54 karma · joined May 12, 2021
It would not be in the least surprising if this was a lab leak, and it is no more "harmful" to speculate that it was than to speculate that it was a wild virus.
No I don't think it is reasonable at all.
> Animals suffer immensely,
Untrue. Eating chicken or cow meat does not require the animals suffer immensely.
Some farming, transport, and slaughter practices cause needless suffering. But others don't, they actually allow pretty decent lives for the animals.
And your last sentence is not some kind of proof of your belief. Without a dirty cheap producer then a cleaner producer who has paid for the environmental externalities they created might have made the product.
In your first link I'm struggling to see it demonstrate what you say. Actually that's more what I'm familiar with.
Obviously it's quite old though. The second link does seem to show the trend going to equipment costs and trending upward indeed. Although it doesn't seem very detailed, I suppose that first graph on the left on page 9 looks like mostly fixed costs in orange. Thanks for the link.
But Saudi should not get a free pass either, and should be made to pay for its profiteering from carbon pollution along with all other people, corporations, and countries accordingly.
No they shouldn't, China sells products in the global market. The emissions belong to them, along with the price they charge for the product.
> The west exported much of their environmental problems to poorer nations, including China.
Well, globalist corporations and politicians exported their environmental problems, I agree. The solution is not to give dirty polluting countries a free pass, it is to account for the externalities in tariffs.
It is neither misinformative or ironic, and it's clearly talking about today and in future.
> The U.S. produces roughly double the emissions of China per capita.
I'm not talking about per capita. Per capita is about the worst metric to use for this, because 1. the environment doesn't care about per capita, it cares about total emissions, and 2. acting like lower per-capita is better creates perverse incentives to increase population and suppress quality of life. Carbon intensity is the relevant metric.
> Ignoring population is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Rubbish. I'm talking about facts that have no relationship to population.
> As for bullying neighbours, the U.S. lost both those legs after a long string of funding terrorists, assassinations, and aggressive wars.
That doesn't address what I wrote I'm afraid. I never said "China does this and USA does not".
> Wikipedia has a quote from Alexander Hamilton:
Also irrelevant. America (and almost all the world) had slaves. That doesn't stop me from saying any nation that uses slave labor will never be a leading country and will always be looked down upon, at least until [the use of slave labor] is dismantled.
People didn't cut nearly half a trillion dollars from the value of bitcoin on the word of a person known for blurting out impulsive and weird things. He didn't reveal any deep new insights into this thing. What Musk said just spooked the herd, that's all.
Flood the market with very good but not exceptional workers, and the top salaries won't change much.
Flood the market with exceptional workers and it probably won't change much either, FANG will just be even more selective with their top salaries.
Top devs have a lot of bargaining power not because companies need some "X amount" of development work done but can't find anybody who will do it. They have bargaining power because those companies are competing against one another and they're hoping the next billion dollar idea will come from one of _their_ employees first.
If you aren't playing this kind of roulette, I don't understand why you would try to compete in the same job markets. You can get developers for far less. And yes that may mean moving elsewhere, SV is obviously heavily selecting for such developers (people who can get those salaries will tend to move there, those who can't will tend to be pushed out).
If you are playing in that space but you just can't afford to pay for its inputs then it doesn't automatically mean those inputs are in a state of shortage, sometimes it just means your business does not create enough value to to pay for said inputs. This is the market's way of telling you to fold. Capitalism is a harsh mistress.
So even if you have entirely paid off an old fab or bought one outright for ~$0 at a fire sale, you probably won't be able to make DRAM at a hugely lower overall cost. Slightly lower, perhaps.
It was certainly not my intention to start flamewars so I will make all endeavours to stop doing that (and stop beating my wife etc). From the votes and subsequent productive discussions in the thread you disconnected, it seems like a good number of users agreed with me, and we were able to shut down the conspiracy theory talk while leaving the door open to further discussion of the interesting parts (virus spreading between towns and cities). So I genuinely don't see the problem, but I can hold my nose and try to be gentler with conspiracy theorists if that would help.
Because I will continue to call out baseless conspiracy theorists and hateful / flamewar comments as I see them, while trying to be calm, measured, and proportionate in response. If calling out baseless and harmful conspiracy theories proves too much for fragile users or moderators to cope with, I'm more than happy to move along from your site, and leave you to your "different quality" discussions and conspiracy theories.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Clearly I was not suggesting the concept of a virus reservoir was a conspiracy theory. I don't know if you were being deliberately obtuse, but it does not help the conversation.
The parent made 3 claims, increasingly improbable, with the last seeming to be a hateful conspiracy theory.
