tifik

Technical and legal norms are implementation of social norms. “obviously everybody knows that you are supposed to do it that way” doesnt hold up well at court, or during an argument about any decision that costs big bucks.

I think it will be downvoted for being unnecessarily inflamatory.

Replying to myself in case my point isnt clear - Im postulating that monogamy being some sort of “default” is inevitable, given enough time to evolve, regardless of how you setup the starting parameters.

All good points, but this doesnt really answer my question. If we imagine this hypothetical non-monogamous society, with no social constructs incentivizing monogamy, jealousy being in human nature would remain a driver towards monogamy. I imagine historically this is how most religions arrived at propagating monogamy. In christianity and judaism for both genders, or in islam for female monogamy, as jealousy was such a common driver of conflict that may even escalate into wars. Enforcing monogamy as the moral choice has some merit, if it avoids bloodshed, though obviously ideally people capable of being in non-monogamous relationships shouldnt be punished for being in one.

These are good insights, but I meant how do you adress it within the concept of a non monogamous society.

How do you address jealousy? Im very much on board with the idea in general, and have given it quite a bit of thought, but I’ve never been fully sold on the idea that jealousy is fully based on social constructs

And that is where details matter. You can implement age verification in such a way that no data gets transmitted anywhere. Ofc I wouldn't expect Meta to not take a chance of collecting even more user data and blame a law for doing it, but if the law is written well enough, it won't mandate a specific method. If it does, definitely oppose it imo.

All of the kids will get a fake account and a VPN? Putting barriers in place will likely have some effect in the intended direction.

> This assumes that it will actually solve the problem anyway

I wouldn't expect any policy to _solve_ a problem in such a way that the problem completely disappears from the world, much like theft being illegal doesn't eliminate theft, but it sure distinctiveness it for a lot of people.

The problem isn't an individual kids phone. It's their peers devices, or other ways they can explore the internet that isn't under their guardians control. This is a systemic issue that requires systemic approach. I am not making any claims about the qualities of currently discussed systemic solutions, but I do want to point out that the 'parents can just' argument is missing the mark.

I assumed 'this' refers to the title. That may have been incorrect.

I don't have the data but I don't think most people look past the title.

The idea is that each subagent is focused on a specific part of the problem and can use its entire context window for a more focused subtask than the overall one. So ideally the results arent conflicting, they are complimentary. And you just have a system that merges them.. likely another agent.

Yes, and? Without it, the total paid would be at least the same or more.

I was wondering if it's just me. I am using Brave on iOS with all the possible blockers enabled, so I'm not surprised when some website doesn't work well. Instagram literally freezes solid after 5-15s of being on the website, so I usually only quickly scan the top 2-3 posts in the feed. I only follow people I know personally, so this is usually enough to do once or twice a day and stay up to date. If I see a close friend posted a story I kinda want to see then it usually takes two or three hard closes of the browser to actually see it. Sucks, but sucks less than being mental gamed into doomscrolling every time I get an app notification.

I like that for this brief moment we actually have a competitive market working in favor of consumers. I ditched my Claude subscription in favor of Gemini just last week. It won't be great when we enter the cartel equilibrium.

I know these are scientists and a 'Human embryo model' is a perfectly valid name, because it's a model of a human embryo, but it's a disaster from a marketing perspective. People will see 'human embryo' and it doesn't matter that it's just a model of one. You are now growing fetus-slaves.

Please call it something else.

Edit: they are calling it 'hematoids' and make it clear that it is quite different from an embryo. I'm not sure why it's compared to them in the first place then.

I don't know if I just became cynical and jaded, but is this really surprising to anyone in any way? Any time I give out my personal information to anyone for any reason, I basically treat it as 'any member of public can now access it'.

Even if a service doesn't have it in their TOS that they sell it to 3rd parties, they might do it anyway, or there will, sooner or later, be a breach of their poorly secured system.

To make it clear - I don't particularly blame any one corporation, this is a systemic issue of governments not having/not enforcing serious security measures. I just completely dropped the expectation of my information being private, and for the very few bits that I do actually want to stay private, I just don't, or allow anyone to, digitalize or reproduce them at all in any way.

