nohuck13

You'd expect touch-gesture zoom to still work under pixel scaling though. You'd expect to just see a downsampled image up close, plus normal-looking text up close, right?

Here even the text doesn't zoom.

Can a frontend developer explain to me about the disabled two-finger zoom on this page? Is my mental model that zoom is between me and my mobile browser, not something that should be disable able, just hopelessly naive these days? Or is the platform not doing this, and the browser is?

I just want to zoom in on the picture of 3m-wide Garden of Earthly Delights...

> "This post glows"

That didn't used to be a "g" there, would be my guess.

The poster was arguing that, when a university/corporate partnership invents something, the law should ensure the university doesn't get screwed.

The responder was pointing out, in this case, the law could be infinitely strong in allocating credit to the university but it wouldn't help because this case was about whether they invented the thing at all.

"If it had lower cost, then it would be priced lower."

The cost of production is a floor on the price, not a ceiling.

No, assuming [-6,13] is a 95% confidence interval on a normal distribution with mean of 3.5 (substitute your own reasonable assumptions about distribution and sample size), it's plausibly something like 3x more likely that the effect is positive.

I wonder if the NYT editorial staff receives zillions of these pitches from their reporters purporting to reveal nefarious phenomena, and most of them turn out benign. It's fun to imagine that the NYT editorship is actually exceedingly good at detecting these outrage-false-positives before publication, but the base rate of outrage-true-positives is just so low that you have to expect some to make it to publication.

I'd like to imagine there's an investigative-journalism-editor-news somewhere, and they're discussing this discussion saying "bah, these clowns are making sweeping generalizations about editorial standards based on only a false positive; this is totally specious with no mention of the prior distribution or sensitivity vs specificity trade-offs"

"the incentives for any individual reporter are just too great - having the government make a major policy change based on your article is basically the brass ring for an investigative reporter"

Yep, this is the framing I came here looking for.

Investigative journalists live in the same asymmetrically-incentivized world as social science researchers. If the reporter had looked into the phenomenon and concluded "yeah, boring technical logic pretty much works as expected here" then there's no story.

Thanks. Picture for anybody else curious:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_(lunar_crater)#/m...

"It is very hard for 100 000 individual small time landlords to collectively raise rent in normal conditions (i.e., with no housing shortage). Many will lower rent to get their properties rented faster. But if you have a dozen or so large corporate owners it happens almost automatically."

Yes, a 100,000-firm marketplace forces participants to be price takers.

Yes, a 1-firm marketplace allows the firm to arbitrarily raise rents.

Why do you think a dozen-firm marketplace "automatically" tends toward the latter?

A dozen seems like a pretty high number. Explicit OPEC-style cartels are illegal (I assume) under anti-trust law so we're talking about about some pretty implicit forms of collusion.

"Liberal" here is just the adjective form of liberty.

A "liberal" democracy is a democracy is one that enshrines the classic individual freedoms (speech, assembly, religion...) e.g. the United States.

A "illiberal" democracy is a democracy that doesn't, e.g. 20th century Singapore.

"Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable"

"There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. These include

(1) the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement),

(2) a petition for involuntary inpatient placement

...

(3) involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or

(4) voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment)."

[Numbers mine]

So assuming #2 and #3 are the "bad" outcomes: both seem to require a judge's order within 72 hours?

Unless the definition of "stable" has a wiggle room I am not appreciating? Or some other practical nuance?

Are there any states where people can be involuntarily committed indefinitely without judicial involvement?

[edit responding to your edit] you were responding to the tone of my original comment, which I softened while you were responding, so sorry for the original combativeness. For what it's worth, holy crap does what you described suck. i would have done exactly what you did. no amount of knowing that it's not "indefinite" would have made it any better. the circularity of being falsely accused of something, and then having your (justifiable) non-compliance used to justify threats of further force, is blood boilingly unfair. sorry my apology sounded insincere. i sincerely feel that your experience should not be minimized.

"detained...for a night"

"freedoms can be taken away so dubiously even when not charged of a crime nor arrested in a system that exists outside the criminal system"

I'm sorry this happened to you.

Not defending it, but I don't think it's fair to say your experience represents some runaway extra-judicial outcome.

For better or worse, in the US, a judge's approval is required to detain someone in a psychiatric facility beyond an initial period (in my state it's 24 hours).

This is more or less the same standard we apply to people arrested for crimes, no?

I.e. you can be detained involuntarily for a bit, but they have to put you before the court or let you go.

> updated date as 1597083627107

August 10, 2020

"We would “sticker bomb” a vinyl decal of a two-headed Rottweiler on lampposts, power boxes, bar bathrooms, and park benches"

Stickers are the worst. They can't be painted over like spray paint. They get brittle as they age. Removal requires a human with a razor blade and some shop cloths and minutes of time

Edit: and good luck preserving the surface if it's old, soft, or already overpainted.