>> Except these surrounding towns act as virus reservoirs for the large cities.
The assertion is the towns acts as reservoirs for cities. Is that really true?
>> That limits the effectiveness of restrictions.
Is that really what limits the effectiveness of restrictions in cities?
>> The “become COVID-19 carriers to own the libs” strategy kinda worked.
It's pretty obvious this is the conspiracy theory I was talking about. The suggestion seems to be that conservatives in surrounding towns (but not those in the cities) had conspired to develop a biological warfare strategy based on becoming infected in towns and then traveling to infect nearby cities.
This is one of the most hateful, unhinged paranoid delusion I've ever read about COVID. But this kind of thing doesn't raise many eyebrows on sites like HN because people think it's plausible or even likely ("yes it must be those hateful angry racist divisive conspiracy-theory-believing conservatives who are always out to get us, clearly it's conservatives who are to blame for any and all political failings that occur in liberal-run areas").
https://semiengineering.com/dram-scaling-challenges-grow/
https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/04/13/dram-is-stuck-in-a-10n...
Memory prices will only move sharply down again if a different memory technology is developed that can be manufactured with finer features.
Having a different personal definition of a word, or a different opinion or thought does not automatically make someone a -obic, or mean they are "coming for" others. Try to be inclusive and tolerant rather than hostile and divisive and uninclusive.
Preaching these things when it benefits a favored point of view and then rejecting them when it comes to others is actually the definition of weaponizing, and it does more harm and causes everyone to be intolerant.
That's all before you even talk about greenhouse gasses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU
Clearly a joke at the expense of the ineptitude of his opponent's campaign. The fact people point to this as their "evidence" is pretty clearly desperation and self-delusion.
There was no evidence. You were lied to.
It never should have got past a few low level intelligence lackeys. The fact you had the chairman of the house intelligence committee as well as countless other powerful politicians, "trusted" journalists, ex-intelligence agency heads, etc. all insisting for years that there was "ample evidence" for it, is just utterly insane in my view. It was obviously just pure lies and dishonesty for political advantage.
It's not always easy, but in the case of COVID there were a lot of obvious shysters who were slavishly worshipped by the mob.
Opening your eyes and thinking for yourself, and not being desperately and pathetically subservient to "authority" or to mob mentality is a good start.
> Do you believe that people who write (long form articles, books) about a subject have nothing useful to say?
I do not.
I have considered that, and rejected it.
I'm not talking about people who don't really know and genuinely get their information from whatever their TV or internet or friends tell them and they just go along with it but generally live and let live in the face of differing opinions.
I'm talking about the hateful bullying mobs going around attacking people, and the people and corporations who actually look into the information which is quite easy to see those "authorities" are hardly a good source of truth, yet they grovel down on their hands and knees to lick boot.
> Your entire attitude seems to be predicated on the idea that nobody actually knows anything, there's no point listening to "experts" (even putting the quotes around the word is intended to be dismissive), and there's no way to spend time learning more about something.
That's not my attitude.
> Look, you've provided a great list of terrible things that the US (and other) governments have done (though it's necessarily incomplete and mostly rather recent). But in the context of your point, so what?
The context of my point is that journalists, politicians, and other self-proclaimed "experts" are not. It is more the rule than the exception that they are self-interested corrupt liars and manipulators.
I'm not talking about, say, the scientist who develops climate models or the medical researcher developing vaccines. I'm not talking about actual experts.
> What about the experts that know how to build bridges properly? What about the governmental policies that actually result in positive changes? What about the doctors, engineers, designers, architects, farmers who actually do have a better understanding of their fields than an average person?
What about them? None of them are manipulating the populace into going to war, or drumming up their throngs of pathetic subservient bootlickers and brownshirts to attack and bully anybody who questions them. So I'm obviously not talking about them.
> I don't disagree with you about the lamentable actions of our government and the processes/structures that allow them to happen. But I reject the implication that this requires me to just be infinitely cynical about everything.
There was no implication.
> The entire thing doesn't include corners?
It does.
> And you entered the conversation in support of someone that literally said "every corner, nook and cranny"!
So reply to that.
> If you were making a much weaker claim, it's on you to make that clear.
I did. You just didn't read what I wrote.
> Instead of this petty "doesn't address what I wrote" garbage.
Garbage. Ironic.
> On top of that, being able to suss out what is undefined behavior is in fact quite important for proper use of C. I wish it was a super rare corner case but it's not.
Sure. Doesn't change the fact your question was stupid and didn't address what I wrote.
You shouldn't have been the one to start using them then.