skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too?
>What about drinking and smoking?

There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are "sin taxes" for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don't.

You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.

All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn't a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years (or a whole lifetime!).

Let's say, hypothetically, there existed a free shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work. How many people would choose not to take it, and how would society view those that decided to walk around weighing 400lbs? That's really the apples to apples comparison here, and I think you'd find there would be very few folks walking around at 400lbs in that scenario.
Do Chairs Exist?
Because they may not have a wireless charger and thought they could re-use their existing USB-C cable?
If you're at risk of covid, you can get vaccinated and are protected from covid. That's all the defense you need in order to not worry about anyone else being infected.

If you're in an at-risk category where you feel the vaccine isn't enough of a defense, you can wear n95 masks, get a third booster shot, or do whatever other extra mitigation measures you feel you need.

The reality is that covid isn't dangerous enough, given the tools people have at their disposal, to warrant authoritarian government or societal overreach. That unfortunately hasn't stopped the government, or it's political allies, from trying anyways. I firmly believe this overreach will backfire on the US democrat party and they will feel the backlash in the midterm elections of 2022.
ADHD and How Anyone Can Improve Their Focus – Huberman Lab Podcast
The idea that personal choices about straws or motorsports are an important or effective response to climate change is a fallacy encouraged by organizations who benefit from climate change. If it’s all about consumer choice, then real reform will never happen.
Build more CANDUs
Thank you for the information.

Personally I'd be really interested in some time based statistics. Seeing a weekly or monthly breakdown of suicides since the pandemic started would be interesting. I'd guess that initially suicides plummeted sharply (even depressed people might have been willing to hold out a while to see what happened with Covid) but the longer this dystopia exists, the more despair people will find themselves in and suicide rates will IMO increase. I can't imagine that bad public policy like vaccine passports in places like NYC are going to do wonders for the mental health of people who are not vaccinated.

Just as another data point for my overall argument, drug overdose deaths went up 29.4% according to the CDC. https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2021-07-14-cdc-drug-overdo...

I think calculating a statistic like "net deaths" from Covid is going to be very hard. I think this data is going to be very muddled, very hard to parse out with possibly multiple explanations, and we're going to again be left with a 2-movies-on-one-screen scenario where essentially different groups perceive different realities based on the same data.
iDevices won’t go USB-C, they’ll go straight to all wireless. No point in having just one or two years of iPhone on USB-C before they go wireless.
Interesting analogy but I don't think it holds up. Both of these are stereotypical examples of failure of willpower. Climate change does not require personal willpower when we have laws available to create carrots and sticks.
> Regarding plugins, I know that I'm not the only lead developer of a DAW who, if they possibly could, would refuse to support plugins entirely. The problem is that most users want more functionality than a DAW itself could feasibly provide (they also sometimes like to use the same functionality (plugin) in different DAWs or different workflows).

Honestly the sound quality of most DAWs' built-in effects and synths are garbage. Even the effects section of most VST synths is bad! Best to allow plugins rather than trying to reinvent the wheel; you'll have to pry my beloved serum/iZotope/u-he/softube plugins out of my cold dead hands

Also, the "sometimes" is an understatement. Anyone who's been doing this a while likely to be pretty invested in the plugins they have. I would say the majority of working musicians that use DAWs work this way
I strongly recommend 'Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All' by Michael Shellenberger
https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B07Y8FHFQ7&preview=new...
The linked article states the bill (which has not been passed yet) says this (emphasis mine):

> effective for all sales taking place at or after Sept. 13, 2021.

Using your example the equivalent is imposing a widget tariff, passed at date X, for widgets that have already been delivered at some previous date X - N.
How to Monitor for Risky Public Azure Virtual Machines
Tax carbon. Use cross border tariffs to prevent offshoring emissions. People will then make the economically rational decision to use public transportation, buy EVs, put solar on the roof, insulate their homes, buy heat pumps, and eat less meat.
The one that does not result in ecological disaster.
> So I'm making a guess here that you play with few monsters or non-aggressive monsters?

Aggressively building turret walls, defensive train lines, and so on very quickly pays dividends here. Particularly if you claim as much territory as you can each time you expand instead of simply defending what you've built out.

If done this way building/improving defenses and managing enemies becomes a task you maintain every so often and doesn't spill over into the reliability of your base.
Anything called "Spectrum OS" should have something to do with the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. For people who grew up with Sir Clive's cuddly 8-bit masterpiece, the word "Spectrum" has too much history in the context of computers to be casually reused like that.
>kids under 16 go to the schools their parents decide on, live in the neighborhoods their parents decide on, and associated with the kids of their parents friends when they were younger.

