peeters

Dang, that's a bummer to hear! Is it a motion sickness thing? I absolutely love his POV videos and find them so much more watchable than studio setups, partially just because of the intimacy and casualness of them, but also because they're more true to the cooking process.

Curious analogy, given what would happen to someone caught in a stampede who tries to stop it by standing their ground.

This seems like distinguishing between the snowflake that falls on a sheet of snow and starts an avalanche, and the snow that collects along the way. Both were necessary conditions for the avalanche, but is either more to blame? It's an imperfect analogy but my point is this: the problem is all the loose snow sitting on a slope in the first place.

Unless those first people were actively trying to create an insolvency crisis, it seems to me they were either being prudent or prescient. There's a reason it's called the "tragedy" of the commons, and not the "tyranny" of the commons.

I don't know who exactly made the decision to let the case get this far, but it's worth noting the judge explicitly credits crown counsel with suggesting an acquittal:

> [7] After Mr. Epstein testified in chief, in a tremendous display of professionalism and objectivity, Crown counsel declined to cross-examine him since, in her view, it was not in the public interest to do so. Instead, she humbly invited the Court to enter an acquittal. Having heard the evidence, I can unreservedly confirm that she made the right call. Counsel’s integrity was commendable.

One thing that I found in reading the judgement was that French/English tensions came into play (the accused was Anglophone, the complainant had taken exception to him speaking English) which is a political hot topic in Quebec right now. It's possible there were some political motivations in play.

> Thank god the dishwasher has a wall switch to the circuit so I can just kill it but oh man.

Surely just opening the dishwasher a crack would be simpler than cutting the power?

I mean, that's true today. I'm sure you've seen plenty of shops egregiously misrepresenting the sizes of products via forced perspective or outright editing in images. If they were to upload a 3D model it would only get more difficult to mislead about the physical characteristics of the product.

Radar capability is interesting, but I'm curious if small balloons are really that hard of a target to shoot down once you've found it. They are slow-moving, non evasive, and virtually any impact from shrapnel will be a guaranteed kill. So it seems like you wouldn't even have to be that accurate, if the missile was designed to explode at its closest point.

That said, they did miss on the first attempt with the Lake Huron balloon, so I guess it's harder then I'd have thought.

> You make it sound like Trudeau did a noble thing here when he had no other option.

I honestly don't know how I could have made my clarifying the basic context of the story sound more politically neutral. Maybe you have some suggestions?

It should be noted (since "over Canada" could give the impression of an invasive action, and the article makes no further clarification) that it was Canadian PM Trudeau who gave the order for this object to be shot down, and explicitly authorized US planes to do so if they reached it first.

It's not so much that he commanded US jets, he gave an order for the object to be shot down by the first able aircraft, and included authorization for that to be US aircraft. I don't anything is implying that the US pilot bypassed US chain of command to do so. Trudeau had obviously been discussing strategy with the US, but it's important for Canadian sovereignty for the order to come from Canada.

These systems exist (STCA/RIMCAS for the tower, TCAS for the pilots, but not around landing), and for all we know at this point they might have helped avoid a collision. The challenge is balancing giving useful alerts while not feeding the pilots noise at the point that you want them to be absolutely dialed in.

So from the ATC recordings it seems like everyone was made aware of the traffic, i.e. the Southwest flight acknowledged there was an approach 3 miles out and FedEx acknowledged the 737 ahead of them. i.e. it's not like the ATC forgot it gave one clearance or the other. So it seems like the Southwest takeoff took longer than expected and ATC lost track of the situation and thus did not revoke clearance to one or the other? This is not me assigning blame just trying to get a sense of the context.

Edit: in the tower comms the Tower asks Southwest to confirm it's on the roll just 16 seconds before the call from FedEx for Southwest to abort takeoff. Incredible the tight margins these guys play with to keep things moving at the airport. People are speculating the tower had no visibility of the runway traffic due to weather.

Pilots burn a ton of fuel while training. The USAF probably welcomed the opportunity to conduct a novel mission with very little risk.

Not following this rule is also almost singularly responsible for Monopoly's reputation as an extremely long game.

In must microwaves just pressing 1 (and correspondingly 1-5ish) and nothing else will start the microwave on high for 1 minute at full power. Rather than having to press <timed-cook + 6 + 0 + start>.

Yep, but OP spent some time arguing that this should be the default theme across Wikipedia.

I think it's a great example of the bubble that the average WP editor lives in. For the vast majority of users, that theme is incredibly distracting. But it might be more efficient for the most hardcore editors that rarely actually read articles. And those hardcore editors make up the vast majority of the talk pages discussing themes etc.

Just beware there seems to be little content filtering, one of the images I got was pictures of war casualties tossed on the side of the road from 2015.

