sinxoveretothex

11 ms·

31.
by sinxoveretothex 9y ago
There's a big difference between not reading everything related to a topic and not even doing the most basic cursory search. Have you never heard of 'how to ask questions the smart way'? Notice how I'm not linking to a
32.
by sinxoveretothex 9y ago
Well, seeing as the nomenclature is not the parent commenter's but Bezos's and seeing as how it's literally explained in the third paragraph of the link said commenter gave, I think there's little to explain.
33.
by sinxoveretothex 9y ago
Here's a thought: the reason for the difference is due to how New World cities were artificially made rectangular whereas the Old World cities have a concentric circles growing out feel to them. Go on Google Maps and look at a city lik
34.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Nobody owes it to you to make sure you keep surviving. Imagine yourself back in a time where a flood or some random "act of god" could destroy your harvest and make it so you and your whole family died of hunger through no fault o
35.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
In a hypothetical world where evolution doesn't care about morals and therefore doesn't make sure to only create differences in morally insignificant features, how would you be able to tell what is "systemic discrimination&qu
36.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Well, what the OP said is not as clear as you make to be. He did give an anecdote as evidence, but the claim he was justifying was that: > This kind of observation ("high status women are more likely to leave for family reasons ther
37.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> Discrimination leads to bias. What do you mean by bias? As far as I can tell, in the context of gender differences, either the bias IS the discrimination or it is the cause of the discrimination, but I can't make heads or tails of
38.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> However, all the evidence we have now points to a long history of discrimination. I don't know if you're saying that "the juice is made with 100% real oranges" (A) or if you're saying that "the juice is 10
39.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> what evidence do we have to believe that we haven't made some of the same mistakes in classifying pseudoscience in the present? The uncomfortable thing is that this can cut both ways. Things can and do get rejected because it does
40.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Indeed, technical error on my part. The parent commenter is only "most likely wrong" given the psychological literature on this is most likely right. Some of it you can prove to yourself by experiment such as by following along th
41.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> That's the problem: we can't even say that. The paper you cite says that most published research is false. You infer from this that published research is no better than no source. But this is wrong! If published research is t
42.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
I don't know if it is whataboutism. If the rich lawyer complains, is it whataboutism to point out worse suffering? It seems to me that Warren Buffett could refuse to do philanthropy on the grounds that he has much less money than Gates
43.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
I like the way you frame privilege. I've heard it expressed in almost the same terms before, but maybe it's a combination of you expressing it less emotionally and me being more receptive to the message in the first place. And thi
44.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
For what it's worth, I think your position is fair and the whole 'sealioning' people are strawmanning your argument. I think your 'error' here was approaching a topic that is [post-facto] obviously sensitive in a no
45.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
These were not on Autopilot, but human-operated maneuvers. Why would Autopilot have a warning for frontal collisions but not for rear collisions? And why would Autopilot be speed-limited and all that if it was able to use launch mode to avo
46.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
I've just read through the article: what do you see as 'dirty' about the salars? The fact that workers wear masks?
47.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
If what you say is true (that at least some members of the royal family are moderates who would change things for the better if they could), then it seems to me we should be broadcasting harsh criticism of the current policies to sway more
48.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
This is a very ironic comment coming from someone named 'xkcd-sucks'.
49.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> That's because if the idea gets around that demand is going to peak, they won't be able to borrow the gigantic amounts of capital they need to keep drilling new wells. Alternative hypothesis: it's simple denial, much lik
50.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Humans are not the primary source in the tricky sense that someone looking to deny the evidence couldn't deny. But they are the primary source of the net emissions or, in other words, the increase of CO2 levels. It's a bit like if
51.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Well, if by that you mean that people dying in countries which are low polluters happen to belong to the same species as the biggest polluters, then yes. But in the grand scheme of things, we can't rely on such a mechanism, because the
52.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> Software modification has a lot of visibility, especially since Teslas log everything What I mean by visibility is that you can't fudge it, that reality is plainly visible to all actors. Income is not visible directly (although wh
53.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> You may weld spikes on your car to keep prying eyes away if you wish, but when you inevitably impale someone, Ford will not be liable. Because it will be obvious that it was modified, even to journalists, the public and a jury of your
54.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Kind of. There's a lot of different machine learning approaches, but at least with neural networks, you essentially have a black box (the network) that you feed inputs into and it spits out which category it gets classified into. When
55.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
I think you have to try to put yourself in the mind of someone who is receptive to conspiracy theories when replying to people like above. What you said makes sense, but it is only convincing if you already trust the scientific institutions
56.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> You see, cancer was a tiny spot on radar just 50 years ago. Or 100 even more. So the question is - what happened? Have we somehow changed overnight as a spices? No we haven't. First, variety is the species of life. Second, the rea
57.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated total captial costs for nuclear power at $5.4k per kW. Matches what I found here: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/xls/table1.xls (5.
58.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
3.6 trillions is a lot of money if you intend to bulk buy all of it at once today, but comparatively less over, say, 10 years. US GDP is around 18 trillion/year, 2% of the GDP is a lot, but it's certainly realizable. Besides, it i
59.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
It is possible, at least in principle, to transition to only using solar for example. Musk gave the example, when unveiling the Powerwall, that to power the whole of the US would only require the whole Texas Panhandle to be covered in panel
60.
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
I don't know if you remember, but youtube used to be ordered by time of commenting and it was terrible: so many videos had 'FRIST!!1!' comments (yes, multiple of them) My guess is that it's just impossible to regulate. T

More ›