westwing

> How can you say that with a straight face?

I didn't.

> They're both 10x engineers.

https://medium.com/@yuval.idan5/the-10x-engineer-myth-is-wro...

https://sparktoro.com/blog/belief-in-the-mythical-10x-hire-h...

Most companies don't care about diversity of any kind for any reason besides PR. Every hiring manager knows that the most productive engineering teams are made up of 100% Asian cis-male Libertarians.

Diversity in terms of measurable metrics, such as women/minorities/LGBT++ being adequately represented, is simply a benchmark that can be paraded around for appeasement purposes.

The curve flattens naturally at some point, always after “something” has been done. That does not mean these two things are related to any significant degree.

Why? There's a lot of stuff getting developed with web technology as the platform of choice. Not because developers want to, but because major stakeholders are pushing for it. It enables cross-device deployment without gatekeeping by platform holders and crusty IT departments. Making the platform worse just makes these applications worse, it won't turn them into pristine native applications.

On Windows 10, and I have tested various text input boxes. There's no way latency is anywhere near 100ms, I would notice that.

Generally, from the tests I've seen, input latency is 30-40ms on a wired keyboard on Windows.

Scrolling, yes. Mouse, absolutely. Typing? Not really. I have tested this side-by-side.

If you take 10,000IU because 8895IU is what gets 97.5% of people to 50nmol/L, you are basically assuming you need more supplement than 97.5% of people, which is highly unlikely. There are people "at risk" that have trouble metabolizing the supplement, but chances are you're not one of them.

You need to do blood tests. Don't take 10,000IU daily without consulting a doctor. The "generally considered safe" upper limit is 4000IU. You'll probably be fine with 2000IU. Too much Vitamin D can mess with your calcium and doses as low as 5000IU/daily over a few years have been reported to cause serious problems.

Safari may be fast, especially on mobile, but it sure is holding back everyone on features. The irony is that with WebGL2 and WASM, near-native-speed applications would be possible.

Also, if there were Safari APIs for all their fancy chip features, developers might actually use them widely.

The problem is that if this happened, Apple would lose its monopoly on a good app experience. They need web technology to be crappy, and poor performance is part of that picture.

My point is that the Australian perspective on the matter invites no controversy.

The indigenous population of Australia is dark-skinned and has access to all the sun it needs in order to stay Vitamin-D sufficient.

Coincidentally, the COVID-19 mortality rates in Australia are low as well, though some might prefer to chalk that up to the strict lockdowns.

Game engines are usually maintained for years if not decades, as they are often enormous investments. However, it's more common to fork (or at least freeze) for a specific project, so in that sense there is more room for ad-hoc solutions.

Few remember that the ancients decided to let the stack grow downwards to symbolize descent into the deepest circles of hell.

I didn't mean to say that there isn't any race-specific research, but that there is a risk of being called a racist (or a "race realist") associated with doing such research, especially when it gets attention from sensationalist media and keyboard warriors on social media.

Therefore, if there is such a risk, it must have a chilling effect on actual research and on public health relations, even if doesn't outright prevent it from happening at all.

You are demonstrating that there indeed is such a risk, by suggesting that I'm one step away from proclaiming the superiority of the white race. You're not doing anyone any favors with that.

The difference is that it's a shift in perspective. It's acceptable to say that white people aren't suited to live in Australia. It's not acceptable to say that black people aren't suited to live in the UK, for example.

You're being uncharitable, which is part of the problem. These supplements are "recently invented" in terms of evolutionary history and it's not clear how well they work, compared to actual sun exposure.

"Not suited to" may be a contentious choice of words, but "not adapted to" is plain fact. Not being adapted to an environment confers disadvantages. Perhaps these disadvantages are minor, certainly in this case they are not lethal (in isolation), but from a healthcare perspective, they are important to take into consideration.

Consider that jumping at every opportunity to scold someone choosing their words unwisely does nothing to actually fight racism, but could indirectly harm those people you are intending to help. After all, why would a true racist care about the health outcomes of the races they ostensibly despise? Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?

Telling people that they "need to adapt or face consequences" would be even more dangerous than pointing out that they aren't adapted.

Of course that's a highly uncharitable representation of what you propose, but you would have to expect that kind of treatment.

It can be mentioned as a footnote, because it is scientific fact.

However, given the vastly higher death rates among people with darker skin, it should be shouted from the rooftops.

Unfortunately, this would put into question the narrative that anything but systemic racism may be to blame.

Furthermore, pointing out that people with darker skin are not adapted to live up north could easily be misconstrued as an anti-immigration stance.

“Far-right quacks are pushing unproven treatment for COVID” makes for a juicy headline.

