clairity

43 ms·

451.
by clairity 4y ago
i'm honestly baffled by the cold brew fad, as every cold brew i've tried tastes like the day old, cold coffee that it is, not rich and nuanced like freshly hot brewed coffee. but i'm with you on the grinder. i have the sette
452.
by clairity 4y ago
i know what it is. it's still random internet opinion rather than academic research.
453.
by clairity 4y ago
you're exactly describing medicalization, where relatively common human variation is pathologized so it can be separated and treated, without asking to what ends? a diagnosis becomes an excuse for the inconvenience of having to deal wi
454.
by clairity 4y ago
the likes of foucault and nietzsche would be better source material than random internet opinion for this sort of thing. this is sociopolitical push-pull between the average and the relative outliers--as old as time, just with different jar
455.
by clairity 4y ago
the point is that there's no reason to target speeding specifically. you want to target distractedness, recklessness, and impairment to reduce accidents, thereby obviating the problem with speed exacerbating injury and death. i'm
456.
by clairity 4y ago
i'd take that further a say never have a gun, concealed or not. the chances, even with great training, practice, and discipline, to use it in a way that harms only the perpetrator and no one else, especially not yourself, is fantastica
457.
by clairity 4y ago
that all sounds like well-functioning, pro-social behavior to me. autism, like many "disorders", is keenly overdiagnosed, to create a sociopolitically-mediated norm from which deviance (like "high-functioning" autism) ca
458.
by clairity 4y ago
no, you have to get everyone else to stop drinking and driving, not just yourself, to get that sort of reduction.
459.
by clairity 4y ago
no, if you want to survive a mass shooting, you don’t need to do anything, especially not buy a gun, and your likelihood of not dying by mass shooting stays the same, basically zero. your chances of dying by gun increase much more simply
460.
by clairity 4y ago
speed increases the severity of collisions, but generally doesn’t cause them (most of what we classify as speed-related is really recklessness, which is also typically a misassessment of risk). distractedness, recklessness, and impairment a
461.
by clairity 4y ago
no, speeding hardly changes risk at all, but reckless driving certainly can, but that’s beside the point. the point is that changing your own behavior (i.e., “control”) has a negligible marginal effect on reducing your overall risk. n
462.
by clairity 4y ago
and it’s orders of magnitude higher than 100 drivers on the road with you. you’re doubling down on a misunderstanding of risk. you have no control over most of the situations and circumstances that cause collisions, injury, and death. you n
463.
by clairity 4y ago
the difference is the illusion of control. you can’t talk yourself past raw statistics that way. you might make a marginal difference in risk, but the bulk of the risk is beyond personal control. even with attentiveness, if you’re 1 of 100
464.
by clairity 4y ago
yes, this is a major flaw in their analysis. there's no way to draw a reliable conclusion because the experiment is uncontrolled in this way, among other factors (like the subjective evaluation of candidate quality which was also uncon
465.
by clairity 4y ago
i'm not fond of commenting on hn-as-marketing-channel posts, even if it's within the bounds of the guidelines, but here goes... > "I don't try to assess character because I don't think you can effectively."
466.
by clairity 4y ago
los angeles. i believe we have the highest homeless population in the country with the second largest gdp (over $1T for the greater metro area). our mayor and city council build 16 homeless housing units in a year and slap each other on the
467.
by clairity 4y ago
a few weeks ago, i came out of a neighborhood cafe to find my bike gone. on a hunch, i walked over to a nearby homeless encampment and saw my bike sitting there. i walked up to it, grabbed it, said "that's my bike", cursed th
468.
by clairity 4y ago
death is often not as simple as "you died of dysentery". your liver might fail, and your lungs are full of fluid, and your arteries are clogged. you smoke like a chimney and drink like a fish, while eating like a recently unhibern
469.
by clairity 4y ago
there is no argument there. just an unsupported assertion. just like your comment.
470.
by clairity 4y ago
so where are the heartwrenching anecdotes about heart disease or cancer deaths? otherwise you're just projecting a recency and availability bias. but none of that matters for how we, and especially the press, should have handled the to
471.
by clairity 4y ago
and somehow > "Ars Technica is pretty good, partly because so many of their writers are experts with advanced degrees." passes the test for "real substance"? read both, and any other favored news service. read a small
472.
by clairity 4y ago
ars is part of a $2.5B media empire (advance publications). read any of their covid coverage, and it's pretty baldly fearmongering for clicks. they're not in this business for commonwealth, objective truth-seeking.
473.
by clairity 4y ago
not marine biology.
474.
by clairity 4y ago
no, i'm not. i'm saying that it doesn't matter a single iota. in the few domains where i can plausibly claim more than cursory knowledge, there are plenty of people who i give zero credence to, who otherwise claim "exper
475.
by clairity 4y ago
note that EEGs are a very crude instrument relative the fantastic complexity of the brain. it's like putting a rock on the ground to try to understand geotectonics. it's not nothing, but it's not much at all. i wouldn't
476.
by clairity 4y ago
i don't, especially not on arstechnica of all places. there is active research on the topic but no conclusive evidence that it's any more than a form of negative hawthorne effect and/or hypochondriasis.
477.
by clairity 4y ago
it makes no sense for "a lot of people" to be scared of covid. it makes sense for those at risk (the elderly and those with co-morbidities) to evaluate that risk and take concrete measures (principally vaccination), then move on
478.
by clairity 4y ago
news outlets literally put out millions of stories about covid over the past couple years. do you really believe that that was all factual, objective reporting--that millions of "facts" were being rationally delivered--or were new
479.
by clairity 4y ago
no, that's literally falling for the appeal to authority fallacy. just because a journalist has some experience in a field tells you nothing a priori about how they evaluate other information in the field. you have to evaluate their
480.
by clairity 4y ago
3.5M people died last year in the US. as usual, heart disease and cancer were the overwhelming leaders. covid claimed ~460K, but that's "deaths involving covid", not "from covid". there is no evidence of "perma

More ›