poorjohnmacafee

Hey late reply but thanks for taking some time for a thoughtful response. I'm going to dig back into research on this topic and see if I do indeed need to update my views.

The article does bring up another key point that has also bothered me about the ghg/carbon debate, and I'm curious if you also have an opinion on it: Adding co2 also ends up adding a significant multiple of water vapor ghg to the atmosphere, which is a more potent ghg, since water vapor increases as a function of temp. If you then remove that co2, how would it end up removing that same multiple of water vapor that got released? Our fossil fuel global warming problem actually just because a much larger water vapor warming problem. The solution then is how to also remove the water vapor, arguably a bigger more urgent problem than the carbon.

There is nil escape to space from that band with today's water vapor level which is why it's not considered part of the atmospheric window.

Do you have any research you can link to about your opinions on the 15 micron band?

An ivy league physics professor was the one who insisted in discussion adding CO2 will only increase warming by some minuscule overall amount due to the band saturation. This was over 15 years ago when the academic climate was a little different.

They are talking about the atmospheric window - the band of EM/heat that can be freely radiated out to space unblocked by our atmosphere.

This is an important concept in global warming/ghg that you almost never see discussed. The band that CO2 absorbs (15 microns mainly) is not in the atmospheric window. The 15 microns band is already absorbed by water vapor, and is almost 99% saturated as is.

(This is where some particle physics students stop talking so they don't upset people)

Per the 2021 citation, here is the former CDC director claiming he believes RF tech in cellphones causes types of brain tumors. This was part of a lawsuit by plaintiffs with alleged brain tumors from heavy cell phone use:

https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2021-03-24/health/prominen...

https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-...

The CDC guy at least seems to think there's plenty of evidence at this point. There are also citations claiming government tests are outdated fwiw, .e.g. maybe we're not appropriately testing the health effects.

All mostly new to me.

It appears some health authorities are in agreement?

> In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.

> Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.

And why this?

> Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s

Be that true or not, I don't think we should strive for "full of doubt", since uncertainty is also associated with fear/anxiety disorders [1]. Probably doesn't need to be said but if facing doubts ideally keep thinking until you can reach some level of certainty or known uncertainty. Don't know if that will come across as "cocksure" or not

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761851...

I can't think of very many countries that don't have regulatory channels for selling stocks to their citizens. Generally wouldn't want to launch something that breaks local regulations if you serve nationals of those countries. Puts directors at risk if they visit those countries.

Can anyone explain why regulators wouldn't just smack this down if got big? I can't imagine you can create a mirror stock market without going through some regulatory channels.

Am technical and worked with some pretty poor non technical co-founders but also worked with an amazing one. The difference:

Real, ridiculous charisma (like can totally work a room, will impress almost anyone they sit down with), very aggressive on the commercial side, down-to-earth judgment/understands things/easy to be on same page.

Might have viewed being insanely charismatic as a red flag but I saw first hand how easy it was to get meetings, create business and client relationships, and have employees basically loving the guy.

So a good test is: does this non technical cofounder simply blow me away as a person and in their manners.

[edit: commenter is right, the paper abstract rendered as "107" not "10^7" in browser, will leave followup question]

Since it's a challenge to separate the products/byproducts in catalytic reactions that are homogenous/liquid phases, how would this setup achieve separation post reaction exactly? Anyone know?

Have you tried creating a business?

People forget this is the most opportunity-filled, complex economy in the history of humanity. The idea of "spend your career at corporations" is only about 100 years old as a result of the industrial rev. Forget it about it for a second. My grandfather launched a company in his youth and it was considered normal, he wasn't considered an "entrepreneur", he was just doing what many people did before today's career-at-corporations mentality became entrenched.

You already know quite a bit about a wide array of industries. Spend some months focusing on your past experiences and where there might be a place for you to break in offering a product or service.

Robinhood recently closed out an options position "automatically", selling it for 1/5th the amount I was seeking. They deemed it was "risky" yet the position was moving in my favor the whole week.

I don't know how common that is on other platforms, but I'm feeling these fines probably are justified.

