throwaway55421

Nah, you don't give a toss because you've prioritised something which is literally impossible.

Ah, I see.

Why did the bricks go from 16c to cold that quickly?

I left my job due to remote working but stayed in the same place.

You should wear a hazmat suit with a helmet in public.

I would feel safer, and there would be less pressure on my healthcare service if you fall over.

If you don't, you're scaring me.

Well, you are verifiably insane.

No, citation wanted.

I'm not going to cite the sky being blue, tilt your neck.

Interesting article, but the idea that video transmission meaningfully moves the needle on climate change can be disproven back of the envelope.

My phone uses like, 5w sustained.

The video decoders on fancy new TVs are about the same.

That is essentially all video decoding. It's also encoding for e.g. TikTok or whatever because again, my phone uses 5w.

Wearing a mask is obviously a massive tradeoff, it's an ongoing "hey, hey, be afraid of me, I might coronise you!" indicator. It makes most people uncomfortable both physically and mentally.

Of course, even if it were free, it's essentially pointless because unless you live in China and they actually remain zero covid forever, you're going to repeatedly get coronavirus anyway cause it ain't ever going anywhere.

Vaccination is not even in the same league, it's an obvious easy win that gives you a far better chance when (not if) you get it.

I mean, sure, if we want to abandon the concept of cause and effect entirely because John went to the gym and ... got hit by a bus on the way, oops.

I don't think that's true at all really, there are like 500,000 millionaires in my town alone.

A billion is actually just a lot of money, there's a much more finite amount of room at the top.

All you need to do to make a million quid in the UK is get a 75th percentile job and save half of it. After a few decades you are now a millionaire. I mean, everyone can't do it, but it's not some unfathomable task.

In the US I imagine it's even easier. Your median income is lower but the top end is insane.

Gotcha. yeah I agree on all of that.

Yes, but this is really distinct from understanding a language.

You might be able to have a very basic one on one conversation with someone who is speaking directly to you.

Now sit in the corner at a bar, party, in a conference, lecture hall, or even watch a movie without subtitles, and try to understand anything at all. In most if not all languages that's impossible with a 500 word vocab.

Or just replace the brakes and tyres?

The thing I find weird here is that it's OK for me to buy a car and drive it, but not rent exactly the same car.

The liability is only shifted due to consensus. You could imagine a world in which Ford are liable for their old car. We're just not in that world.

They're not saying that he was poor.

They're saying that he didn't start a billionaire. He multiplied his wealth by a factor of a thousand or more.

The statements are not symmetrical, though.

Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat.

An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become substantially physically stronger can be successful with high probability.

But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place. Lots of people don't even care, despite it being almost strictly superior.

It would be logically incorrect to use that fact in order to argue that muscle mass is likely to be unchangeable. It is changeable, it's just not the path of least resistance.

edit: or, to put it succinctly - prevalence is not probability

The statements are not symmetrical, though.

Let's use the less emotionally charged example of the gym rat.

An individual who sets out with the goal and drive to become strong can be successful with high probability.

But not everyone will do that. Most will give up or just not even bother in the first place.

Sweden is funny. Their society is explicitly designed by the well off to convince the poors that all is well.

It's all very equal, just don't look behind the curtain. We all earn our 50000SEK here.

The CEO? Oh, just ignore him

Yes, sorry, that's not what I thought "outcompeting" meant in the epidemiological sense. I thought it implied that one variant grows to the detriment of the other.

Otherwise, we could say something like "COVID outcompetes the flu".

I don't think we have the data on Omicron vs Delta yet as you say.

Wouldn't the fact that it's outcompeting Delta imply that there is some cross immunity?

I suppose there's some limited displacement effect e.g. if you have Omicron and self isolate you can't catch Delta during your self isolation period?

"It is a sad and little-known reality that poverty tends to persist between generations".

Is it? To me it's intuitively obvious and I can't think of any real person who would disagree?

I can't even conceive of a different way this could work. Reducing the correlation to zero would require basically removing money's functional utility.

Is the paper actually biodegradable or is it basically just plastic coated paper?

This is interesting.

I find myself somewhere on this spectrum. I'd appreciate if you could read my comment and pick me apart on this because I hate the division too.

I never thought that coronavirus didn't exist, but I've always thought that it's "just a flu" (not literally, but figuratively, in the sense that Spanish Flu was just the flu, and now we're no longer immunologically naive).

In terms of the anti-vax stuff - well, I'm fully vaccinated, but I'd probably be considered "anti-vax" by a significant number of people because that I do not believe that it reduces transmission sufficiently to eliminate the virus if 100% took it - e.g. I think herd immunity is impossible, so to me it's 100% a personal risk.

Based on this, it makes me viciously angry when people back restrictions, lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etcetera.

I see these people as being scientifically illiterate because they're willing to apply force in order to attempt to solve an unsolvable problem.

And as time passes I start to just stop paying attention and discount them as, well, being human. I just can't, for years at a time, listen to people spout arguments based on (what I consider to be) false premises and continually try to explain why they're wrong.

Either I get angry and lash out, or just meme it. Neither are particularly conducive to bridging a divide.

What is the solution to get out of this mess?

How do I make peace with someone who seems to be maniacally obsessed with something I consider to be a non-issue?

I don't expect here that either of us will convince each other, but yeah, WTF do we do? I fundamentally can't see the solution, like you say it's literally cut society in two, as if we now have completely different utility functions.

The proliferation of distros _is_ the ecosystem.

This is true in a logical sense, but also very impractical to actually apply.

You end up being drawn into super long winded discussions about minor details.

If that's what you actually want, that's fine. But a lot of the time you just want to resolve a deadlock.

I've always found car rental to be the least competitive market out there.

My car cost me £800 approx a year ago. I spent £150 on new tyres and I've since driven it almost 10K miles without much other than the odd oil change and brake pads etc.

Add on insurance and tax and it'd be about 14-1600 annually if it exploded tomorrow.

That's £5 a day. But there is literally nowhere I can rent a car for that. I can't do 10, 15, etc.

And that £5 is an overestimate of the cost based on it having a residual value of 0 after 1 year.

Mainstream car companies universally rent out cars that are far newer than most cars on the road.

I get that renting out absolute bangers might be hard to manage, but surely there's a middle ground here.

I would sell my car and rent if I could do so for less than 2x the all-in price of my current one, but I can't even get remotely close.

Life is badass if you make it! :-)

I can guarantee that if you let VR set expectations for you, you'll be in a much worse position than that.

I'm sorry for your loss, but I stand by the concept that this now means you're not really able to contribute to a discussion on how most people socialise because you've self excluded from it.

> What does VR provide for a business that it can't get in a Zoom call with a webcam?

Well, if they did it properly, it'd be like real life except without the commute.

They won't, though, because nerds will say "oh, I'd rather be completely isolated and only interact with others on my specific and limited terms".

So we'll just end up with janky 3D zoom calls in isolated rooms or something, as you say.

Technology is never the issue, it's politics.