peytn

The pod-style boxes had an even greater rate imbalance in my experience a few months ago. In fact, I couldn’t even get a pod from PODS and had to use a different company.

People like when things are fair. To get those big wins you’re gonna have to either make things look fair or use force (i.e. guns). You won’t be able to change human society into a kind of minmaxing superintelligence.

Where does the First Amendment mention freedom of association?

> the continued talk about climate change is necessary

That’s been going on for fifty years at least. Personally I think we should try to come up with solutions that are more attractive to people instead of pushing the same tired asceticism stuff.

Billions of people aspire to drive a Tesla. Let’s do more of that.

Hmm, I’m looking at the Forster paper and I don’t see where they wrote that the origin might not be Wuhan.

Unless it’s peer-reviewed and published, I’m not going to count it as evidence. As far as I can see, you’re citing one dude’s speculations. Unless somebody’s followed up on those speculations in the past year, I’m not sure there’s a case here.

I have to trust they audit the data, trial sites, manufacturing plants, etc… That’s sort of their job. If the people working there don’t want to do that job, they should probably be replaced.

We can certainly express our disapproval of Alphabet’s stance on free expression on a discussion forum frequented by current and potential Alphabet employees.

> All your personal data is stored on our servers in the European Economic Area (EEA). However, we are occasionally required to share your personal data with our main office in Russia and our external counsel in the USA.

Lol

Article conveniently ignores the adverse inference angle, which is the most damning. Let’s wait until we see what was actually going on in the lab.

It’s about using racial rhetoric in a self-serving way. Isn’t that what people are talking about here?

What should have happened in your opinion? I can’t tell if you’re saying ordinary people shouldn’t have been asked such an important question, or what.

Perhaps that is a signal that the personal sacrifice route is a nonstarter. Maybe focus energies on developing more attractive alternatives?

Are you talking about communism?

Same, and I think this is the majority view. The noise about WFH is a turn-off as well and I’d rather steer clear of those making it—-if it’s that big a deal to you, there’s plenty of remote work out there.

This piece is slanted but if you click through to the local news story [1], I dunno, it gets pretty weird…

> The white affinity group was eventually named the "Whiteness Accountability" group and was intended for "staff who hold privilege via white identity and who want to explore how the advantages of whiteness interact with their identities, with their work and in the world," the complaint quotes from the program's announcement.

> The announcement also identified the white affinity group as being for staff who are "white identified, may be newly grappling with or realizing their white identity, or identify as or are perceived as white."

[1]: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/16/federal-complaint...

By your analysis Hong Kong’s share of that 1.4 Gt would be 14.5%, which hardly seems reasonable.

I believe this ruling is specifically about Binance, not crypto in general.

Checking the paper, if we’re talking the past few years, it looks like this oscillation could be a big factor:

> An unusually intense PDO phase that began in about 2014 caused a reduction in cloud formation above the ocean, which also resulted in the increased absorption of incoming energy by the planet, the scientists said.

Practical reason is that life sci VCs want to fund “platforms” in recent years, and mRNA can be pitched as a “platform,” so that’s what got funded.

How has an entirely new law proven to work out just fine?

> I'd guess most of the centrally managed ones make their money investing the deposited USD to earn a safe rate of return as profit.

Yeah and liquidating these might tank something else, which might tank something else, which might piss people off enough to get serious regulation through. That is the problem.

> You wouldn't pit one state against the other and say "we need to keep California founded monopolies in place or else Oklahoma might end up replacing them".

That’s totally something my local leaders would say. States compete for business here.

Practically speaking, my vote influences how US companies operate more than it influences how foreign companies operate. Therefore, all else being equal and since monopoly implies no other choices, I’m more invested in the companies I interact with being American rather than, say, Chinese.

What new things were learned here?

VCs intend to make money off you one way or another. At the very least I would consider not dismissing those who are upfront about it.

Can confirm; have been living under a rock, and it’s bizarre. Doubly so if the topic is something with which you have real-world experience. It’s so clear people are living in a weird propaganda world.

At this scale it doesn’t really make sense to think in terms of good and bad people, but good and bad cultures. Scandal after scandal is a sign of a bad culture, and steps should be taken to correct it.

I would take the 18k for a brute force attack dude… that’s more than fair. People tend to already know when you can brute force stuff.

> Rate limiting would be performed in the Apple server itself or in HSM (hardware security module). Either way, the rate limit logic should be programmed as such to prevent race hazard. There is very bleak chance for this endpoint to be not vulnerable to race hazard before my report because all the other endpoints I tested was vulnerable

The HSMs they’re using at Apple aren’t patchable… that’s kinda the point. Sorry.

> Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will alter a person’s genetic makeup

Wow, that’s insane. Time to report some talks on somatic hypermutation…

For very controversial topics I would expect high-quality sources to protect their reputational downside by taking conservative stances. In that case I think it’s fine to see some medium-quality outsider sources and use my own noodle. That satisfies my own intellectual curiosity.

That’s a just-so narrative. Scientists can’t make political overtures and require evidence to draw conclusions, yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons program hypothesis? It’s one or the other.

Anyway, one of the problems with media consolidation is that people don’t hear competing narratives, so whatever narrative a small group of people decide on is what ends up feeling true to people.