True, but for most people this is only available within a subset of constrained choices. Parents in rural Appalachia or the rust belt probably aren’t going to have a lot of Phillips Academies to choose from
If the food obese people are eating has a large environmental impact, obesity definitely contributes.
Young people, such as those belonging to Gen Z, spend far more time on social media relative to other age groups and did not experience a non-digital world at all (unlike millennials and earlier generations). I also think they are less exposed to new ideas or a diversity of opinions - college campuses are culturally and politically far more monolithic than ever before, and are incredibly hostile to free speech and diversity of thought, particularly where it goes against progressive/leftist world views. Cancel culture, deplatforming, and the injection of politics into even K-12 education have created a large pipeline that amounts to a decentralized indoctrination in effect.
Probably somewhere in the middle range of this graph:

https://xkcd.com/1732/
I have a PhD in astronomy :)

SpaceX is an environmental disaster that I guarantee we will look back on in 50 years as the company that kick-started kessler syndrome.

They have already, objectively, caused huge environmental light-pollution based damage.
Lockdowns reduced carbon emissions.

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-f...

As for dog whistling, only dogs hear those and conspiracy theorists think they do.
The economics of solar are good news. Hopefully we've hit an inflection point where coal power is no longer economical [1]

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90583426/the-price-of-solar-elec...
Lends credence to the idea that Holmes and everybody she associates with have a very casual association with the truth. This guy may not be directly involved with the trial, but he certainly isn't helping her case any.
Those are borderline, but they’re pretty close to being fully in the Tenderloin. That’s the roughest and one of the cheapest parts of San Francisco proper.
> Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More?

What we know :

We know that vaccines are of great value for high risk populations. We know that vaccines are contraindicated for a number of patients and have some pretty severe side effects for those with allergies. We know that the vaccines risk ratio (do no harm) skews with younger patients. We know that the vaccine efficacy is greatly reduced with Delta variants, and newer, and these new variants dominate the infection count. We know between ~40M and ~112M people [1] have already had COVID and recovered, and ~178 million have received vaccinations already. Therefore, we know the delta between previous vaccinated (178M) and infected (~40M-~112M), and hesitant, and anti-vaxx may not be a large number (~132M on the high end, and ~60M on the low end). Of these 132M to 60M, only a certain number are event approved for vaccination. We know that previous wide surveys indicate that previous infections and ensuing natural immunity are stronger, and more durable than first generation, and 2nd generation vaccines. We also know that the Covid vaccines are not immunizing, and a large amount of virus can be passed on from vaccinated, to the unvaccinated.

What we don't know

We know that an undetermined number of patients allegedly around 10k have died from covid vaccine side effects, although we don't know exactly how many due to data quality issues. We don't know the accurate count of COVID deaths because of conflation of dying with COVID, or, from COVID. Some numbers have been seen at roughly ~500k to ~800k although we haven't done the heavy lifting of assuring data quality. We don't know how many of the untested already had minor covid infections, and we don't know how many have a natural immunity to it.

We also do not know when 3rd generation vaccines will arrive that may have reduced side effects, and more efficacy against novel variants.

Given above, I am not sure a mass push to force hesitant and anti-vaxx to get vaccinated will be successful, or even possible given potential job losses, and constitutionality.

For the sake of full disclosure I consider myself vaccine hesitant, but I believe the newest vaccines coming out will improve protection, and reduce side effects. The new novavaxx [2] merged covid/influenza [3] doses seem to be something that I would like to take, more protective, and lower risk than existing vaccines. Unfortunately, I am not eligible for the Novavax ongoing trial that is currently open.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

[2] https://www.novavax.com/our-unique-technology#recombinant-na...

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/novavax-begins-ea...
How so? Latest reports have most of the south from south carolina to Texas at 100% capacity. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/14/us/covid-hosp...

Please avoid this style of interaction on HN — it's been my favorite place for 13 years because of what dang often refers to as the right attitude for discussion, "coming with curiosity."

We try to avoid accusatory language, especially accusing others of lying, not by omission, but by commission for the sole purpose of psychological abuse.
How are you trying to fix it? Serious question, no bad intentions meant.
You are so far in the trap you cannot imagine a life without it.
Exactly this! And the inverse—where JavaScript devs complain that TypeScript types are overly complex and verbose—is just a symptom of the same principle. Those types are complicated because your interface is complicated! If you had a clear data flow/model the types will usually end up being much simpler too.