Agreed chatbots have no future in their current crap state but really good chatbot that pass the Turing test (which hasn't happened yet), could I believe take over any human interfacing use case and we'd all actually enjoy it. This is still decades away and is doubtful will involve current AI paradigms.

I agree that knowing only basic Python or JavaScript isn't that useful today. In the companies I've worked at we've never hired a fresh grad or career change person whose skillset was described as "basic Python skills." We've only hired if they have professional experience, a compelling portfolio, or show some exceptional talent for a junior level. I think this is the norm.

Which vaccine is more deadly?

Reported minimum 6k deaths and double that in UK, only a minimum because the standards for incontrovertible linkage is high and fwiw Bret and co hear from physicians who claim their reports aren't being accepted.

The rates are higher in younger people than in covid deaths.

Clinical trials are halted after 1000x less death.

For well over a year. If folks don't know, in the third month of the pandemic he did a long form discussion with a geneticist about the surprising genome snippets found in the base coronavirus strain that the wuhan lab obtained from a bat cave in Hunan. They discuss gain of function practices at that lab and others. None of this discussion is new.

Look I'm not anti vaxer here but to Bret's points, entries into the physician's VAERS database as well as the UK's equivalent already show it's the deadliest vaccine in history. Even v chief of medicine at Baylor is warning the same thing that the membrane spike proteins (and lipid nano particles) are unexpectedly breaking off, circulating, and triggering immune reactions throughout the body. The fact groups about adverse reactions have been removed from FB and that data is not being collected in any systemic way by public health authorities, it's not a stretch to conclude there might be problems with the vaccine and our approach to monitoring.

> Do children today have useful childhoods?

Well articulated. I always felt a visceral sense that childhood, the school world, and even arguably college for many feels like we're being kept in some weird pin sequestered from the real world.

As the author shows with early examples, this is not how it's ever been in human societies (as a default for everyone) prior to the last 100 years.

Could this be thought of as a massive experiment the Western first world is undertaking?

10+ years on you and creating a throwaway because good advice for young men can sometimes sound offensive.

Being in your 20s:

This is probably the best time in your life where you can freely explore the world of ideas as well as the geographic world, develop your own human capital, pursue projects in all sorts of disciplines, really whatever. It's the best time because it doesn't matter if you succeed or not, because you're only in your 20s. People who build successful startups in their 20s I believe are often very stunted individuals; there's truly great advantage to broadly exploring and learning about life and the opportunities offered everywhere in our complex modern economy, to do all that instead of prematurely welding yourself to a single company/idea. Again... there's unprecedented knowledge, science, industries, and opportunities, and the possibility of traveling and living almost anywhere at all... trust me, no one can possibly have taken it all in by their 20s... again you're at a tremendous advantage if you don't weld yourself to a single thing early in life and stay open to all the possible types of opportunities out there. Being successful in your 30s instead of your 20s is way more desirable in my opinion.

Tinder, two points:

1) There's a weak correlation with what's popular on Tinder and what women are attracted to in-person. I'm a failure on Tinder but have had a number of beautiful, awesome girlfriends over the years because I've always had the balls to just play a sometimes brutal numbers game and ask girls out who I meet in person. You can always do this, learn to not care about some rejection, and you will definitely find women who will go on a date with you.

2) Dating and value in the sexual marketplace is largely about location. Brutal truth but go travel and live somewhere like Asia or Latin America and non Western Europe and you'll find it's about 10x easier to go on dates with people you're attracted to.

"Spending time with friends":

Yes that's always nice, but many people also make their main life about their social life (this is more stereotypically feminine), and that IMO stunts them as individuals. The best types of friendships develop because you'r both pursuing similar goals, so it develops naturally. Those occur by being out in the world pursuing things. Don't force it... it will happen if you're out there doing things and open to interacting with others. It's OK if it takes years... there's a ton of things to focus on, explore, learn, go, etc. so don't think of a lack of a "normal" social life as some sort of handicap, it's not that unusual, and it's inevitably temporary if you're out there pursuing things. I'll also say like the second Tinder point it's easier if you're in a country where your background is rarer.