selecting for lucky birds not selecting for populations that never get sick because lots of populations never get exposed.

I could be wrong on my understanding or how I interpret the impact, though, so I'm super open to learning more.

Why we keep killing the birds that survive the infection is beyond me. It's an evolutionary pressure that we refuse to allow to work.

It's almost as if we want to give the flu as many opportunities as possible to spill over, instead of just letting the birds who have immunity survive and thus basically drive the virus to extinction.

I think that's one very reasonable interpretation. The other is "I really want these people w to come work here and they don't want to do the polygraph because it's a huge pain so I as the manager I'm going to waive it to reduce their objections to being hired".

That's something that companies do all the time, they pay people "out of band" or give them extra benefits or accelerate their vacation accrual or vesting, or one of hundreds of other things.

I agree it looks bad for sure but it isn't necessarily sinister.

"I could stop being poor, I just don't like the tradeoff."

I feel like this is an ugly truth, but still a truth. It's also very ugly.

For some people there's no tradeoff on how much they have to suffer to get some financial security because they already have it. Some people have to suffer a bit but quickly hit escape velocity. Some people never stop suffering. It's terrible.

I think Dave Ramsey has many annoying qualities but his "sometimes you have to act crazy to get out of it" is basically correct even if it's very, very uncomfortable IMO.

I mean you could listen to the reasons that people who have lost trust in the institutions say they lost trust, and then try and rectify those reasons. But to do that is to admit that MAYBE the US govt didn't handle COVID perfectly. And that's a conversation many folks are unwilling to have. So this is the alternative we're left with.

It's uglier this way for sure and will cause more suffering. Sucks.

I think you're missing the fourth option which is rediscovering civility, agreeing to disagree, etc.

Are the Republicans doing that right now? Probably not. Are the Democrats doing that right now? Also probably not.

Okay so what's the solution then that doesn't involve having to disappear the half of the country that you don't agree with? I'm super open to better solutions. I just rarely hear any other than magical thinking. "All these evil shitbags will get reeducated and agree with me now" if it's not that, what is it?

The Biden admin (no idea if Biden himself was involved) literally sued Texas to stop Texas from enforcing border law. This same admin also essentially redefined "asylum" to be economic asylum rather than "I'm afraid that if I go back to my country I'll be killed" which is how people typically thought of asylum.

You can absolutely think that what's happening now is an overreaction, un-American, gross, illegal, and morally wrong.

But if you're unwilling to try and understand how it's possible that over half the country voted for someone who would enact policies that lead to what we're seeing now, you're simply not paying attention.

If you just want to see the people who voted for this as "the enemy" and "evil" you're basically doing the same tribal "othering" that's lead to these outcomes you don't like.

Is that ugly and uncomfortable? Yes, absolutely. Will things get better by ignoring it? Absolutely not.

It's a wonderful theory, but alas. Copper is aggressively antimicrobial.

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

It can't just be better than the average human driver. it has to be some like 10x as good as the average human driver or on par with a race driver.

Everyone thinks they're above average, even people who know statistics! So if it's merely 20% better than the average driver a huge number of people will conclude "I am above average so I'll do a better job"

Will some of them be wrong? Of course. But tons of them will be right, too.

It can't be statistically significantly better, it has to be statistically overwhelmingly better. Not a part of a standard deviation but several of them.

Tragically demonization is everywhere right now. I sure hope people start figuring out offramps soon.

If you look at the far right hand bar the B-N/S says 131% which is the highest bar on the chart. So it's producing more than the standard tilted slightly south orientation from what I gather. The legend is a bit hard to read for sure.

The insurers are legally obligated to pay out 80-95% of their premiums for treatment. So the only way to grow profits is to spend 2x and much and charge 2x as much. Sure you only make the same 5-20% margin, but it's on 2x the revenue so it's 2x the gross profits.

Congrats! You are 99% of the way to understanding it. Now you just have to realize that "whoever is in charge" might or might not have your best interests at heart, government or private.

Anyone who has the power to deny you information absolutely has more power than those who can swamp out good information with bad. It's a subtle difference yes, but it's real.