This is somewhat less true in some frontend projects, where the underlying libraries/frameworks come with infectious built-in interface complexity (side-eyes React/JSX even though I quite like JSX otherwise).
you can't easily force 7B people to act individually. you have to regulate at the source (the mfgs). we are far beyond individual action as a viable solution.
Give them a series of options each holding equal weight.

A) participate in an online coding assessment.

B) complete a homework assignment.

C) Demonstrate something you’ve done.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

"7,653 reports of death" is the string to ctrl-f for
People like this need to be reminded that they are public servants, not masters. Very severely.
What’s the summary?
Many of the COVID severe cases are the obese
> Literally no one paid that rate in the US.

Literally they did.

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.

Over the next three decades, the top federal income tax rate remained high, never dipping below 70 percent.

https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco...

Note the parent said "marginal" tax rate.

> During that period the government captured ~17-18% of GDP in taxes which is the post war average.

Even if the 17~18% of GDP is true (not saying it isn't, just dont have time to verify), it's very likely the highest tax bracket had way fewer people than it does today, so it would be equivalent of taxing earners of $100M/year in today's world. Weighing against GDP total negates increases in spending by the government to provide services that spur economies / provide benefits / etc. Point is - this figure is irrelevant and doesn't normalize the discussion.
An unprecedented global economic shutdown dropped emissions by 7%. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3

It's not the way out, nor has it been proposed by anyone serious to be.
Latest Nintendo Switch update out, including ability to pair Bluetooth audio
There are issues with both sides when the context is the environment.

I don’t doubt we need technological logistics but after ensuring biological stability for the species, speculative economic activity is an environmental time bomb. There are plenty of drill baby drill Democrats, especially as the other side has gone off the deep end.

Can the environment survive a Tesla in every garage?

It’s still pushing the problem off until we die.

We not afford arbitrarily drawn political boundaries on how far.
What propagates anxiety in young people is that they can't vote untill they are 18, their voting block is tiny and no-one represents their concerns in the system.

Meanwhile folks in charge are dense as lead and vote for one party their whole life, but deride 'millennials'.
Young people need to follow the news less. It’ll play up any little issue for eyeballs.
I didn't link it to make Epik look good. Don't like Epik, don't like its CEO.

But Epik is absolutely one if not the registrar you stumbled upon the last couple of years if you looked for good transfer prices.

I just think users should give other users in this thread the benefit of the doubt that they weren't Epik customers to support a fascist, hardcore libertarian Christian, Nazi, ... CEO and his company in any form.

They might just have googled for fair .com transfers and transferred a couple of domains in.
Are you suggesting the average American got fat off environmentally friendly low-carbon-impact food products? Because I suspect they got fat off Oreos and Coca-Cola.
I certainly believe in some cases it is definitely murder. In others immoral and ethically dubious. In rare, specific cases, I agree it should be available. I think the sexual revolution has destroyed society. If you are risk averse, you avoid marriage and family building. Maybe it is the lack of responsible behavior on both sides.
if this is your attitude then at least get out of the way
Let police agencies access cell phone location history and fine anyone moving above the speed limit on a road.

Force cell phones to stop working when velocity is above 5 mph.
Monitors and tests don't need to be perfect to be useful. If you were a doctor running a poor rural hospital, would you rather have:

1. No monitoring, or

2. Monitoring that fails to alarm for 50% of events.

If you have plenty of staff, maybe you'd prefer no monitoring, as it's worth than having someone sitting next to each bed. But that's probably not the reality of the situation.
The difference between these is that stopping smoking and losing weight make your life overall better. Reducing carbon emissions will make life worse for everyone who's already on the lower rungs of humanity. No realistic amount of resource redistribution is going to work here.

It's also not enough. We will have to start sucking up that carbon from the atmosphere whether we cut emissions or not.
Humanity isn’t “doomed”. Climate change may affect hundreds of millions and even so it is far away from an existential threat to humans. It also isn’t something that should cause someone to lose the ability to function day-to-day. That suggests immaturity, fragility, and a cognitive distortion (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/catastrophizing).
Previous discussions:

2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20233220

2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738866
> 56% agreed with the viewpoint that humanity is doomed, according to the study.

Climate change is a serious issue, and one that stands poised to do a substantial amount of harm, but if the majority of young people think that humanity is doomed then I seriously suspect that there's misinformation about the impact of climate change at play here. Even the more pessimistic outlooks of climate change still leave substantial areas of habitable climate. Many societies would be harmed, and disproportionately among lower income equatorial countries, but I think it's a massive stretch to say that humanity is doomed based on our climate projections.
"Apple is so concerned about the environment that it even recycles events from previous years." - YouTube comment perfectly sums it up.
Exactly. If one person in the world benefits from using Instagram and the other 7 billion people get depressed, then the statement FB made is still true.
.001 percent? 350k?

