kawhah

5 ms·

1.
by kawhah 3y ago
Nothing is stopping them; this is exactly what people do.
2.
by kawhah 3y ago
The headline says that this year was the largest increase in population since 1962. That increase was 1% or ~600,000 people.
3.
by kawhah 3y ago
It is still small in relation to population change though.
4.
by kawhah 3y ago
> for every fairly executed person we can have up to one wrongly executed person, and that's totally fine? you are confusing two ratios. the number of fairly executed people and the number of guilty people who are acquitted are obvi
5.
by kawhah 3y ago
Have you tried to get ChatGPT to answer questions about factual topics at a level of junior grad student/hobbyist independent researcher? It will generally tell you those things which are known to someone who has neither done detailed
6.
by kawhah 3y ago
It seems odd to treat the suggestion that unnecessary emails cause excessive carbon emisions and the suggestion that unnecessary air travel causes excessive carbon emissions as the same or similar.
7.
by kawhah 3y ago
> so they get flooded by less tech-savy, more casual users that don't really see the value of open source other than they don't pay for it this was solved 30 years ago by an important socio-technical invention called the FAQ, u
8.
by kawhah 3y ago
In the UK, planning started on Hinkley Point in 2010. It was supposed to run at 3 TW by 2020, costing £24 per MWh. It's now 13 years into a process that is projected to complete in another 5 years, eventually producing energy for £90 p
9.
by kawhah 3y ago
> Another is that these people are pretty good at starting shit storms trying to ruin your reputation if you don't comply with their unreasonable demands. If you go on social media and offer your well-thought-out opinions about some
10.
by kawhah 3y ago
So become a contractor, work for an inflated fee for two months. Then take a month off and work for yourself on whatever you want. Or just do nothing, if you prefer that to working on your own projects. Economic injustices and inefficiencie
11.
by kawhah 3y ago
> Most complex, unique, value producing things have a path to monetization for the builder of the thing. I don't think this is true. You need an extra condition 'that few people want to produce'. There is lots of good free
12.
by kawhah 3y ago
Yes, the main reason why people don't do this is because they aren't psychologically ready to find out that the thing which cost them a lot of effort has very little monetary value.
13.
by kawhah 3y ago
What is the evidence for this feeling of entitlement? I use tons of free software. I've never either demanded that anyone work on it for free, nor have I expressed any sense of entitlement or expectation.
14.
by kawhah 3y ago
> You could though, if the mindset of open source software consumers were to shift to 'pay for things you get value from' What if the mindset of producers were to shift? What if people only worked for free on things that they
15.
by kawhah 3y ago
They were built in the past as part of nuclear-weapons-oriented industry of the Cold War. Like many things about nuclear, taking away the need to build weapons changes a lot of the economics around them.
16.
by kawhah 3y ago
My proposal would be to use combined cycle gas turbines to peak renewables until over-installation and storage make that no longer necessary. Gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Modern gas turbines are by far the most efficient way of generati
17.
by kawhah 3y ago
No, I am saying that if a project is open sourced, and there is sufficient demand from people willing to pay for support, maintenance, etc, someone will come along to meet that demand. If there isn't then the original commercial compan
18.
by kawhah 3y ago
If you're prepared to pay market rate for someone to maintain something you should always be able to find someone willing to accept market rate (by definition). This separates the cost of maintenance from costs flowing from rent-seekin
19.
by kawhah 3y ago
the question is whether or not the same would happen with 'conventional' black paints.
20.
by kawhah 3y ago
No, the logarithmic effect bottoms out towards the low part of the scale. If you're somewhere very dark, your eye adjusts so that you get back to the middle of the range. But if you're somewhere light and just looking at black pai
21.
by kawhah 3y ago
Right but 40% of something very small is also very small. If you are experiencing the two blacks in a normal ambient environment around lighting and other non highly light absorbent surfaces, they will look extremely similar.
22.
by kawhah 3y ago
Did you reply to my comment without reading all the way to the end of the sentence?
23.
by kawhah 3y ago
Hmm, no. You rewrite it as key1 = foo/bar key2 = baz/bat a[key1] = b[key2] if (a[key1] == c) I'm sure a coder who understands the context can come up with better names than key1 and key2. edit: or better
24.
by kawhah 3y ago
Thanks, I hate it.
25.
by kawhah 3y ago
So in other words, Black 4.0 'just a paint' is imperceptible from Vantablack using human vision, and the Anish Kapoor thing was just a publicity stunt?
26.
by kawhah 3y ago
It's totally still self dealing. It just avoids being fraud.
27.
by kawhah 3y ago
That model would make sense if you have interesting ideas/culture/tech but are capital constrained. WeWork's problem was the exact opposite - they had an excess of capital and nothing to spend it on except for buying building
28.
by kawhah 3y ago
your attitude to citations seems strange. Scott Anderson simply says, as part of a rant against anti-EA people, that the EA people said that they bought a castle for the right reasons, and that he chooses to believe them.
29.
by kawhah 3y ago
He was one of a few well-known EA whales which people in the community would panhandle from whenever they had an idea for a pet project which they could spin as 'high-impact'. Things like 'an $800,000 foundation to supply fre
30.
by kawhah 3y ago
There's a buyer for everything at the right price. There are tons of big private equity funds and several trillion-dollar fund managers for which buying a 10% stake of a privately held 30 billion dollar startup would just be a question

More ›