bumby

34 ms·

541.
by bumby 2y ago
I have felt that pull myself, but can't help that even the "gesture of appreciation" is a somewhat hollow and superficial feeling of status. From that standpoint, I don't know that it's all that good of a signal to
542.
by bumby 2y ago
Have the safety statistics been standardized, though? I vaguely remember articles about Waymo doing their own after-action reports and sanitizing their accident data to only keep those accidents that they felt a human would have avoided. Th
543.
by bumby 2y ago
Being generous, I’m maybe in agreement if the word “most” gets some clarification or nuance.
544.
by bumby 2y ago
I’m not sure I buy the premise as it reads as a Libertarian pipe dream. There are just too many examples of people willing to pay for something immoral or unethical to think that transactions can be broadly painted as a net good. Capitalist
545.
by bumby 2y ago
If those are the stronger examples, then you should have went with them. It’s more inline with the HN guidelines than taking the weaker interpretation. I think you missed my point. Because software is more opaque, it has a much higher thres
546.
by bumby 2y ago
Yours is a bit of a strawman, considering drunk driving is illegal. So the appropriate comparison is to unregulated (illegal) buggy software operation. Do I feel more comfortable intuiting the intention of a drunk driver compared to buggy s
547.
by bumby 2y ago
We evolved to intuit other humans intentions and potential actions. Not so with robuts, which makes public trust much more difficult despite the statistics. And policy is largely influenced by trust, which puts self driving at a severe disa
548.
by bumby 2y ago
To elaborate, the failure rate does not change with time, but with some other stressor like temperature. The failure distribution may be modeled as a random process, instead of a time-based one. An exponential failure distribution is an exa
549.
by bumby 2y ago
I misinterpreted the equations of those models based on a paper that stated some corrosion models use a random, rather than time variant process.
550.
by bumby 2y ago
Very true, and car longevity has been steadily increasing. Although, I don’t think the bulk of them failures are attributable to “rotting body panels”. I remember when a car with 100k miles was considered essentially dead, whereas more driv
551.
by bumby 2y ago
Many corrosion models are not time-variant. Eg Eyring and Arrhenius models
552.
by bumby 2y ago
While I suspect you’re right about newer cars because of galvanized steel etc, but I also wonder how much of the contrarian viewpoint is due to sampling bias. Maybe your Acura was just good luck? I’ve had a domestic wagon of similar vintage
553.
by bumby 2y ago
What's the rationale? Is there a performance benefit or nostalgia?
554.
by bumby 2y ago
The geometry was a killer when trying to move it because you couldn't wrap your arms around the thing. When faced with moving one by myself down the stairs to my apartment, I was forced to (carefully) roll it downhill.
555.
by bumby 2y ago
The tough part about radiation itself isn't painful so causality can be hard to ascertain.
556.
by bumby 2y ago
How would you differentiate dogma that is beyond questioning, and that which is doctrine but open to testing and modification?
557.
by bumby 2y ago
It's okay to give yourself some reprieve. People are often not in their right mind when grieving. It's that time of year when It's a Wonderful Life shows up on TV. Have you ever seen the scene in the boardroom just after Jimm
558.
by bumby 2y ago
"Get over it" is rarely helpful in these types of situations because it ignores a lot of what we know about human psychology and how people make decisions. It's like telling someone who's depressed to "get over it&q
559.
by bumby 2y ago
This is one of my biggest takeaways from reading Frank Ostaseski's book "The Five Invitations". He runs a hospice center and has lots of experience helping the dying and those around them. He talks about how being present is
560.
by bumby 2y ago
"It's entirely possible" isn't the way to think about estimating risk because it assumes the risk goal is zero (ie any risk > 0 means the outcome is "possible"). A dose greater than LD50 means "more pro
561.
by bumby 2y ago
Let’s go back to the OP, which asked about coffee. A quick search shows the LD50 for coffee is about 118 cups. At 6 oz per cup, that’s roughly 21 liters. The LD50 for water is listed as 6 liters (below what you’d drink “without significant
562.
by bumby 2y ago
Fair enough, but it seems per clear that the OP was referring to US gal but the math was just off by double.
563.
by bumby 2y ago
I never said randomly selection from the global population. The point still holds, even if sampling from only those who have died from caffeine: the LD1 dose, by definition, is still safe for almost all the population. That’s why arguing ab
564.
by bumby 2y ago
1 gal is about half that (3.8 liters)
565.
by bumby 2y ago
Right, there’s not zero population risk. But for assessing the risk to any randomly sampled person, the risk approaches zero.
566.
by bumby 2y ago
My understanding is the toxic level of caffeine is so high that you’d die of hyponatremia first from the water in coffee before caffeine kills you.
567.
by bumby 2y ago
Tbf, strict causality is very difficult to prove in social sciences, no? Meaning, most of the studies for/against the link between video games and violence can't meet that threshold. Social science isn't physics and I don&#x2
568.
by bumby 2y ago
Is it at least fair to say the data is mixed? Not my field, but there is some research to suggest video games may increase short-term aggression and desensitization to violence. And while industry research doesn’t equate to bad research, it
569.
by bumby 2y ago
I'd be curious the perspective on the downvoters. Smoking increases hazard rates by 3x. Even the extreme obesity (obesity III, formerly morbid obesity) increases hazard rates less than this. So the risk tradeoff for picking up smoking
570.
by bumby 2y ago
We agree that it's always about tradeoffs. I just think there are probably more complex and less transparent (and potentially negative) tradeoffs with ending subsidies if the goal is reducing obesity. It doesn't mean subsidies are

More ›