More like 6k to 10k or some number in there.
I saw this in one other comment, but it bears repeating:

ESP32
Bizarre story of how Q-Anon created a real election security issue
By that logic, anxiety is irrational. Acceptance of any outcome should be what we work on internally as individuals. Anger is arguably a much more productive emotion, politically speaking.
Machine Learning Community Standup – Deep Learning with TorchSharp
It’s already happening, a lot of countries are cutting down carbon emissions.
This is giving governments a lot of credit. Corporations are really just a set of contracts between investors, founders, employees, etc.

Sure governments help enforce the terms of the contract and even set some ground-rules on what is/isn't allowed but the entire thing is built on mutual trust that everyone involved will follow the agreed-upon rules.

History has not been kind to nations whose governments break those rules and started nationalizing corporations. Not too long ago, North Korea was the side with the industry, railroads, hydro-elec dams, steel mills and manufacturing plants.
This is the best solution for today’s world. I wish I could upvote this a million times.
Nobel winner Glenn T. Seaborg in 1952 playing with plutonium on a kids TV show
Internet can be installed quickly and cheaply

Not in the 1930s.
same reason hackernews has been declining for years
How do you hit 55% tax rate in California after this?
Today Paul Graham has tweeted about coal consumption of the world from 2000, it paints a good picture where to look if you are focused on green house gases.

150 years ago, there are billion of us. Now we are 7 billion going up to 9 billion.. 150 years from now, if we are going to be a billion.. I am fine with it.
Gaslighting?

wtf?
Yeah why do smokers keep smoking?
More information, including about limitations, here:

https://gizmodo.com/the-nintendo-switch-finally-adds-support...

https://nintendoeverything.com/switch-update-out-now-version...
> Instead of us focusing on how we can improve our hospital systems for future pandemics, we vilify the unvaccinated for political points.

Because globally, yes, they are the cause.

Even in countries where hospitals don't run close to max capacity at all times in order to maximize profits, hospitals have been filling up with unvaccinated patients. Japanese hospitals in major cities haven't been able to take in new patients, and those waves of patients are unvaccinated.

Although in Japan's case, the problem is there simply aren't enough vaccines here to meet demand. America's problem is there's an overabundance of vaccines but people are going out of their way to get sick, choosing to overwhelm hospitals, and then dying as an act of rebellion for facebook political points.
The thought that came to mind was "ok boomer".

Edit: yeah, not positive but a knee-jerk reaction to the grandparent comment that essentially said "I got mine, Jack -- sucks to be you".
I'm probably overly calm about climate change. I can't trust that science isn't trying to sensationalize the problem so much so that I end up discounting everything I read.

Take this [1] paper for example I just happened upon. Look at this scary graphic they provide to convince the reader that wildfires are getting worse [2]. The paper goes on painting a terrible picture about the rising trend of wildfires in the U.S. Now let's look at the source for their graphic and look back further at earlier dates from the same source. [3] - kind of paints a different picture, no?

So at what point am I, an average citizen supposed to be worried enough that I do my own systematic reviews of the literature and see who is just sensationalizing the problem?

Maybe I'm the minority, maybe the "marketing" of global warming is exactly as it should be if the problem is indeed as dire as many would have me believe, but the obvious sensationalism just makes me wonder if everyone trying to sell me on this fear has just bought into the hype and as such I'll be a hard sell on this issue, because if it was real and dire - I doubt there would be such obvious sensationalism every time I look into it.

[1] https://costofcarbon.org/files/Flammable_Planet__Wildfires_a...

[2] https://i.imgur.com/0FlXads.png

[3] https://i.imgur.com/zvbApzL.png
Sha’Carri Richardson Effect: Anti-Doping Authority to Re-Examine Cannabis
Young people are driven by propaganda and social trends. I don't see what the crisis is at all. Data, cleaned for bias, suggests very little difference. And certainly not in the West. Pollution is certainly a problem, such as in China, India, but I don't agree that the world climate is changing in a way that is abnormal.

I'm anxious though about the drive for using climate as a premise to remove freedoms for some possible safety. Authoritarian regimes are increasingly taking power.
> What about drinking and smoking?

Literally Whataboutism. Don’t take the irrelevant bait.
When is the last time the world wasn’t falling apart?
Carbon taxation. The idea being that otherwise it’s an unpriced externality.