I was reseaching kirigami yesterday for a DYI project, and it was the first time I heard about kirigami, and of course I stumbled upon the parachute application. And now its on the front page of HN?

To whoever is running the simulation: This is a bit on the nose. And don't even try to Baader-Meinhof me.

If this were true, aviation cable markers would not be a thing. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash

> In my head, these are equivalent, like two labels for the same moment. There’s no mental conversion, no extra cognitive load.

Well said. Ill use this when explaining to my north american friends how 17:00 is 5pm in my head without doing any math.

Yes, in some European countries Apple doesn't have physical stores and relies on official partners for retail for physical stores. In some of these countries, you can still shop online on the official Apple store for that country. Major down side is you can't get Apple care at all.

The difference is my partner didn't buy her gadgets from a retailer. It was all from physical Samsung stores and under extended warranty. It sounds like an oversight on the retailers side that they didn't 'activate' your warranty for some reason.

But yeah, official stores and Apple Care not being available is a major downside, which is why I'm waiting until Im back to Canada to get an iPhone (it's also quite a bit cheaper on that side of the Atlantic).

One limitation I know of with Apple Care is that if you need to replace your device under warranty, they will need to mail it to you from the country of purchase, but you will get a temporary device while you wait for that. Samsung would never...

Storytime: my partner used to be a long time Samsung fan. She had the phone, tablet, headphones and watch and probably more gear that I don't even know about. Then she moved to Canada with me. Because of how poor the QA in their ecosystem is, after an update her latest-model Samsung watch couldn't pair with her one-year-old model Samsung phone, which severely diminished its usefulness (this was a heavily reported issue at the time). So we went to a mall and entered a store with big SAMSUNG logos everywhere, and were told to go skip rocks. They would not even touch the devices with the same logos they had on their shirts, because both the phone and the watch were bought in a different country.

There was an Apple store in that mall as well, so we walked in and asked "if we buy an apple product here, and there is an issue with it while we are in a different country, would they help us in an Apple store there". The answer was "well yeah of course why wouldn't they" with a "what's the catch" tone and raised eyebrow.

Needless to say she is now fully switched over. Even after two years, she gets delighted every now and then by how smooth the experience is. I recall many "LOL Samsung could never" events.

My current Pixel 6 is my last android phone due to the UX issues that keep piling up with every single update. Last one I noticed: Turning on bedtime mode is now double (2) the clicks it used to be.

Would/does that actually work? Its been a while since I watched SED Destins video about it, so I dont remember if they experiment with that. But intuitively, heating the glass so non-uniformly that the tail would melt and the bulb remained solid enough to keep the internal stresses intact, wouldnt that steep temperature gradient within the crystaline structure cause the entire drop to break?

The signup confirmation email has awstrack.me tracking in it :(

Not always of course, but I dont understand this reasoning. For every example you give, one can make up a different one where stopping would yield a better outcome.

I do believe though that if we took literally all possible scenarios and weighed them by the probability of them occuring, the results would show that a stopped vehicle is safer than a moving vehicle whose driver can not see.

The discussion isnt derailed, it branched off. The point is to bring up an adjacent point.

And while the ideal scenario is of course that no problem arises, and second being that the problem is swiftly and efficiently resolved.. given those scenarios do not occur, and you have to decide between "keep going without seeing the road" and "putting hazards on and slowly coming to a complete stop", the latter definitely seems more reasonable in every way.

Of course specific scenarios where stopping will be less safe can be thought up, but statistically speaking, I dont see how an uncontrolled multi-ton moving object would be more safe that a stationary one.

The second paragraph is clearly sarcastic, but the rest seems genuine, so Im a bit confused.

No they are not. If anything, NASA is a customer of Spacex.

Of course its positive news. Of fourse we cant go back in time. Its still good fun to poke at US for being so late on these discoveries.

I might be missing something, but here is my thinking... the radiation coming out of the sun would always be perpendicular to your direction of travel around the sun at any given moment, so it would only ever be able to add delta-V and increase your orbit, not reduce it.

Unfortunately you can't do upwind sailing in a vacuum.

That being said, you can still use it for the method described in parent post, but you'd still need a different propulsion method to slow you down at the apogee.