jefftk

32 ms·

481.
by jefftk 3y ago
Sounds like it! Though also closer to 15y than 10y old, which explains some of the difference.
482.
by jefftk 3y ago
They could have made a new one and launched that instead. The Hubble cost, up through launch, was $6.6B in today's dollars. [1] Making a second one would have been expensive, but less than that since you can reuse the design, softwar
483.
by jefftk 3y ago
I've found KBB valuses a bit low for used cars since the pandemic, FWIW. Did you buy your Prius at the beginning of the pandemic? There was a brief period when cars got super cheap (no one was buying anything, sellers were desperate)
484.
by jefftk 3y ago
Google committed to removing support for cross-site tracking (which here is being confusingly called "cookies") because other browsers were implementing it as a privacy measure. They've taken a long time to do it because the
485.
by jefftk 3y ago
In addition to being narrower than cookies it's also broader: they're phasing out all shared client-side storage in a third-party context. Imagine if a.example and b.example both iframed in a page from c.example. It doesn't
486.
by jefftk 3y ago
> First party cookies are how you’re authenticated on a website Sure, but they said they were ok with first party cookies on sites they log in to.
487.
by jefftk 3y ago
> I distinctly remember cks as the very guy who recommended ten years as an expiration date on my self-signed certificates Link? In https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/MakingSelf... I
488.
by jefftk 3y ago
That still seems a bit high to me, unless you mean older ones? A ten year old Prius is >$10k here [1] and I don't see $5k until I get back to the 2010 model year (14-15 years old, and starting to get a lot less reliable). [1] http
489.
by jefftk 3y ago
> Otherwise, I can't remember the last time in recent memory when first-party cookies benefitted me in some worthwhile way. A very standard example is when you put something in a shopping cart the site needs some way to record thi
490.
by jefftk 3y ago
> You can get an OK used car for a couple thousand While I agree with the rest of your comment, this sounds several years out of date.
491.
by jefftk 3y ago
> that is also the time when people should be watching the safety video I thought we were talking about the most dangerous parts of a flight, takeoff and landing, which are not when the safety video (or presentation) happens? > Wit
492.
by jefftk 3y ago
If I'm in a shark cage then the probability that matters is conditional on being in a shark cage, sure. And it should certainly be higher than the global probability. But I don't see how this connects to saying that anything tha
493.
by jefftk 3y ago
I'm completely on board with making sacrifices for something greater than oneself, but since there are so many opportunities to make such sacrifices if we don't prioritize we'll spend all our efforts in places where the effec
494.
by jefftk 3y ago
I don't think that LW post says what you think it's saying? It's coining the term "fallacy of large numbers" to apply to the situation where someone is incorrectly asserting their situation has sufficiently large n
495.
by jefftk 3y ago
It sounds like people vary a lot in their preferences? For example, I wouldn't take a $10 cheaper flight which prohibited using my phone, but I probably would take one that gave me a 1" narrower seat.
496.
by jefftk 3y ago
My guess is the number of lives saved by your proposal ("forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings") would be well under one annually, certainly below "hundreds". The total number of plan
497.
by jefftk 3y ago
My next flights are B6 1191 on 2024-01-25 and B6 1192 on 2024-01-28.
498.
by jefftk 3y ago
> Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Huh? Electronics are allowed on flights in most countries, including in Japan, and including on the specific flight we're talkin
499.
by jefftk 3y ago
If you want to make the case for adding additional safety procedures (no distractions during take-offs and landings) then you have to actually make the case . It's not enough to just assert that they seem minor if the benefit would a
500.
by jefftk 3y ago
I think maybe you're under the impression that: 1. Passengers on JL516 were not permitted to use their phones during landing. 2. I'm proposing that we start allowing them to use their phones. 3. If we did that then all 379 passeng
501.
by jefftk 3y ago
I mean, it clearly doesn't work if taken to be literal probabilities. But I think it also doesn't work as a more metaphorical guide to life?
502.
by jefftk 3y ago
This thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohi
503.
by jefftk 3y ago
I agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily objecting to FrustratedMonky claiming that we shouldn't ever chose po
504.
by jefftk 3y ago
My objection isn't that the impact of banning electronics during takeoff and landing is unknowable; that's not the main issue with banning car radios, cars, or bare faces either. Instead it's that the impact is too small to
505.
by jefftk 3y ago
> even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation I think this is rarely a productive way to th
506.
by jefftk 3y ago
But all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?
507.
by jefftk 3y ago
There are huge numbers of opportunities to trade off inconvenience against reduced death. For example, we could prohibit radios in cars because the music and adjustment can be distracting and lead to collisions. Or ban cars entirely since t
508.
by jefftk 3y ago
Where's that number coming from?
509.
by jefftk 3y ago
Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? (I expect if you compare that to the number of people inconvenienced by the rule it's
510.
by jefftk 3y ago
I'm not saying emacs has a low number of users to dunk on emacs: it's my primary editor! I was responding to: > It's somewhat surprising that there isn't more development happening in integrating Large Language Model

More ›