lovecg

28 ms·

181.
by lovecg 3y ago
Yeah allegedly because Feynman took Oppenheimer’s side while his wife didn’t in the whole debacle.
182.
by lovecg 3y ago
The only thing that gets taken away here is a part of your income by the government. The rest is arguing over how this taken money should be doled out. Something that was not yours to begin with cannot be “taken away”.
183.
by lovecg 3y ago
Link to the study https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/early/2023/08/17/jech-2023... Appears to be a typical “look at dozens of variables and pick the one that turned out to be significant” to my
184.
by lovecg 3y ago
For me, taking the logarithm makes it even more intuitive somehow - the test becomes something like a modifier in an RPG-style game. In your example, the test gives +2 to the possibility of having a disease, a more powerful test could be +3
185.
by lovecg 3y ago
I always assumed it stood for “policy”
186.
by lovecg 3y ago
Ok I see what you’re getting at. Maybe a better way to construct this version of the argument is - every integer > 1 is either a prime or a product of primes (this is easy to show by induction) - assume there’s a finite number of primes
187.
by lovecg 3y ago
Because the law doesn’t work like a set of logical propositions where having redundancy is strictly zero harm. If the law says “no one should be discriminated against; and by the way specifically theogravity should not be discriminated agai
188.
by lovecg 3y ago
> Stating "N has non-zero remainder when divided by each prime less than N" is equivalent to stating "N is prime." This confuses N, the bound on the largest prime, and the number (call it M) that’s the product of the
189.
by lovecg 3y ago
This is a confusing way to present this argument. We can’t say, by assumption we used up all the primes, so the new number must be a new prime - this doesn’t make sense. And you might as well say the new number has some new prime divisors (
190.
by lovecg 3y ago
On that topic, this is a very common misconception about how that proof works. Multiplying all the primes and adding one does not have to be a prime (just try 2 x 3 x … x 13 + 1) - the point is it’s not divisible by any of the supposedly fi
191.
by lovecg 3y ago
“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” “old is gold” “stood the test of time”
192.
by lovecg 3y ago
This seems to be at least part of the complaint if I’m reading it right: > AB 587 thus mandates X Corp. to speak about sensitive, controversial topics about which it does not wish to speak in the hopes of pressuring X Corp. to limit cons
193.
by lovecg 3y ago
Text of the law: > (3) A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories: (A) Hate speech
194.
by lovecg 3y ago
Note that 8 times more massive doesn’t mean it has 8 times surface g, unless it’s exactly the same radius as the Earth. If the planet is larger you’re further away from the center of gravity. For example, the Earth is 10 times more massive
195.
by lovecg 3y ago
For people saying, “oh this is just a reporting requirement and fear mongering over this law is a slippery-slope fallacy”: it would be, except the people behind the law have been repeatedly documented as wanting to jump headfirst down this
196.
by lovecg 3y ago
This seems like an oversimplification of the issue. The people I know who oppose development are all older residents who have lived in the area for decades and want to preserve their way of life. They’re already house rich to the point that
197.
by lovecg 3y ago
I’m with you on nuclear, I’m just pessimistic it’s possible today politically. I wish we all pulled a France back in the 60s, but it seems like the window on that has closed.
198.
by lovecg 3y ago
Yeah as I understand it, 3% extra is on the emission side, some of each is offset by extra absorption in the oceans, etc. so the net increase is smaller. The skeptics have to explain where the increase is coming from if not from human activ
199.
by lovecg 3y ago
Naively this just seems like a tiny fraction of the problem? Say less than 1%? Haven’t looked up the numbers though, I might be way off.
200.
by lovecg 3y ago
I’m encouraged by this graph https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline - hopefully the trend can continue for a while longer!
201.
by lovecg 3y ago
If you record your thermometer readings over decades and average with other rural points across the globe you’ll see the same trend. This is not hypothetical either, we have this from looking at rural airports data for example - all publicl
202.
by lovecg 3y ago
> CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and humanity is only responsible for 3% of its creation That 3% extra per year is enough to tip the scales so that net CO2 in the atmosphere has been growing (don’t need a model for that, it can be
203.
by lovecg 3y ago
Emerging countries have the benefit of modern technology though. They can buy solar panels and batteries instead of coal plants like everyone else. Also surely we do say just that all the time. X=slavery, child labor, etc.
204.
by lovecg 3y ago
Yeah I became convinced over the last couple of years that solar + batteries is pretty much the solution and all the technology is here, everything else (degrowth, nuclear) is a politically infeasible distraction. We need larger scale and f
205.
by lovecg 3y ago
For me it was the profound perspective shift from being a leaf node of a tree so to speak to becoming just one link in a long chain. It tends to relax the do-or-die drive quite a bit.
206.
by lovecg 3y ago
Case in point.
207.
by lovecg 3y ago
“In America we have freedoms. I can stand in front of the White House and shout, ‘President Truman is a moron!’” “Big deal, it’s the same here. I can also stand in the middle of the Red Square and shout ‘President Truman is a moron’”.
208.
by lovecg 3y ago
A World War 3 is definitely one way to cut emissions and save the Earth. It seems more likely than the world working together on a reasonable plan.
209.
by lovecg 3y ago
It’s really up to China and, increasingly, India at this point. The Western countries are not emitting much anymore so the impact here is limited.
210.
by lovecg 3y ago
The phase shifts in huge dynamic systems are fascinating. The Earth can look more or less the same for millions of years (with minor variations), then an extreme event happens and the world is completely transformed, never to return to a pr

More ›