Full domain name (since my phone and HN seem to elide it in places):

a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.oo.pp.qqq.rrrr.ssssss.tttttttt.uuuuuuuuuuu.vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.me

Huh. You're absolutely right. Learned something today :)

It's not a given that HN always orders comments by (upvotes - downvotes).

You're taking it for granted that a market-based system isn't going to work. Why?

Utah farmers get their water almost for free, while city residents pay closer to its marginal delivery cost.

This isn't wise public policy choice made by 21st century philosopher-legislators, but simply the path-dependent product of an anachronistic 19th-century framework of "water rights" plus 100+ years of lobbying. It doesn't help that the state senate (like all state senates) is designed to over-represent rural areas.

Second-order solutions like rationing beef might be morally laudable, I just don't think they're really in play until you address the main structural failures, which almost everyone agrees on.

> 82% of Utah water goes to farmers.

Of the remaining 18%,

~ 8% goes to commercial/industrial use

~ 10% goes to municipal residential use (outdoor: 6%, indoor: 4%) [1]

[1] https://le.utah.gov/interim/2012/pdf/00002706.pdf

Honest question. What would a well-meaning, well-informed anti-gentrification activist find here to argue with?

I assume these people exist. And anecdotally, I'm 100% sure that the anti-gentrification protesters in my neighborhood include a lot of the young people you posit are the target of the anti-gentrification protests.

So, honestly asking:

- are we all just disagreeing on the basic economics that supply drives down prices at the neighborhood level?

- are young professional people in older rental apartments arguing that gentrification is _caused_ by the building of "high-end" units, which in turn price even _them_ out?

- something else entirely?

What would an intellectually honest, no-skin-in-the-game argument be?

> That’s because the primary characteristic of high-end housing is newness.

The primary characteristic of high-end housing is the characteristic of being located in an already desirable neighborhood.

> But this is the whole point, they do attract non-smokers. They should explicitly detract them instead.

This is magical thinking. Do we apply this requirement to healthier alternatives in any other market?

For example: I really like McDonalds fries, but I mostly don't eat them because they're unhealthy. However anecdotally some "heavy users" eat them 3 to 5 times a week.

Imagine if McDonalds introduced "Beyond Fries" tomorrow, equivalent in every salient way, but less unhealthy (say, baked potato-level healthy). Would anyone apply the standard above, calling for it to be _only_ a "fry cessation product" for heavy users, and expecting it to explicitly repel the abstaining-for-health-reasons users like me?

I can't see how it's even possible to achieve both goals at once. A healthier alternative to _anything_ is going to draw some former abstainers-for-health-reasons into the market. And smoking has a _lot_ of abstainers-for-health-reasons.

By all means let's call vaping a smoking cessation product, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that we can have our cake and eat it too here.

Edit: sense

What domains is it becoming more common in, in your experience?

Ooo, would you share? Wild guess: "More Or Less"?

We're walking into the middle of an argument that's been going on for a while here.

"Economic(s) imperialism" is the tendency of economists to write papers topics outside traditional economics. While the people in (say) the sociology department seem to have to confine themselves to sociology.

As Tyler Cowen writes on Marginal Revolution [1] quoted by Kevin Munger in the piece this piece is responding to:

" - Mammograms and Mortality: How has the Evidence Evolved?

- Surviving a Mass Shooting

- Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting Gender Diversity

- Back to School: The Effect of School Visits During COVID-19 on COVID-19 Transmission

- The Public Health Effects of Legalizing Marijuana

Those are all new NBER working papers, issued today. To be clear, I do not intend this list as criticism, either of these papers or of the NBER (for one thing, I have not read them). But surely it is worth pointing out that something has changed. If you think economists should be doing these papers, does that translate into a relatively low opinion of the quantitative standards in those fields proper? Or maybe the economists are better at spotting interesting questions and seeing the work through? Yes or no? How exactly should we imagine the (possible) comparative advantage of economists with these topics? I mean these as genuine questions, not snarky ones. I have never been a per se opponent of economic imperialism. "

[1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/wo...

I agree with your main point but I wouldn't say executive orders lack binding legal force. They derive binding legal force from congress or the constitution first telling the executive branch "you go figure out the details here."

Foreign policy.

The SEC.

Heck, the emancipation proclamation was an executive order. Everyone knew Lincoln and his contemporaries wanted to abolish slavery, but Lincoln was absurdly careful at the time to frame the proclamation as a wartime measure aimed at crippling the south's economy. He went out of his way to appeal to existing commander-in-chief powers in order to make it lawful.

In the US, executive orders cannot change tax law, since the "power of the purse" is constitutionally reserved for congress.

If you're thinking of the Iran nuclear deal, that's head-of-state stuff where the president is considered to have more powers (though of course it still was never a treaty, so could be/was scrapped easily by the next administration).