ya_throw

Yet the current zeitgeist is "Trust the experts, fool!"

We never frikkin learn.

Damage useless things? Seriously though, practice and experience are necessary, go and get some! Sadly that sometimes also includes learning how to figure out when you're out of your depth, which can be an annoying lesson to learn when you break something nice.

Exactly this - camming out as a protective feature is hugely over-blown and possibly totally false. In my experience, only the very cheapest of cheese-grade screws (a la Aliexpress) chew up without camming out.

It's supposed to be much harder to cam out with JIS, unless you try to use a Philips screwdriver on a JIS screw (which will most definitely cam out and chew up). I treated myself to a JIS screwdriver, for the rare occasions I adjust my (Japanese) bicycle groupset.

JIS, as far as I know, is the technically superior cross-head design.

Torx can take more torque than a hex (due to the much smaller driving angle at the tool/bolt contact point). Bolts that take the same torque can thus have a thinner head.

It might be a technique thing, although you are correct that those maligned "modern" screw designs do not strip as easily.

It is crucial to get the right type and size of screwdriver - look for the markings on the screw to differentiate Philips from Pozidrive (mixing them up will chew up screws). Give a test wiggle before trying to turn the screw - there should be minimal slop, and the bit shouldn't immediately try to "cam out".

Apart from that, the trick is maximal downward force. Push the screwdriver into the screw as you're turning - most cross-head designs will try to "cam out" due to tapered sections of the interface, and that's what chews up the screws. I rarely strip screw heads, even on cheap consumer products.

Wish it was possible to know how they define a Covid hospitalisation. Here in the UK, it literally means "someone admitted to hospital who tested positive for Covid".

It sounds plausible, as the AHS definition of a Covid death is:

"A death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose). A Medical Officer of Health or relevant public health authority may use their discretion when determining if a death was due to COVID-19, and their judgement will supersede the above criteria. A death due to COVID-19 may be attributed when COVID-19 is the cause of death or is a contributing factor."

Could you share that table?

Here's that data for the UK (in section 4): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

Maybe the unvaxxed 25 year olds where you live are spectacularly unhealthy.

> "billionaire progressives" (the oxymoron that flies over everyone's head)

The term accurately conveys the hypocrisy at the heart of US "Progressivism".

You are right about excess deaths, and once again, I am very grateful that the UK makes this data publicly available. I always struggle to find this kind of information for the US.

As for issues with healthcare - this is very pertinent for me here in the UK, as "protect the NHS" was the mantra for almost everything we've done since March 2020. It would seem that one of the side-effects of Covid restrictions (esp. as they apply to healthcare) is that, despite all of us sacrificing so much to "protect" our health service, and despite the NHS admitting record low numbers of patients since March 2020 (the data is publicly available), it has collapsed anyway.

Yes, that is a good enough summary of my position.

I'm not too familiar with data and methods related to Covid deaths in the US, but here's a breakdown of deaths with Covid from the UK for 2020:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...

The deaths with Covid for the above 65 age group outweigh those in the below 65 group by 10:1 (and continue to drop exponentially with age).

Even with the large elderly and frail populations in the Western countries we inhabit, and the (frankly) enthusiasm for counting deaths as Covid deaths [1], the absolute number of Covid deaths is also still relatively small. It's certainly nowhere near the scale of the great historical pandemics, nor does the disease itself present as much of a horror as diseases that ran rampant within living memory - for example, smallpox.

[1] Early in 2020, medical guidance in the UK was changed such that it became significantly easier to record any viral respiratory death as Covid, the requirement for a confirming test was removed, and the requirement for a cornonary investigation was also removed. I can link the documents if required.

Good observation.

a) will be forever unknowable, although we can make some broad observations across various countries' responses to Covid and the overall outcome. EG: Australia has had strict lockdowns since March 2020, yet their cases are now spiking horribly (as I've heard so many times, with deaths lagging a few weeks). Where I live (Wales, UK) has had a mask mandate since September 2020. We were not allowed other people in our houses from March 2020 till mid-2021. Most places of entertainment have been closed around half the time, etc etc. Yet our observed outcome is objectively terrible.

All I can say is that my subjective experience has been dominated by the side-effects of Covid restrictions. I personally know only one person who has had anything more than relatively minor symptoms from Covid. I accept that my experience is probably biased in one direction, but I doubt there are comparatively many people whose life has been dominated by Covid itself.

b) is a contentious subject, and our inability to discuss it shows that we have become too detached from the reality of life and death as a society. Tell me - is it better that a young child has been correctly "isolated" in their room for many days, and told that it's necessary so they don't kill anyone with Covid, and grows up into a disturbed adult, or that an elderly person with several chronic health issues dies a year or so earlier than "expected"?

Death is not the worst thing.

As I said in another reply to you, the subject of discussion here is statistics and modelling, and it is very relevant because so many restrictions and new laws have been justified using modelled outcomes.

>as if the virus doesn't even exist in your mind

I suppose you'd go on to say I've "done my own research on Facebook", I'm an anti-vaxxer, etc etc. The virus is real. Our response has been vastly overblown and will continue to have have disproportionally massive side-effects (in my opinion). Those side-effects will mostly hurt others I care about (as I have described in all of my comments). Strange that complaining at all about the effects of restrictions, even when it is mostly about others or wide-reaching societal problems, makes me "selfish" or "privileged".