So, who wants to be the first to put their reputation on the line?

The article goes into what makes it fast on general purpose code in the bottom half. Mainly, it's the better out-of-order execution that is possible with a large ROB, and how this wouldn't work as well on X86.

Your points don't explain why at 3Ghz this chip can outperform 5Ghz chips in single-threaded workloads. Using a 5nm process can give you more cores and less power usage, but it won't improve IPC. The DDR4 is faster than average, but you can get those kinds of speeds on enthusiast PCs and it doesn't make a big difference there.

Look at tax/insurance burden in all these developed and aging countries. Most of that money is going towards paying off the older generations, their ailments and their debt, and it's still not enough, debt just keeps growing.

Then look at the tax/insurance burden of developing countries. Sure, these people earn nominally less, but they often live relatively better lives. They're living lives closer to what our boomer parents lived.

Real estate prices are a distraction. These are high because interest rates are low. It's probably not a good idea to buy real estate even if you can afford it.

The loss of EITC affects low incomes.

The mortgage deduction affects anyone with a "large" mortgage, but at current housing prices "large" is becoming the norm.

There's a big conflict of interest between the walled garden and supporting a good PWA experience on iOS. As a result, you have buggy, limited and brittle Web APIs instead of native device APIs.

Users also don't really understand PWAs, they're used to getting things from the App store. The installation routine is cumbersome. Storing local data reliably is not possible.

So you ship a "native" App with a web view, but if you follow the terms of the App store guidelines to the letter, you can not update the app bundle through the web, and you can not use native APIs. It's the worst of both worlds.

It might be an acceptable compromise, but if you want to give your users the best experience, it's not a viable path and likely never will be.

Indeed, it's a very comprehensive list, helping you identify narcissists wherever you need them.

14 ways to confirm your bias of being the victim in any situation.

Why did you move the goalpost towards "innovation"? If you're on an H1B visa, you're probably contributing to some company attempting to be innovative. If not, who cares? The economy doesn't run on innovation alone.

This isn't really a concern when at the same time the people wishing to immigrate vastly outnumber the people accepted for immigration, as evidenced by the yearly limit for most visas being reached within days.

The idea that immigration is declining due to social and political issues lacks perspective.

Despite all the rhetoric, the US is high among the most equitable, least racist, safest and politically free countries in the world.

If immigration regulation were relaxed, there would be a flood of well-educated people from China, India and many other nations.

On the other hand, immigrants from western Europe don't have much to gain from moving the the US. They basically would be trading higher salaries for higher expenses.

I would argue that gold also derives most of its value from speculation, not its physical properties. There are metals with even more favorable properties that are even scarcer, yet they are valued less.

Platinum for instance was at one point considered the level "above gold", but it has since been overtaken. Gold simply is the better brand. It's the same for Bitcoin versus all other digital currencies.

> But it's not really useful for now, people buy it only for speculation.

Speculation itself is useful. Bypassing the financial system is useful.

A price of $18,000 per unit of Bitcoin might sound ridiculous, but it needs to be considered that the market cap of Bitcoin, representing most of the world's cryptocurrency market, is only $200 billion. That is comparable to the assets of a medium-sized US bank.

> It might be a good short term solution but long term it certainly isn't.

It is only a temporary solution - unless it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY7nx5Z6Kzo

The PCR thresholds are chosen to minimize false negatives, not false positives. A sample that required 30+ replication cycles is unlikely to come from a person that is infected/infectious, yet it would be counted as "positive". The thresholds are derived from experiments under lab conditions, providing a safe lower bound.

That does put into question the validity of counting PCR test positives as a benchmark of viral load among the population, but as a safety measure for potentially infected individuals, the trade-off is worthwhile.

> This study says live virus has only been confirmed to be seen for at most 9 days. However, (presumably inactive) virus particles can be shed for months afterwards and can show up as PCR positive.

The paper cites 34 replication cycles as the lower bound to obtain viable viral cultures. Whether a PCR test is reported as "positive" depends on the chosen replication cycle threshold (Ct value). As far as I'm aware, this "magic number" is usually chosen to be 35.

Beyond that, it is possible to do more cycles to demonstrate the existence of trace amounts of PCR fragments, but such a test would not be considered "PCR positive".

The PCR test amplifies RNA fragments. If after a certain amount of replication cycles the amount of detected RNA crosses a threshold, it is considered a positive.

A positive PCR test does not imply infectiousness. Many people who have a positive test are not just asymptomatic, they are not really infected to begin with.

A negative PCR test does not rule out disease. Some people who have a clinical diagnosis of COVID may produce a negative PCR result.