snet0

25 ms·

241.
by snet0 6y ago
The same outcome does not require the same cause.
242.
by snet0 6y ago
> “Lidar is a fool’s errand,” Elon Musk said. “Anyone relying on lidar is doomed. Doomed! [They are] expensive sensors that are unnecessary. It’s like having a whole bunch of expensive appendices. Like, one appendix is bad, well now you
243.
by snet0 6y ago
Reading the title, your expectation should be for an article about a collector , not a collection .
244.
by snet0 6y ago
Yeah absolutely, this is one of the few shots that landed, but it was still a very obvious shot. I qualified "organised" with "somewhat", because nothing in this kind of place is ever really organised, but I mean just lo
245.
by snet0 6y ago
I think if it turns out that (and I have no idea if this could be the case) some of the "key" figures in riling up WSB were holding GME prior, and sold like 2 days ago, that would be a pump-and-dump, right? I'm not totally su
246.
by snet0 6y ago
I think it absolutely wouldn't have. If this wasn't Gamestop, but was some random wheelchair-tech company from MI, I don't think the community would've jumped at the chance. Some of the sentiments from comments are liter
247.
by snet0 6y ago
I think the fact this discussion is so back-and-forth, with nobody being absolutely confident that this behaviour either is or is not market manipulation is interesting. To me, it points out that either a) nobody in these conversations know
248.
by snet0 6y ago
Well, if they say it's not fraud, who am I to say otherwise! Joking aside, the "we just like the stock" "this is not financial advice" stuff is as much a defence as the Someone Who Isn't Me thing I remember see
249.
by snet0 6y ago
> r/WSB isn't commanding people to buy ehhhhhh... I've seen plenty of BUY BUY BUY posts. Unless I'm missing your point. I understand what WSB isn't a corporation or entity in and of itself, but it is still a (som
250.
by snet0 6y ago
> giving it to only 18-55 year old This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited to those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over 70. > the efficacy is not so great While the efficacy numbers indeed look lower t
251.
by snet0 6y ago
> Note that this article is from 2010 Which article? The one above is new.
252.
by snet0 6y ago
Because of the volatility of the stock, I believe. 100->300->200->300 in the space of no time at all. You could've watched the stock just jump all over the place in real-time, pretty much.
253.
by snet0 6y ago
'Pro-LGBT' wasn't meant as corporate-speak, I genuinely just meant it as indicating a positive or even neutral sentiment towards those under the LGBT umbrella. I do agree that "Are you pro-LGBT?" as a question is no
254.
by snet0 6y ago
There isn't any relation other than the word being used. It's not something I ever complained about because I understood that it wasn't offensive in any way and is, like I said, just the response I have to hearing that word.
255.
by snet0 6y ago
I think there's a public/private divide here. You can use whatever language you want with people you know, because you know how they'll react and that it genuinely won't cause offence. In a public space though, I'd
256.
by snet0 6y ago
Being from the UK, I hear it all the time to refer to cigarettes. When I worked in a shop, my colleagues would just walk through the shop and say "just taking a f* break". While it was totally inoffensive, it did make me a bit unc
257.
by snet0 6y ago
I didn't follow the GH drama too closely, especially not on HN, but the "apology" seemed to be very thoughtful and almost exactly what you'd want a company to offer in response to the complaints being made against them.
258.
by snet0 6y ago
My prior for the majority of a reddit-based Discord server community being pro-LGBT is so astronomically low that the usage of that kind of language is unsettling to say the least. I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning people just
259.
by snet0 6y ago
Can you see how rtard is perhaps similar to the homophobic f-slur? The word is used as a pejorative with the implication that the group it is most commonly used towards (disabled, gay) is being used as a point of negative comparison. While
260.
by snet0 6y ago
> don't go much below 1/2 cup of almond Is this just for taste reasons?
261.
by snet0 6y ago
Why not both?
262.
by snet0 6y ago
While I agree with the fundamental, the is-ought divide, I think this paper is basically saying "based on a load of measurements that are obviously goals of our society, criminalisation of drug offences is acting against our own intere
263.
by snet0 6y ago
Full study link https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1...
264.
by snet0 6y ago
It's also possibly just some arcane regex incantation that someone implemented 12 years ago and nobody has been able to decipher it since.
265.
by snet0 6y ago
Just use the 1 line jQuery: const $ = document.querySelector.bind(document)
266.
by snet0 6y ago
I think this runs into an important problem of trying to overly formalise categories, which makes sense for medical usage, but just leads to pedantry in most cases. If some one feels "addicted" to some thing, and almost anyone wou
267.
by snet0 6y ago
But the substance is not the videogame itself, but rather is some complex neurochemistry. By this logic, basically all "drug" addictions are actually instantiations of a more primitive addiction to neurochemicals. Operating at thi
268.
by snet0 6y ago
There's a difference between "Scott, who blogs at slatestarcodex.com" and "Scott, who used to blog before we threatened him, and now can be found only on archive sources".