zaroth

93 ms·

451.
by zaroth 4y ago
Who said anything about 1/2 a horsepower? I’m talking about the most powerful pump in the universe, both (known and unknown). How far up an unbreakable column can that pump push the water? And then, what if you make it just a little mo
452.
by zaroth 4y ago
It predates them. Wait for v6, or maybe they’ll do a v5.1 Beta.
453.
by zaroth 4y ago
You’re missing the fundamental difference in the power vs distance curve. In the case of sucking water, it flatlines and no amount of additional power can move the water another inch once you’ve exceeded the pulling power of a perfect vacuu
454.
by zaroth 4y ago
It’s funny to think that the purported justification for the order against reading Wikileaks news was actually believed by anyone who heard it. “Don’t read this - it’s for your own good! Just reading it could cause you to have to report aga
455.
by zaroth 4y ago
Every feature has a complexity burden it imposes on the overall system, and also a risk profile to causing failures as the overall environment changes. Some features are definitely not worth the complexity they impose. Sometimes a feature i
456.
by zaroth 4y ago
> I don't know why anyone cares about … A lot of people care very deeply about it, and many have even spent a good deal of their lives elucidating why you should too.
457.
by zaroth 4y ago
Clearly anyone with the ethical chops to consider resigning over this would be a net-loss to Twitter if in fact they resigned. Is this some sort of named paradox?
458.
by zaroth 4y ago
They make ~$5B a year. They just spend all of it and then some.
459.
by zaroth 4y ago
I don’t think it has any applicability to anyone beyond Twitter. Maybe it’s a precedent that the FTC will tell you to add non-SMS 2-factor if you are misusing the SMS factor for advertising, but that’s a pretty limited precedent!
460.
by zaroth 4y ago
Conversely, perhaps protection against this kind of dragnet can be enshrined in Constitutions / Bills of Rights / UN Charters to defend against these attacks more fundamentally.
461.
by zaroth 4y ago
The problem is exacerbated because 'intolerance' is a buzzword like 'violence' now. It's a label used to attempt to silence or de-platform a dissenting opinion. The people applying the label are often themselves the
462.
by zaroth 4y ago
I think anyone pitching the “paradox of tolerance” needs to understand recursion a little better, or perhaps try to understand how their argument looks in a mirror to someone who disagrees with their stated position.
463.
by zaroth 4y ago
That is not what hypocrisy means. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with changing your mind over time. It had to do with taking actions which are consistent with your stated position, and holding yourself up to the same moral and ethical standard
464.
by zaroth 4y ago
This is nonsensical. What the article is describing is political trash talk, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Typical article published during that time period, and emblematic of the media circus that surrounded Trump.
465.
by zaroth 4y ago
I can agree with everything that you’re saying! I think there’s one piece missing which changes the nature of the analysis. If fossil fuel deposits were like water aquifers in the sense that they need to be protected, maintained, and replen
466.
by zaroth 4y ago
I am saying such a scenario may possibly exist, not necessarily that it does exist. Mercedes could be increasing the number of overall deaths by limiting the availability of the feature and still be reducing their liability for when the s
467.
by zaroth 4y ago
It’s not a stretch to say that the obesity epidemic in the US is causing limited health care resources to be redirected to a vast number of people with self-imposed health issues, leading to significant deaths and under-investment in popula
468.
by zaroth 4y ago
This is only on highways. Survivability is concerned only with passengers not pedestrians.
469.
by zaroth 4y ago
We’ve gone from “unless you’re actively engaged you can’t possibly be ready to takeover immediately” to “unless you’re actively engaged you are easily going to be sleeping”. People fall asleep behind the wheel all the time. They just usuall
470.
by zaroth 4y ago
No, this reasoning is flawed. The baseline safety of cars is an absolute shit show. 30,000 people dying every year and trillion dollars of damages and lost productivity. Car A can enable FSD in all cases, be safer in all cases, but still
471.
by zaroth 4y ago
It clearly has a point, because they successfully market and sell the feature. And everything is dangerous to some degree. Clearly it is not 100% their fault because the feature can certainly be used responsibly. Is there a more nuanced and
472.
by zaroth 4y ago
Got it! Not household use but total national energy usage divided by population. It’s per capita energy usage but I hesitate to call it per capita consumption. Consumption would probably want take into account the massive trade deficit, and
473.
by zaroth 4y ago
10kW isn’t a quantity it’s a rate. Do you mean 10kW of demand 24/7/365 because that’s roughly 7200 kWh a month which is high by I’d say 20x?
474.
by zaroth 4y ago
LED lighting is a perfect example of how technology can eliminate any trade-offs for becoming more efficient. I would say EVs are another. This is definitely not always the case, but any time that it is, I think market adoption will be swif
475.
by zaroth 4y ago
Isn’t increasing consumption through increased efficiency (decreased cost) a crucial factor for how standards of living are raised? I don’t see how this is a paradox.
476.
by zaroth 4y ago
What do you mean by “is entirely uneconomic”? Of course it is economic. What do you mean by “literally unsustainable by definition”? Sustainable does not mean supply is infinite. You can sustainably mine a finite and non-replenishable resou
477.
by zaroth 4y ago
This whole thread is filled with similarly absurd statements like this one. That is not “fungibility” at all, not in practice, not in the slightest. Fungibility is the absolute incontrovertible likeness of two separate units to the point wh
478.
by zaroth 4y ago
In fact “anybody” virtually never means “everybody” and it’s almost always a cheap shot to shut down a comment or a statement with a pithy counter-point to “disprove” anybody . Basically you can’t safely use the word in the vernacular and
479.
by zaroth 4y ago
“Guardian analysis of 100 top US companies percent change from the most recent reported quarterly profits to two years prior.” Gosh, what could possibly be confounding this analysis, I cannot imagine?!
480.
by zaroth 4y ago
I guess to me the words matter, and calling it “systemic racism” means that somewhere in there, there should be identifiable racism and not merely structural inequity , aka property ownership and capitalism. I think saying you can’t go bac

More ›