>You're comparing having buildings in your town blown up.... to be told to social distance

I very specifically didn't. I compared the overall societal outcome, to those other singular events.

>Your comment reeks of entitlement and privilege.

Yours reeks of poor reading comprehension and sweeping assumptions, as well as an inability to comprehend the scale of the different experiences different people have had under Covid restrictions. In my previous comment, you'll note that most of my concerns are for others, and for the society I live in as a whole. I don't know why I bother, as once again I am branded "selfish", "entitled", etc etc. In fact, due in part to the choices I and my close family have made over the past two years, it looks like we are going to do just fine. I absolutely cannot say the same for some of those I know. A close friend who recently had their first child has essentially had a mental health breakdown (I suspect, due to a mix of pre-existing inclinations, and the stress of being a first time parent under Covid restrictions), and due to the state they are now in, are refusing any external help at all.

The sheer number of stories like this will become more widely known in due course, and defending lockdown-style policies will become less and less palatable.

You've made my point - the overall outcome post-Covid is comparable to a handful of other singular events in our history. I strongly believe that the ramifications of what we have done will take years to play out, but I accept that is just my opinion.

My kids are not having too much screen time. My complaint is that Covid restrictions have made the already-tough job of being an accountable, responsible parent almost impossible. Screen time is just the tip of the iceberg. You talk about sleeping in bomb shelters - how many kids have been told they now carry a disease that could kill if they get too close to someone, and what will that do to their mental and social development? How many parents now believe this justifies what would previously be called child abuse? Many of the ones I know, that's for sure.

At one time, it was considered brave to hug a HIV-positive person (and when the risks were unknown). Now, we selfishly impose social restrictions on those closest to us, to reduce an already-tiny level of personal risk.

I don't know about things where you live, but where I am (UK, and more specifically Wales, where we have taken restrictions to an absurd degree), most major Covid restrictions have been justified as a necessary response to modelled data.

The OP, and indeed the article linked, is on the topic of modelling and statistics, so that is the subject of discussion.

That is a very understated way to describe one of the single biggest upheavals in life and culture in the history of Western civilisation.

FWIW, a significant part of the "inconvenience" as a parent of two very young kids comes from my refusal to accept that putting kids in front of screens for extended and frequent sessions is an acceptable compromise when balancing the pressures of life under Covid restrictions. Apparently, most people have decided this is ok, along with other horrors like enforcing isolation requirements on young children.

>hiding behind a curtain of statistics.

If there's one thing that Covid has taught us, it's that The Modelling is a vengeful God who must be appeased with many sacrifices.

Sounds like a lot of work for moving lightly-formatted text files around. Also, essentially no-one wants it. What people want (whether they know it or not) is the latest shiny to keep themselves distracted.

>If they don't turn this around then I hope others will step up and reclaim the web!

Have you any idea how complex a browser needs to be? I hope this team of plucky, idealistic coders can keep up with all the latest and greatest web developments devised by the thousands of engineers at Google et al.

The web as an open, human-sized system is dead.

They also undervolt their cards, because it's more efficient.

>Solid state electronics was supposed to mean longer life for everything.

Sorry to be cynical, but says who? The marketing department? Product lifecycle is a function of engineering design, and not necessarily material choice. A Detroit Diesel engine will run basically forever, yet I would be surprised if many of the newest electronic "no moving parts" widgets will last more than a few years. If fewer moving parts is inherently more reliable, then ask an EV owner why charging points are so frequently broken. After all, they only have one moving part!

The last few days before the Anti Singularity will be terrible. We will be desperately trying to complete the next generation of engineering designs, while our current systems crumble and age before our very eyes.

I said "pseudo-anonymous", and by that I meant, there's no way to know which disparate online identities relate to which humans. As a consequence, I personally don't assume that anyone online particularly relates to a human.

I would go so far as to now say that, on the largest social scales, anonymous and pseudo-anonymous online communication is causing the biggest problems. This includes scenarios like Facebook friends who you think are people you know and website comment sections with plausible-looking people.

>The real problem is even understanding who the enemy is, or how they will decide to abuse this information.

I'm quite sure that state-sponsored online warfare, both psychological and through system intrusion, is very active, and we are losing because we don't even know where or what is happening.

>"Ignore the Human Factor at your peril"

Indeed. Why bother with weapons (kinetic AND cyber) at all, when the both the spread and the pseudo-anonymous nature of online communication has left the thoughts, desires and opinions of the Western world wide open for study and manipulation.

I used to have strong opinions about the necessity for a fully free, open, anonymous, untracked, etc etc, internet. However, from a national security point of view, countries like Russia and China have it right. Why would you allow the above to happen to your citizens?

It will continue until we become unable to mass-manufacture ever more powerful yet cheaper media consumption devices. Then we will be screwed.

And?

Where I live (Wales), total ICU usage right now is 77%. The absolute numbers are very small. If you want to make an argument that people should not add an un-necessary burden on the health services, then why restrict the discussion to Covid?

>This lack of meritocracy is not considered or portrayed as bad

Oh no, it must continue until historical wrongs are righted!

>that study is for adults

Given the incredible age-based disparity in severity of Covid, I wonder if any of those results (such as they are) are even applicable to our discussion.

What's new is deliberately destroying a generation's future potential, for a disease that barely affects them. What's also new is that the repercussions of our collective response to this disease will be felt long after Covid fades to another endemic sniffle.