tvier

I'm pretty sure people have been falling off things for a quite a while.

This comment brings me so much joy, it might be the most "hackernews" thing I've ever read.

I don't disagree though. Everything is physics, and physics is applied math

I think that is a more clear framing of what the OP was saying, and if they had written it that way I probably wouldn't have bothered replying. It just had a very fatalistic tone I didn't agree with.

I still disagree though, the relationship between scarcity and generosity is very complex.

And as an aside, homeless shelters and socialized medicine are cheaper than the alternatives in developed nations, so I would argue those are the sign of good governance rather than excess value. Although that depends on your definition of value...

My intention was to imply that normal human behavior involves doing things that aren't economically beneficial.

Why play piano at home when you could use that energy to work? Why go to the bar and pay more for a drink than you would at home?

Because of this, equating all human value to monetary value doesn't accurately reflect the world.

I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't cared, or felt loss. That would definitely be presumptuous.

I was only commenting on the "easily produced" comment. I don't think I've heard someone describe pregnancy and childbirth that way ;)

This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them.

That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior.

Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"?

[1] I imagine OP has never given birth

You and the parent both made good points. In Germany a swastika might be seen as more of a direct threat of specific action than other places. That makes it more sensible to classify as a threat.

> No it doesn't, this is just an empty appeal to emotional manipulation.

I intended for that to be a direct reference to the concept of "tyranny of the majority".

> You see, since all your arguments are just empty appeals to emotional manipulation ... you're clearly arguing in bad faith

Man, I really did my best. Why'd you have to be mean?

The power given to the masses vs the ruling class is always in flux. The light may go out, but it won't be forever.

I'm also hopeful that the requirement for a well educated workforce will nudge societies towards more freedom than the historical norm.

> I'm not. You come to my house, you follow my rules, you come to our country you follow our values, simple

I wish it was this simple, so badly, but that strategy has been tried many times before and it always ends in violence. First off, who is "our"? Is it the majority? That leaves every minority group vulnerable. Is it the most powerful (it usually is)? That leave everyone screwed. It all seems great, until you end up as a target. This is why we base our systems of rights to more universal, and not based on our ethnicity.

For example, some of the historical opinions of my fairly recent ancestors: All Jewish people should be dead; ditto for Homo/Tran-sexual; also the Irish; black people aren't humans; the middle east should be owned by Western Europeans, and if not, designed to minimize the chances of them forming successful nations; same for Africa

Seeing this as bad assumes you think hurting other people is bad, which I do. If you don't agree, then there isn't much to discuss, you are entirely correct withing your framework

> Otherwise if you allow one flavor of imported oppressive culture so you don't ":force yurt values on other people" why not allow domestic oppressive cultures too, like fascism? Why only tolerate imported ones?

Where I'm from being a Nazi is completely legal. We tolerate both. There is still an ongoing discussion about where to draw the line, but the standards are always higher than wearing clothes that you don't like. Germany may not tolerate Nazi's for obvious historical reasons.

I would recommend "They Thought They Were Free" for a more of a look into this. It's an interesting book.

Edit: This is not true, almost all laws are passed to deal with a situation that is already occurring.

> Welcome to the real world where a lot of laws are made to cover things that could happen precisely so that when they do happen, there's a law ready to enforce.

No, all those things harm other people.

The ban on swastikas would be considered authoritarian because it's only purpose is to limit expression.

Considering Germany's recent history though, it seems like a reasonable response.

You're throwing a bunch of straw man arguments out, which makes it a lot of work to actually respond to this whole post.

Rights are always on a spectrum with a large amount of grey area.

> burkas are a security risk in public since people could hide and smuggle weapons under that

This is silly. Everyone wears coats in the winter.

> there could be men hiding underneath using it to enter female only spaces like bathrooms and changing rooms

Is this actually a concern? AFAICT this isn't happening, it's just something that could theoretically happen, which doesn't make it a reason to decrease people rights. That would be another standard tactic for pushing authoritarian laws.

> Then on top of that, you also have the cultural and optics aspect, that burkas are a symbol of a backwards oppressive culture that's incompatible with western progressive liberal and feminist values that the west cherishes or at least pretends to.

