ignirtoq

No no no no no, they are outright saying recorded history is fictional and the railway is hundreds of thousands or millions of years old.

Viruses evolve, some quite quickly. The flu isn’t the fastest (looking at you, HIV), but it’s up there. Over time, existing vaccines train your body to fight something that doesn’t quite match what’s in the wild (i.e. efficacy goes down with time). That’s why there’s a different seasonal flu vaccine every year.

They create flu vaccines on a yearly cycle, and a pandemic can kick off in a matter of weeks and months, so if it doesn’t match the preplanned cycle, they’ll have to invest more resources to creating the most up to date vaccine off-cycle.

I think it was pine, actually, but it was over 10 years ago so I can’t say for sure.

Idk overall more jury trials sounds better than judges just getting to decide.

I don’t have enough information on the topic to form an opinion about whether trial by jury for these cases is better overall for society. But I do know this is not the right way to make this change. This was a case between a hedge fund manager and the SEC, and now as a result OSHA can no longer enforce anything? And with no prior warning for anyone to make any preparations. How could that possibly be the right way to make this change?

How so? I’m arguing for SCOTUS not to take a wrecking ball to our government by suddenly making unlawful procedures that have been relied on for so long they are assumed in laws passed by Congress decades ago. Should alleged violations of those laws be tried in front of a jury instead of this other mechanism? Maybe, but how about we make that change in a way that doesn’t suddenly render those laws de facto unenforceable with no warning?

Yes, I agree with that reading of history, but just because things have been a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to be that way. I concur that the historical precedent for the SCOTUS is to stand in the way of progress, or often to cause regression, but that doesn’t mean we have to quietly accept it. Especially if and when there have been historical departures from that trend that demonstrate things can work differently, and work well.

(Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to prevent a nihilistic reading of your comment.)

Not only did my math master’s thesis adviser use Linux, he read his email from a command line program and wrote his papers in plain TeX, considering LaTeX a new fangled tool he didn’t need.

I had heard about this case basically removing a powerful tool for the SEC and effectively requiring them to spend way more money trying cases in front of a jury, but I didn’t know there were so many other agencies that aren’t even allowed to bring jury trial cases and are only allowed to bring the type of case that the SCOTUS basically just eliminated. More and more I’m having trouble not seeing the actions of the SCOTUS majority as a deliberate attack on the US government itself rather than “correcting” earlier rulings that have been precedent for decades.

I’m not a huge fan of the idea of seeding the atmosphere with salt water, that salt has to come down eventually.

That’s how clouds are naturally seeded anyway, with salt. Rain drops form (condense) around tiny airborne matter, like salt or pollution. Every rain drop is formed this way; drops can’t actually condense without something to nucleate on. What they form around comes down with the drop. We wouldn’t be trying to leave the salt up there. The purpose of the salt is to cause more drops to condense, i.e. more clouds to form.

The Tribunal accepted that creed should include non-religious belief systems, yet still rejected ethical veganism because it “does not address the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher order of existence”.

What the hell kind of “non-religious belief system” addresses the existence or non-existence of a “Creator”? Are they trying to expand “creed” just enough to cover a particular definition of atheism and absolutely nothing else? The whole point of atheism is that is doesn’t have to address a “Creator” because the laws of nature work just fine without that question being addressed. Sure, some flavors of atheism take a stance on the question, but not all of them do. Are those flavors of atheism suddenly not a “creed”? How could they possibly justify that without applying a biased religious lens (which by its very nature violates basically all atheist “creeds”)?

Edit: I just realized this is exactly like when people who do not understand the first thing about homosexuality ask a male couple which one is the “woman.”

I find the very term “content” fascinating, because the exact definition you choose puts it on a kind of spectrum with “useful” at one end and “measurable” at the other.

When Daniel Ek talks about “content,” he means any pile of bits he can package up, shove in front of people, and stuff with ads. From that definition, making “content” is super cheap. I can record myself literally screaming for 30 seconds into the microphone already in my laptop and upload it using the internet connection I already have. Is it worth consuming? No, but I’ll get to that. And content under that definition is very measurable in many senses, like file size, duration, and (important to him) number of hours people stream it (and can inject ads into). But from this view, all “content” is interchangable and equal, so it’s not a very useful definition, because some content is extremely popular and is consumed heavily, while other content is not consumed at all. From Daniel’s perspective, this difference is random, enigmatic, and awe inspiring, because he can’t measure it.

At the other end of the spectrum is the “useful” definition where the only “content” is good content. My 30 seconds of screaming isn’t content, it’s garbage. It’s good content that actually brings in the ad revenue, because it’s what people will put up with ads to get access to. But what I would consider good content is not what someone else would consider good content, which is what makes it much harder to measure. But we can all agree making good content is hard and thus almost always expensive (at least compared to garbage passing as content).

And that’s what makes Daniel Ek look like an out of touch billionaire. The people who make good content (that makes him money) use the more useful definition, which is difficult to make and expensive and actually worth talking about, while he uses the measurable definition that’s in all the graphs on his desk that summarize his revenue stream.

Oh absolutely. With the rising food prices, my family has had to shift to making those rotisserie chickens a regular part of our weekly plans to keep our grocery bills down. (We eat the meat and then boil the bones/carcass into broth, which we can have as another meal of soup.) As prices continue to rise, they become a better and better deal.

To be fair, Costco has acknowledged they lose money on the sausages (and rotisserie chickens) and use those cheaper items to draw in customers to buy other things they do make money on.