techbio

It is relevant in the context of the message thread it replies to. If you do think my reply was unwise, I'd be happy to have your explanation for why you think that, but I am fairly certain that platitude is the wrong word here. Maybe you mean something like "played out", but then that would seem to be just your opinion.

"Sometimes there are pedestrians in the road", yet people still drive.

When a measure becomes a target...

Step 1: make sure your car is a CRV...Later: feels like the $1600 power supply and $400 sleeping bag should be an either/or proposition, but I guess it depends on the climate.

Thank you! I do prefer to defer to a framework of Bohr's than to Zizek's.

The article begins by analogy to cartography, in which, the First Law of Geography[1] "everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things" applies to the space defined by the surface of the Earth. The brain is smaller than a pixel in a typical satellite photo but contains information to build the satellite, put it into orbit, and communicate with it via radio. Why would anyone believe that analogy should hold? Having read D'Amasio[2] ages ago, this appears to be looking for keys under a streetlamp simply because the light is better.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler%27s_first_law_of_geog...

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/125777.The_Feeling_of...

I know your ending question is a figure of speech, but since we are imagining it simultaneously, it's more or less by definition not crazy at all.

Probably helpful bias calibration for those unfamiliar with Zizek. Interesting that perceived sides and the not content of the message should carry such weight. A person with differing views and conclusions on some issue can still convey information, and I do not immediately see much relationship between uncertainty in the Bohr apocrypha and ulterior motives(? beliefs?) of the philosopher who relayed it.

Serious illness, bad as it is, is a lot more predictable than fear/security driven social engineering, and when cover-your-smile is rolled into cover your cough, I'd expect unintended consequences, socially, developmentally. You must realize there are other problems than COVID, and some are much more important. Your Pascal's Wager about masks is a bit revealing vis-a-vis any certainty about the evidence.

Add up all the businesses that have failed and you'll find plenty that disrespected some of their customers.

Walmart is a much higher bar geopolitically, but bet they have to jump too when word gets out of malfeasance. But it is a prisoner's dilemma when they are the main one-stop value shop.

I don't know that questioning this idiom breaks the guidelines.

If not a shill it sounds like an ask for more resources, to save the gray whales or study the oceans, or something.

Either way, "a precise cause has yet to be determined" seems to be playing a little too close to the vest, and can be true without being especially meaningful.

"Bad ocean management" turns out to be more of a triage problem and less blue-sky research for the sake of knowledge.

I'll have to read Simon, but I'll be looking for some stable types of responses to uncertainty, not rational but adaptive: reversion to past/training, confusion, overreaction, etc. ie something prevalent enough that it can be reasoned about.

Has anyone considered altering wave patterns to increase ocean surface reflectance? Like a Fresnel lens magnification in reverse.

I believe I have illustrated a mismatch between QoL for an individual and for a state in aggregate.

Your examples only illustrate simple behaviors, and do not show that there are negative and positive contributors, only isolated incidents any person can choose between, and whether or not this sums to a positive or negative person in relation to eg. their tax contributions.

At the state level aggregate, which is more relevant when talking about population flows with regard to differing state policies, each of your examples can fall under Simpson's Paradox and form a misleading picture.

You have, I believe, neglected to address the points made with respect to reversion toward the national mean for progressive state policies.

Edit: Say for example, two states A and B have identical QoL by whatever measures you choose. Then in an effort to improve QoL in their state, A offers free comprehensive healthcare, but state B does not. Some of the sick people in state B, having lower QoL for reasons of health and acting in their own interests, move to state A for treatment. Now state B, with fewer sick people registers a median increase in QoL. Perhaps state A registers a smaller increase than they had hoped for, and now bear an additional tax burden.

State B benefits by doing nothing. State A improves actual QoL for sick people. What am I missing?

When "I will never" becomes "we demand".

Which escalations the store would have to weigh against a loss of business they should expect after racially targeting innocent (if so) customers.

Know your rights and exercise them, keep your chin up and communicate. Fear is a trigger of suspicion.

I'm just going to concur with GP: as someone who has looked for advice for songwriting on guitar, the writers I look up to almost always wrote with a piano. If your quibble is with "most", and your musical tastes are somewhere within EDM (mine are not), might be a perception bias towards laptop electronica.

"Capricious coincidences cause careless conjectures."

Since no one is perfect, it is so easy to find such a person, that it is every person.

National-level quality of life as an average of states that can make either choice is like some states littering and some states cleaning up after them, or as a parent poster wrote "punishes states that attempt to increase their quality of life too far above the national average".

You seem to think having a low quality of life and lowering the quality of life are the same, and additionally, that improving the quality of life in a given state is something that a state, almost by definition, cannot do.

* Not so if they have a negative quality of life:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28137396

I would assume that fewer people who are already doing well will move states than will people who experiences more problems where they were.

Fair clarification, but my other points stand.

Not a trick question. The quality of life I am talking about is apparently different from yours.

Apple is smart enough to determine what's in an photograph, but if I paste text into a sentence in iOS I still need to manually add spaces and format punctuation.

I will never forget the time iTunes deleted my music library, or it's inability to deduplicate identical songs.

Power.

Hopefully, in between the moral sponge work they do, occasionally gaze over a growing history of mugshots, years-left-in-sentence reminders, and death notices for the producers of this content, their enablers, and imitators.

This is the flipside of GP. States that increase their quality of life by sending their problems to the states that would attempt to solve them.

Name someone alive who does not contribute to the quality of life.

Interesting but counterintuitive, at least to me. How do you determine homogeneity is this sense? What evidence suggests this to you?

The authorities you appeal to here are evidently as delusional as this particular human canary they so confidently and cooperatively caged up.

What the authorities need is competition, or else continued abuses of their monopoly are certain.

A system that enables these kinds of outcomes should not be allowed to promote their services as helpful to people. One man's potential settlement check does not acquit them of their responsibilities.

A system that sends people to the sidewalk and then punishes them there does not need to be fed any more, it is eating plenty on its own.

Yeah sure, but I'm not sure accountability for who knew what and when is the concern here. Maybe you are on to something? I haven't the faintest.

At times it seemed to me that repeating stale guidance was the only acceptable messaging, and I found it to be thin data with a somewhat chilling effect. Other influences abounded, but the effective knowledge transfer was disappointing in my view. There are other numbers to know than today's death record and the same mask reminder.

Absolutely not, especially as information changes. Is it so hard to understand that new information should change the message? That varying the message could reach people the old message did not?

Their job is not to be decisive, it is to inform, and an incomplete message repeated is inferior to an explanation including what is not known for certain, and just how uncertain it is and why.

Many, many opportunities for the CDC to educate have been squandered on preaching to the choir.

Edit: Though maybe you omitted a necessary "/s" sarcasm tag in favor of scare quotes.