I can't wrap my head around anyone being happy about this who isn't extremely rich. Would love to understand.

Hey Ken!

It was great working with you at DigiDrill. Glad to see you're still pushing the frontier of high temp, high G MWD systems.

Keep up the good work!

> Certainly the vaccine's mRNA sequence breaks down into separate nucleotides. If it did not, continued production of the antigens would cause a chronic immune reaction and/or immune exhaustion that would make the vaccine ineffective.

I suspect you just described "long COVID" or "vaccine injury" for some fraction of folks.

Do we have any studies that show this fast clearance? From what I understand at least one of them used a pseudo-uradine that there isn't an efficient direct metabolic pathway to process, which was kind of the whole point. The idea being it would circulate longer and be "more effective"

It's an interesting take to be sure. I suspect that the lack of flexibility is going to be the real killer.

You'd probably have to build offshore platforms on either side to bring the cables up and terminate them and now that's a nightmare, saltwater/salty air and electronics don't mix well.

Or you're going to have to trench very deeply for the first few miles.

Either way you're stuck with something that really doesn't want to be bent.

I think the "glass is great insulation" is a good insight and perhaps a composite glass fiber/polymer sheath would really increase the V/m without the brittleness.

You're missing a critical piece of information. Human hearing (and vision) are logarithmic sensors.

Ears can register sounds from maybe 20-30 dB upwards of 120ish which isn't a factor of 4-6 in terms of power but rather a factor of 120-30=90 decibels or 9 bels or 10^9 or one billion.

Because your ears have absolutely enormous range you need the potentiometer (pot) to have a logarithmic taper to it. The amplifier has an essentially fixed amount of amplification so that's a fixed sound dB output. Your ears can hear a vast range. A linear pot essentially locks the entire output into the same 10 decibels as the amplifier maximum output through its linearity. Once you've turned it to 10% of the range it has precisely 10 decibels worth of range left. If you want to turn the volume down by 40 decibels you have to do that within the 0-10% part of the pot's range.

A logarithmic pot will give you maybe 40-60 decibels worth of adjustment by dividing things up differently. Every 20% of the range increases the output not by 20% but by a factor of 10 let's say. That gives you a pot with a range of 50 decibels which is enough that it roughly matches the absolutely miraculous range of the ear.

I find this kind of article hilarious. "Numbers go up! You're not allowed to feel poor or think that there's a problem! Our number is bigger so you must be rich!"

I saw this 10-20 years ago when economists were telling people that inflation is low despite their feelings about inflation. "Our math is correct and you ignorant folks should be grateful for how this economy is managed."

Just because you can produce equations like physicists doesn't mean it's the same field. Ground truth in economics is just as much people as it is anything else.

I can't wait to hear about genetically modified wild dogs to hunt and eat the toads that somehow turned the disadvantage into an advantage. No idea how, but it seems like the next step.

Then releasing big cats to hunt the dogs once that goes wrong.

They can write a whole article about how bad it is, but they can't even say what the pathology is?

Does this cause colds or Ebola? I know Ebola is viral. I'm talking about symptoms

What ECM? They're mechanically injected diesels. The main purpose of the electrical system is to run the starter to crank the engine. And maybe headlights and stuff.

They're very simple cars.

I feel like they could probably buy some 80s Mercedes 300d and get newer cars with lots of parts available as there's junked ones everywhere.

Nickel itself isn't interesting. Any new material is interesting. Yet another YbCo-whatever wouldn't tell you as much as an entirely new metal. It would be just as interesting if it was titanium or vanadium or lithium or any other metal that hasn't ever been found in a superconductor before.

You've made at least 2-3 personal attacks against me while seemingly not even trying to address the problem that I highlighted. If that's your goal, OK. It definitely goes against the spirit of the rules here if not the letter.

Delaying the flu vaccine? Ok that's bad, sure.

It's also a real goalpost move and also doesn't address the technical problem "insiders going to inside" I raised in answer to the parent's paraphrased "I can't understand this, why is this necessary?"

I don't know that doing things this way is strictly necessary. But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.