pavelrub

I haven't seen any evidence supporting the argument that they do not protect the wearer. The argument seems to be that they aren't 100% effective at that, and therefore shouldn't be used for those purposes, which doesn't make any sense. Even 20% reduction in the amount of incoming droplets is significant - both for protecting the wearer, and for reducing R0.

I'd like to see a source that they do not protect from incoming droplets. This seems to be completely false.

How is this even remotely similar? H1N1 killed less people in Italy in a year than coronavirus killed in a single day.

I think GP was referring to the government's plan, not the suggestions in the letter.

That's only because you chose the lessons that support whatever you wanted to prove.

Alternatively, John Wick, and almost every other action movie, show us that violence - and killing people - is an effective and morally acceprable way of solving problems. The distinction between violence and torture depictions is not as obvious as you want it to be.

1. It is both more contagious and lethal than flu. There were estimates that 40% to 70% of the world population will eventually get infected. Depending on how the world responds to this - millions might die.

2. This isn't flu. The same amount of people will die from flu this year as last year. COVID-19 deaths are additional deaths on top of that. Saying that we shouldn't worry about it because every year many of people die of flu, is like saying that we shouldn't make a big deal of the 2004 Indian tsunami because many people die of drowning anyway.

They are referring to civets, which aren't cats at all.

Not sure I understand your problem. What prevents you from simply changing your interpretation of review scores so that it will better fit the expectations of others, instead of avoiding leaving helpful reviews altogether?

This is true only if you really aren’t used to watching films with subtitles.

In many countries, foreign films with subtitles are the norm, and its what most people watch all the time. Once you are used to it - it doesn’t hurt immersions whatsoever, and reading subtitles is done almost subconsciously and require no discernible effort.

I really don't understand the signalling argument - it just seems obviously incorrect. Who are you signalling to? In places where airpods are frequent, pretty much everybody can afford them - certianly in the social circles of the people who wear them. It's a very poor status symbol, and I imagine that the people making those claims are just projecting their own insecurities on the rest of society.

Specifying the max number of concurrent lambda execution has been possible for years - it's called reserved concurrency.

This does nothing to solve the issue however. There are many use cases where you can't delay handling requests.

IMO this isn't particularly news worthy. It's some small unit in the Army doing some minor collaboration with a questionable group of people on a pseudosceintific subject. The US military and government have a very long history of doing things like this, with zero results.

That’s more than enough time to colonize most of the galaxy.

At least in the context of the Nimitz incedent, Cmdr. David Fravor said on the Joe Rogan interview that there is no "full video" - this is something that was invented by people who have never seen the video, what we got is pretty much the entire thing.

That somebody on the internet (or an organization full of cranks like TTSA) can say they watched the "full video", and you don't even question it, is telling. Unfortunately this, like the entire recent narrative of some sort of a "disclosure", seems more like a fantasy invented by UFO enthusiasts that really wish it to be true, than something based on reality.

But your example doesn't disclose anything at all - those cases have nothing to do with one another. The US loses nothing of any value by admitting that a bunch of leaked videos, confirmed by former pilots, are real. This isn't comparable at all to disclosing that the US military is in possession of a magical technology, not to mention details on how to build it.

This matches Bob Lazar’s description only in the very general sense of using the same alien-technology buzzwords that are used everywhere by cranks and conspiracy theorists. The details though are very different from what Bob Lazar described.

What a ridiculous non-argument. What about your advertisement is even remotely similar to the context of the above quote from an iPhone 11 camera review? Pretty much nothing.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about. An advertisement of what? Ultra wide lenses? The author is a photographer who writes about being excited to now have the ability to carry an ultra wide lense - something that has exited in the photography world for decades - as part of his phone. He then write a review about the performance of this lense. Nothing about this is even close to being an advertisement.

> Without Bletchley Park and the massive advances in electromechanical computing that Turing helped to spearhead, the world would probably look very different today.

That's an unnecessary exaggeration. ULTRA was incredibly helpful to the Allies, but there is little reason to believe that without it the world "would probably look very different today". In all likelihood the worst scenario is that the war would've ended a bit later, and with somewhat more favourable conditions for the USSR in terms of their positions in Europe.

No, I think you are the one who is missing the point. This deal a bet on D&D's ability to produce a hit show. Whatever "bad PR" you think this is getting is completely insignificant compared to what Netflix stands to gain from this.

Other than that, I think you are vastly overestimating the number of people who respond negatively to this, their actual responses, and their overall impact on Netflix' bottom line. The main risk here for Netflix is that D&D will produce a bad show, not that a bunch of teenagers from r/gameofthrones will cancel their subscription.

> They also just recently spent $200M to hire the two people behind the catastrophic final season of Game Of Thrones.

That's a pretty ridiculous way of putting it, given that those same two people are also responsible for creating one of the most successful shows in TV history.

What will determine the success of this decision is the quality of what they produce. The number of people who will cancel their subscription simply due to D&D's involvement seems like a completely insignificant risk.

How is this "SNS and SQS rolled into one"? What's the SQS-like part in this? This seems very similar to SNS, with some additional flexibility around event filtering, and the added bonus of various SaaS integrations that can replace traditional webhooks.

Weird reply. This is precisely a use case where VR in particular is useful.

What "consensus"? I've read the Wikipedia article on the incident and found no information of any consensus of this sort. The objects in question were visually tracked by multiple aircraft, and were detected by multiple radar systems.

The singularity is likely a mathematical artifact of the fact that GR is insufficient to describe black holes. In reality (quantum gravity) they probably do not exist.

You can easily incorporate the most widely used vim commands and shortcuts (including window splitting) in IntelliJ/PyCharm by installing their vim plugin.

You are then left with choosing between the comfort of using the subset of vim that isn't available through the plugin, and the comfort of using all the IDE features that aren't available in vim. I believe that for most people the latter will be far more productive.

There is value in that for everybody, including the "tech crowd".

Seems like a very complicated and expensive way of administering poison.

The real question here isn't the delivery mechanism, but the properties of this magical compound - whether it leaves any traces in the body, and what symptoms it causes.

Ludwig Wittgenstein - mainly Philosophical Investigations, Blue and Brown Books, and On Certainty. It gradually changed how I view the entire world around me, and dissolved my interest in philosophy, as well as in many other "sciency" things that - I realized - I was only interested in because of implicit metaphysical interpretations that ultimately stemmed out of conceptual confusion.

This is called survivorship bias, not selection bias.