fasterik

37 ms·

451.
by fasterik 3y ago
Sure, scientists can continue to debate the fine points of these issues. The evidence doesn't hinge on the two lineages argument. The following review paper lists a bunch of other reasons why a zoonotic spillover is more likely includi
452.
by fasterik 3y ago
>They still have not presented a lie or an irrational thought by pointing out these risks. That's not true. In the context of these discussions, the risks are almost always brought up as evidence that you shouldn't get vaccin
453.
by fasterik 3y ago
Because the concerns around vaccines are rarely proportional to the risks. For example, the likelihood of getting myocarditis from the vaccine is 1 in 15,000. That is roughly the same as the likelihood of being struck by lightning at least
454.
by fasterik 3y ago
>If 90% of people agree to a position to appease a few people in power, then it's not really consensus, it's coercion. It's a pretty big assumption to assume that's the reason why scientists outside of China belie
455.
by fasterik 3y ago
From the linked Cornell article: >...it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a
456.
by fasterik 3y ago
I assume you're implying it doesn't belong on HN because it's not technical in nature? I just scanned the first 2 pages of HN and found these: A Woman Behind Borges The history and context of Aleksandr Afanasev’s obscene R
457.
by fasterik 3y ago
Git works well enough for projects that are essentially similar to the Linux kernel, i.e. it's designed to be used by programmers working primarily on text files. For projects that have non-technical people collaborating with programme
458.
by fasterik 3y ago
You mean this isn't a website for lambda calculus enthusiasts?
459.
by fasterik 3y ago
>Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways. This seems too black and white. Don't their customers get value from having source code available, even if there are restrictio
460.
by fasterik 3y ago
I don't think the designer is the authority on whether a design is good or not. Just like a novelist, director, or composer doesn't get to dictate whether their output was creatively successful. Paul Graham's essay on taste s
461.
by fasterik 3y ago
Nobody is forcing anybody to take depression medication. The fact that it's there for people who are suffering and feel that they need it is a good thing. True, depression is a complex phenomenon, and I don't think any good doctor
462.
by fasterik 3y ago
Isn't "reasoning" a functional property though? If from the outside it performs all the functions of reasoning, it doesn't matter what is happening inside of the black box. Here's a silly example I thought of. We ca
463.
by fasterik 3y ago
This isn't me giving advice since you're probably more experienced than me. My perspective and belief, however, is that you gain in-depth knowledge by going down layers of abstraction. Instead of using an RDBMS, write a database f
464.
by fasterik 3y ago
It won't take decades if we invest sufficient resources. It takes about 5 years to build a nuclear reactor, but you can build a bunch of them in parallel. The real problem is opposition to nuclear by the general public, not the technol
465.
by fasterik 3y ago
OOP was a mistake. Functional programming has some interesting ideas, but it's not useful in practical applications. Procedural programming is the simplest and fastest way to make the computer do things.
466.
by fasterik 3y ago
If you look at some of the other comments, "changing the way we live and organize society" for some people means depopulation and returning to a hunter gatherer way of living. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
467.
by fasterik 3y ago
Excellent points. Many people forget that human population is going to peak by about 2100. The "humans are not separate from nature" point is something most people don't believe, but it's perfectly intuitive if you zoom
468.
by fasterik 3y ago
Cutting consumption isn't the only way to reduce emissions. The other way is to change the type of energy fueling the consumption with clean energy. It seems to me like it would be a lot easier to build a bunch nuclear reactors than it
469.
by fasterik 3y ago
>But under no configuration is modern life sustainable for 8 billion people, energy, living space, and raw materials wise, so this situation is going to keep drawing down the reservoir until there is a brutal correction. We can fit far
470.
by fasterik 3y ago
The problem with the term "silver bullet" when used in these discussions is that it's used to dismiss any proposal for a technological solution. I can flip that around and say "a societal silver bullet would be cool but
471.
by fasterik 3y ago
I think random/fuzz testing is far more effective than unit testing. I pretty much don't write individual test cases anymore. I write a test that throws random data at a system or does random operations on it. Combined with a libe
472.
by fasterik 3y ago
Yes, and when you multiply per capita by population, you end up with China and India emitting over double what the United States emits. There is also the delta to take into account. Industrialized countries are decarbonizing and switching t
473.
by fasterik 3y ago
>Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy... How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere?
474.
by fasterik 3y ago
I'm not saying it's a magic fix, I'm saying it's a really hard problem that we can solve if we put the resources and brain power into it. But some people apparently think that even trying to solve the problem is pointles
475.
by fasterik 3y ago
>far fewer people Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights or "cleansing" populations?
476.
by fasterik 3y ago
Oh, I'm all for reducing consumption of useless crap. Personally I don't buy many things, most of my spending goes toward food and books. I thought we were talking about energy "consumption", not consumption of material
477.
by fasterik 3y ago
My argument is that your point isn't based in reality. How is changing my lifestyle going to fix the problem when most of my power consumption is fueled by renewables, while most of the carbon emissions over the next 50 years are going
478.
by fasterik 3y ago
It's because they're industrializing, have higher population growth, and are primarily building coal power plants to keep up with it.
479.
by fasterik 3y ago
Carbon emissions per capita is going down in developed countries. It's going up in developing countries. Your implication was that the current problem is the level of consumption in the richest countries. But in reality that only accou
480.
by fasterik 3y ago
>That is why discussions around such technological silver bullets are always toxic: people want to believe. On the flip side, some people reject technological solutions on principle because for them, it's not about solving problem

More ›