srinivgp

The alternative is to do the thing that doesn't scale, because all the purported ways of scaling are worse than that.

> lastly, it happens to be true

they seem fine to me

maybe you're just used to it, and i'm used to the other it, and mine requires fewer distinct glyphs

Fine, step one, work on why you'd resent that.

<= 2019: 4.5-5.5 == 2023: ~5.5 (between: significantly higher, also COVID, probably not a coincidence)

Sometimes on net things are good because of other effects like "ah, promising new competitor gets a chance to shine!" but if you could have _both_, you absolutely _would_. A company going bad is a _cost paid_ for new blood, not an _added benefit_.

It's not good that you have 100 fewer hours when you spend 100 hours creating something awesome. It's bad that you have 100 fewer hours. If you could create the same awesome thing and still have those 100 hours to do something else, that'd be fantastic.

All other things being equal, I would far rather Intel be awesome than not. If it turns out the world is such that all other things can't be equal, it might be worth having Intel not be awesome in favor of other benefits, but I'm never going to be _happy_ about Intel not being awesome.

It's bad for a company to go bad.

It's bad for a company to lock out competition.

You can't ignore downsides just 'cause you see upsides.

and if you plunked down 20,000 humans onto a world with 10 billion apes, humans would beat apes

call it a slippery slope if you want, the fallacy is when you take it too far, not inherently any time you extrapolate anything whatsoever

- just time plus regression to the mean

- talking with a therapist, for a while

- being hit with a completely different enormous life stress, allowing me to say "fuck it" to all other anxieties

While it was ongoing, my coping mechanisms were:

- ditch social interaction in favor of putting myself near the problem for hours at a time with nothing else to do until I made reluctant incremental progress

I do not recommend that coping mechanism for anything except that which you need to literally survive.

When it was very bad, the following was not helpful:

- breaking into small chunks; fear-avoidance can be about starting, but in my case it was literally about producing any results visible to anyone else

From this, you think the author is suggesting that white male users are more technically illiterate than other individuals? Your detectors are tuned for too much recall.

The main reason to believe the famous previous research was in good faith and could still miss this result is because the previous research used a measure of happiness which itself capped out, and so _could not detect_ changes in happiness after a certain level. If your instruments can't register any changes above some amount, it is no wonder your results level off and stop at that amount.

This new research could be wrong, of course. But there's no mis-summary here.

But I assume you mean that the meta analysis didn't claim masks were useless, those three underlying papers did? I'm not sure what those three were, though, maybe I missed it. I found all the papers used but there were like a dozen in the non-health-care setting.

You will find literally zero papers credibly claiming otherwise.

You will find many papers claiming that masks do not reduce the risk to zero. That's obvious and also irrelevant in light of the above.

You will find papers claiming that random cloth masks do not negligibly reduce the risk when you're immersed in a high-virus-density environment for hours on end. Not as obvious, but also irrelevant in light of the above.

If you think you know of a paper that contradicts the above, send it our way please.

If you need more nuance to avoid miscommunicating but you do not give it, you have miscommunicated.