scarab92

36 ms·

361.
by scarab92 2y ago
Interesting that they call out the extortionate egress fees from the majors as a motivation, but are nevertheless also charging customers $0.10 per GB themselves.
362.
by scarab92 2y ago
Wood for earthquake resistance vs masonry for fire resistance seems like a false dichotomy. Australia has a lot of experience with building fire resistant homes, and they didn’t do it with masonry, they did it with timber and steel framed h
363.
by scarab92 2y ago
I’d also be interested to understand what Blue Origin’s proposition is? Does it have a capability advantage over SpaceX? A cost advantage?
364.
by scarab92 2y ago
A PhD is really just a project in an academic setting. There’s likely little real world difference in capability between someone with first class honours and a year in industry, than first class honours plus a PhD.
365.
by scarab92 2y ago
I just wish it had columnstore support.
366.
by scarab92 2y ago
> comes across as another conservative Graham endorsed Harris. The left needs to stop accusing other members of the left of being "far-right" everytime they dare to have a different opinion on a topic. That tendency of the left
367.
by scarab92 2y ago
Graham has always strongly opposed censorship, group think, purity spirals etc.
368.
by scarab92 2y ago
Profit caps in general are a bad idea, and should only be considered in a near complete absence of competition. In insurance the problem is even worse, because you can’t compute what a reasonable profit cap is. Because of tail risks, you of
369.
by scarab92 2y ago
California needs to get rid of its price controls on insurance, so that people building in high risk areas are exposed to the true costs of the risks they are taking, and have appropriate incentives to build to the conditions.
370.
by scarab92 2y ago
Climate change is real, but people are vastly overstating the magnitude of its effect. This is simply a fire prone region, and this was inevitably going to occur at some point, with or without climate change. The government should have been
371.
by scarab92 2y ago
Maybe I’m not asking the right questions, but I consistently find that I get “Yes” answers in these calls, that turn out to actually be “No” in practice. I think the problem is that we rarely want to know “can you meet this use case”, but r
372.
by scarab92 2y ago
I suspect individuals capable of being tech leaders are also capable of holding less partisan opinions. I suspect most don’t really see themselves as a Democrat or a Republican, but individuals with their own principals, which makes it easi
373.
by scarab92 2y ago
Hazard reduction burns need to occur on all land which is at risk of burning, whereas wildfires actually only occur on a small proportion of the land surrounding a population center each year. The result is much more smoke being emitted ove
374.
by scarab92 2y ago
Perhaps worth mentioning that Australia is doing less fuel reduction burns than in the past, especially near major urban centres with unfavourably wide directions. Fuel reduction burning often requires blanketing millions of people with car
375.
by scarab92 2y ago
Why do you think that? Congestion pricing is a way to price an externality, which is usually a good thing compared to externalities being free.
376.
by scarab92 2y ago
Deciding on the accuracy of claims is difficult. We have complicated and lengthy judicial processes that attempt this, and they still make frequent mistakes. Saying it’s okay to defame people with an “allegedly” disclaimer and relying on th
377.
by scarab92 2y ago
They are making a special case by mentioning that it was a cyber truck. Normally they don’t mention the make/model other than in passing. This time they not only mentioned it, it became their headline, and they claimed it exploded when
378.
by scarab92 2y ago
I would like them to refrain from naming people until/unless they are actually convicted. Heck, I would probably go a step further and update defamation laws to make publishing allegations (legal or otherwise) considered equivalent to
379.
by scarab92 2y ago
A good litmus test is whether they refer to what happened at the Trump hotel in Vegas as a “Cybertruck Explosion”. Obviously, the vehicle itself did not explode, the explosives packed into the truck bed did. It’s deliberately misleading lan
380.
by scarab92 2y ago
It’s not clear to me why vitamin/fructose ratio would even be important? Generally vitamins aren’t helpful unless you were deficient, which is uncommon in western diets.
381.
by scarab92 2y ago
I doubt it will happen in 10 years, but I think there’s a good chance it will happen. The economics of new nuclear improve significantly if you’re willing to build many at once, and repeal a few key low benefit but high cost regulations. Th
382.
by scarab92 2y ago
The examples given in the article are quite egregious, and the authors of those pieces are not notable. SciAm nonetheless made the decision that those particular opinions should be published under their banner, and it’s not clear on what ba
383.
by scarab92 2y ago
Just another reminder that journalists aren’t experts in any domain other than journalism. Stop looking to them for credible analysis.
384.
by scarab92 2y ago
Well, no expert would have figured out the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s. There’s no test for this. The only it was detected was by studying a weak association after decades of use. The same is likely to be true for all other pest
385.
by scarab92 2y ago
No, I’m saying we shouldn’t be so quick to jump to banning things without a clear reason. This thread is full of people suggesting Facebook be banned from behaving this way based on little more than gut-feel. They aren’t even capable of giv
386.
by scarab92 2y ago
Most new inventions have good outcomes and bad outcomes. The benefit of letting them play out for a while is that you can see how things ultimately turn out, and cherry pick the aspects that are worth keeping, decide what aspects are worth
387.
by scarab92 2y ago
Society benefits from allowing new inventions then banning those that turn out to be harmful, once the harm is clear. The result is that you keep the good inventions and discard the harmful ones. What people are proposing here is to preempt
388.
by scarab92 2y ago
It’s always going to be easier to ban every new invention. But public policy shouldn’t be based on what’s easiest, it should be based on what’s best for society, and that requires considering the trade offs. Right now there’s no evidence th
389.
by scarab92 2y ago
People are talking about banning something, when they can’t even outline a real harm that the ban is intended to avoid. If that’s the threshold, then we are genuinely talking about banning everything by default.
390.
by scarab92 2y ago
How is that any different to banning it upfront and Facebook continuing to do it anyway? Australia’s leverage against a US company is the same whether they try to enact a ban now or later.

More ›