The WP front page is a bad showcase of the WP user experience as it is not an article, almost nobody sees it (as most navigate directly to articles via search results), and the layout is heavily customized outside of what the theme controls. Previewing the theme on an article gives a better contrast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News?useskin=timeless

> They have a warehouse of 1000s of luggage where the tags are likely torn off or missing. Are you going to allow them to search the entire warehouse?

Sure, why not? Let them in and have staff on hand with them requiring them to prove ownership by identifying the contents. Would that cost a lot to the airline? You bet, which is why they don't make the effort. But airlines never make an effort to help passengers unless the government tells them they must. So either make it mandatory or impose punitive damages when airlines lose bags (far above the cost of the luggage).

Maybe the airline would make an honest effort not to lose baggage if they were actually held accountable.

Donating an unclaimed bag is maybe an option (if the recipient is legally required to destroy all personal data). Donating a bag that your passenger has filed a claim for, and can tell you the location of, is a business decision. The penalty in this situation should be so obscenely high as to make it irrational for the airline to consider it.

Merely compensating for damages implies the bag was lost in good faith. I can't just steal your car and pay you fair market value for it without your agreement.

Is there any evidence of this? The article states the couple was compensated for 25% of the value of the luggage, whereas the passenger's bill of rights seems to say that the airline is liable for the full value of the lost luggage, up to a limit. Further, the article states that the terms of the compensation made no mention of this being a transfer of ownership to the airline.

What's the basis for asserting it was lost baggage compensation?

When I was in the security clearance process, the first step in the process was a 500 question multiple choice psychological exam (randomized order). The test is designed to have some level of error checking to make sure participants are taking it seriously (e.g. questions that would be expected to correlate). Near the start of the exam was a question "do you have back pain", I answered "no". Near the end was the same question phrased slightly differently, I answered "yes". When in my subsequent interview to discuss the results, the interviewer questioned why I didn't answer consistently. She seemed to accept my answer of "I had been sitting in an uncomfortable chair for 2.5 hours by the time I got to the second question".

Note that for enumerable domains of less than 64, using a long plus bit ops has been a standard Set implementation for quite a while. For example, Java's EnumSet uses a long if the enum has less than 64 values:

https://github.com/frohoff/jdk8u-jdk/blob/master/src/share/c...

Where add() uses `|= bitmask`, remove() uses `&= ~bitmask`, and size() uses a count of the 1's in the long.

Adding XOR as an efficient toggle would be interesting, but unnecessary to keep this O(n), if I understand correctly. It's just toggling the value, so (albeit with an extra branch), you could implement it as:

    if (!set.contains(val)) {
      set.add(val);
    } else {
      set.remove(val);
    }

As far as I understand it, gravitational lensing would affect the trajectory of particles travelling different speeds differently. So it would seem entirely possible that the matter wouldn't even be pointed at us. That assumes that either is being significantly affected by gravity of course.

Also bear in mind that though the light of 1000 trillion suns has been pointed at us, it's not like we have a second sun in the sky right now. It's really, really far away.

It is, but they also have a competing mission to compromise the security of non-American businesses, communications, and infrastructure. Since for the most part, the same software is used by both, these missions often contradict each other. e.g. documents from Snowden revealed that the NSA had broken encryption recommended by NIST. It's difficult to know if NSA recommends something because it makes their defensive mandate easier, or their offensive mandate easier.

For this reason, experts like Schneier [1] have long advocated that the NSA be broken up so that these two missions do not fall under the same agency.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/02/breaking_up_t...

For a product focused on reducing emissions, it would be nice if the environmental impact of the product was addressed in the FAQ or product page. What are the CO2 emissions of the source materials, production, and shipping the product to me? How many servings of pasta do I have to cook with it before I break even? 10? 100? 10000?

He definitely convinced me I was using far more water than necessary when boiling pasta. Cooking pasta in a shallow pan, with barely enough water to cover, was a revelation. Not just from the fact that you get a starchier water to help emulsify your sauce, but it just takes way less time to get bring to a boil.

I was using base 2 just for conveying the numbers of digits, i.e. showing that the digits in representation is related logarithmically to the magnitude of the base-agnostic integers in the fraction. I could have just as easily used natural log or log10 for evaluating the size of those numbers, because the important part is that it's not exploiting the implicit base in your denominator.

I agree from the perspective of how most humans could memorize pi. But that's exploiting the fact that humans treat decimal representations as having implicit denominators--3.14 is actually 314/100.

So say you had a computer that didn't treat base 10 as special. Then an apples-to-apples comparison would be that 355/113 (9/7 = 16 binary digits) has the same precision as 3141592/1000000 (22/20 = 40 binary digits). 16 is a lot fewer than 40.