This seems valid, but I'm pretty hesitant to force my cultural values on people. It hasn't gone well historically.

Controlling how people dress sounds pretty authoritarian to me. The fact that it's currently not acceptable to enter a bank with a covered face would indicate a law banning it in all public locations is not needed.

Taking rights away from people labelled as terrorists is a pretty standard way for governments to control viewpoints. It gives them the power to add any group they don't like to a list, and deport/imprison them with minimal judicial process.

I don't know enough about surveillance of minors to comment on that one.

While I 100% agree that there are wage issues, the question with housing is why it's growing faster than general inflation.

House prices seem to be increasing fastest in places with high incomes. This leads me to believe increasing incomes wouldn't solve this particular problem.

This opinion sets up corporate consolidation as the cause of all issue in the US. I don't think it makes sense for that to be the null hypothesis that needs to be disproven.

For this specific issue, homebuilding, and construction in general, are very regional businesses. There just aren't a few giant homebuilders controlling the industry across the nation.

There are certainly some antitrust issues with rentals, but they don't seem to be nearly as widespread as the housing issue in general.

I don't think the punching down vs up lense is a particularly effective way to analyz this issue. Nor do I think its easy to figure out who's "down" and who's "up".

> Steel factories cannot shutdown temporarily due to high electricity prices. They need a steady source of electricity.

This isn't true, there are currently facilities doing exactly this. For example, this steel mill in Ohio.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250215223931/https://gridbeyon...

That's just the theme the author is running. If you use a use a standard theme, you'll get a higher contrast text color.

From their wiki: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/04c2219de0884fc8e6bf4d264...

> Claiming that not getting sunlight is the same as smoking is pure garbage.

So you're throwing out a whole study because it didn't cover a specific confounding variable you thought of, than stating a claim with no evidence backing it up?

That's pure garbage.

They specifically call this out in the abstract.

> We obtained detailed information at baseline on their sun exposure habits and potential confounders.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/

The two sides of this conversation seem to be using different definitions of the word "state".

I won't argue which is more appropriate in this context, but I think that's where the crux of the disagreement is.

> and that it was in our top 10 domestic exports

Note that a main point of the article is that it is not in the US' top 10 exports

The chart in that link seems to indicate it was 0.6%, while total R&D funding was 3.4%

This is why you shouldn't get into arguments about performance on the internet without highly specified execution environments.

I'm going to take my own advice and go back to work :)

Yeah, if you treat it as javascript vs python they're likely correct (I'm not that familiar with js). The article and original comment were about function vs imperative though, so I assumed half decent runtimes for both.

You are describing how to execute the procedure, while the gp is describing what the result should be. Both are valuable, but they're very different.

My personal take is that "how to execute" is more useful for lower level and finer grained control, which "what the results should be" is better for wrangling complex logic

Much of both sides of this argument are opinion, but wrt this comment.

> ... no function call overhead.

This code has more function calls. O(n) vs 3 for the original

"towers in the park" refers to a pretty specific layout where the towers are surrounded and separated by parks. Yaletown has parks that are surrounded by towers, which generally seems to work better

One thing to note is that the "Snake" maneuver was designed to keep the tower safe during the test, and not forced on the rocket by the chopsticks.

The rocket was set to come down on the pad just in front on the tower and launch mount until the final 3-engine landing burn started. This kept the infrastructure safe until the last moment, but also required that lateral translation you referred to.

The biggest study I've found for this (which gets reference in the OP) seems to have done a pretty good job with this[1]. Like you I'd feel much more confident if we had a good understanding of the mechanism, but the effect size just seems too big.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-021-00017-x

Long clothing and big hats are probably your best bet. If you want to learn more you can check out the Handbook Of Natural Fibres[1], but the short version is: white dye and looser weave mean less protection, colored dye and tighter weave mean more protection.

It's mostly pretty intuitive, but the dye makes a bigger difference than you'd expect. A white cotton t-shirt might have a UPF rating around 5 (1/5th the UV exposure), while a colored shirt is likely above 20.

[1] https://sci-hub.st/10.1533/9780857095510.1.141.