gfodor

79 ms·

871.
by gfodor 5y ago
> So, it does not follow that avoiding Covid vaccine for children because the immediate likelihood of death from acute covid is the only issue. I never said it was the only issue. But neither is the only choice to give your kids the curr
872.
by gfodor 5y ago
CDC admits that there has been severe cardiac damage to young people from the mRNA vaccines. This leads to an obvious series of questions: just how dangerous is COVID for children? What mechanism is causing this heart damage? Could heart
873.
by gfodor 5y ago
I'm not anti-vax, the logical train of thought you are incapable of yourself is based on the very factual reality that COVID presents highly variable risk to people based on their age. This, in combination with the known risks of the v
874.
by gfodor 5y ago
people who say the 30 years thing say it generally implying that the failure has been due to humans underestimating the difficulty. when in reality, this is not a justified position, given the lack of funding for fusion. now that we have th
875.
by gfodor 5y ago
What comes next is they crack it in the next 24-36 months and people like you finally are forced to eat some crow.
876.
by gfodor 5y ago
There is. Because kids (basically) don’t die from COVID. The side effect risk, while small, is material in a risk calculation for them, since their entire risk from the disease is small. At a minimum, mandating it for kids (as is openly sta
877.
by gfodor 5y ago
Well, that is one outcome. Another outcome is that they actually try to enforce it and the response undermines the law. Hard to say how to best predict what would happen in this specific case.
878.
by gfodor 5y ago
Perhaps the best way to deal with these laws is to let the ones that turn a few million innocent people into felons overnight pass, vs whittle them down so it’s just a few thousand (eg based on net worth or transaction size.) The former wou
879.
by gfodor 5y ago
It depends. If the content in question could possibly cast doubt that the vaccines are anything but 100% safe as drinking a glass of water, then we go with the twitch streamer, NYT journalists, randos on Twitter, etc. If the content in ques
880.
by gfodor 5y ago
You can’t tell from the outside if you are running a well engineered JS app that would have been fast in another platform, or a non-optimized JS app. My point was that it’s not fundamentally impossible to write fast enough JS code for a gam
881.
by gfodor 5y ago
Not to mention because you often genuinely like them, it is harder to give them negative feedback in many ways, which is a bad feedback loop.
882.
by gfodor 5y ago
It’s not fundamentally impossible to build fast apps in JS. It’s just not possible to do if you don’t do the legwork of writing code that the compiler will optimize for you. It’s not easy, and it’s not natural in a lot of cases, but saying
883.
by gfodor 5y ago
Same thing. It will be passthrough AR like Facebook’s new headset next year. This is a useful thing to grok: https://mobile.twitter.com/GregMadison/status/14539110109144...
884.
by gfodor 5y ago
Not one comment mentioning the thing Apple has an army working on: VR.
885.
by gfodor 5y ago
Avalanche
886.
by gfodor 5y ago
Sure, but you don’t get to choose the consequences. I’m not on Facebook by choice, but I didn’t get to choose to live in the world where this leads to a ton of negative consequences, despite the positives.
887.
by gfodor 5y ago
Try meeting with other people. Particularly people you care about. That’s the value prop, and is why Facebook is all-in. Not because of entertainment.
888.
by gfodor 5y ago
This reminds me of the arguments made against writing “real” code in JavaScript in the early days of the web, until Crockford came along and wrote “The Good Parts.” There is no reason to think that a few idioms and curating features could g
889.
by gfodor 5y ago
What are you drawing your conclusions re: VR from? Have you followed the research and used the hardware? It seems pretty clear we will have VR goggles that feel effectively indistinguishable from real life in terms of fidelity and optics re
890.
by gfodor 5y ago
I was talking about companies in general, and wasn’t suggesting these were likely possibilities for any of them.
891.
by gfodor 5y ago
unixbeard1337, I hate to break it to you, but Zuck is not a complete idiot.
892.
by gfodor 5y ago
The idea of a metaverse of some form or another falls out as a consequence of an assumption that there will be devices people wear that allow software to fully override their visual and auditory experience. These kinds of devices in their m
893.
by gfodor 5y ago
Sure, no doubt. But the arguments fielded on HN as to why these various technologies are dead ends and will implode once people become rational are weak. They're usually from people who literally have never used the technology (or, use
894.
by gfodor 5y ago
> Because people dismiss the latest lofty vision of a tech behemoth No, the reason is because many new technologies are dismissed here not due to technical infeasibility, but because posters cannot understand the point or value propositi
895.
by gfodor 5y ago
Yup HN is legacy at this point. A bunch of old people yelling at clouds. It’s the new Slashdot. So it goes.
896.
by gfodor 5y ago
Photonic override will shepherd in the final computing platform - so its more important than ever we make sure it is free and open, and not laugh it off and ignore it as Facebook walks in and just owns the whole thing.
897.
by gfodor 5y ago
You and I don’t get to choose anything. Don’t shoot the messenger.
898.
by gfodor 5y ago
No, avatarism has nothing to do with Facebook. I helped start the Mozilla Hubs project to help ensure Facebook doesn’t own this.
899.
by gfodor 5y ago
Facebook? Probably. Which is why (among other things) we should be concerned.
900.
by gfodor 5y ago
You didn’t read my article, or you did, and you aren’t understanding anything I wrote. You do have freedom of form, you are just limited in the forms you can change to. You exercise it every time you get a haircut. The question is about wha

More ›