Yeah I get that, and there’s a lot of products and services whose company values I don’t subscribe to but I still use them because the alternatives aren’t viable. If you’re OK with 1+ second latency (which makes something as simple as SSH insufferable and online gaming impossible) and 20Mbit speeds, well, good for you.
It's described as slightly worse than Starlink, which makes sense because the orbits are not that different to warrant 20 orders of magnitude performance difference.
If that was the scenario I was in it would be a tough call.
Luckily I have a great local ISP giving 2gig fibre (Voyager!), so that ethical dilemma isn’t playing out.
The do 4gb too, but I can’t use that much, and rarely get over 1gb.
> it's not invisible. The system crawls to a halt.
I’m gonna guess you’re not old enough to remember computers with memory measured in MB and IDE hard disks? Swapping was absolutely brutal back then. I agree with the other poster, swap hitting an SSD is a barely noticeable in comparison.
People really overthink this. You can safely expose internal IDs by doing a symmetric cipher, like a Feistel cipher. Even sequential IDs will appear random.
It is because people are incentivized to just wait for the "better options" that everyone knows are coming soon. Or, let's say you bought one and had an accident that totals the car but oops, the steep depreciation curve means you have to go out of pocket to pay off a total loss. No one wants that.
> you bought one and had an accident that totals the car but oops, the steep depreciation curve means you have to go out of pocket to pay off a total loss
That can happen with a conventional car as well, which is why gap insurance exists. The regular insurance should still give you the replacement price (which would be the depreciated value).
Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today.
If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that?
> Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today.
If you're trying to get people to switch en masse to EVs, it's not good for everyone to be in perpetual "ehh there's gonna be way better ones around the corner" mode.
> If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that?
The problem is when your loan balance is $20K and you're only getting a $10K payoff...
> Perhaps its a reflection of how hard it is to get the medical community to take Long COVID seriously ?
Well let’s think about why. You’ve got an illness (Long COVID) that you can’t detect and manifests itself in a myriad of ways, most of which are very vague and subjective (“brain fog” or “I can’t exercise as much as I used to”) and also not detectable.
Is it any wonder doctors might think of it as today’s fibromyalgia?
Ironic perhaps that Fibromylgia has been chosen given there are tests for the small fibre neuropathy that causes and it now has a firm diagnostic pathway.
The same will happen for Long Covid and ME/CFS, the diagnostics are there in research, they even show up in scans and tests that can be run in healthcare systems today, its just there is a resistance to run them.
> It's not open source if you can't use it professionally or sell work derived from it.
Does anyone _really_ use these low/no-code platforms to create products? I was always under the impression that you'd primarily use something like this for "internal business purposes" i.e. little internal utilities that you can't justify spending serious development time on. Which the license lets you do.
This reminds me of a wonderful definition of ownership: You only own something if you can buy and sell it. See: Kindle books/movies "bought" on Apple TV/etc.
Well by all means, show us how to do it right at scale. The leaders in this area (California, European countries) haven’t exactly done much to deliver on the promise of cheap renewable energy.
Iirc, Texas has deployed more clean energy generation in the last few years than the entire CA fleet, despite CA subsidizing heavily, and retail energy rates >2x in CA. TX is at something like 3x the generation from wind/solar in CA. My understanding is that this is largely because of how much easier it is to deploy in Texas than in almost any other part of the country.
That’s how you do it right. You set some basic rules, and then otherwise get out of the way and let economics do its thing, and stop trying to master plan and control everything. So many of the existing regs are built around huge centralized generation sources, requiring extensive planning and approvals, rather than small distributed sources.
It is, but hopefully you could do the math and see my current electricity price is like 30 cents a kwh (generation and delivery), primarily because our state has not built out any generation infrastructure in a long long while. Not "triple" my electric bill.
Likely, being able to buy from a generator across the country would REDUCE our prices. Allowing a solar farm in Nevada to compete in markets all over the country would be a large benefit to states like Maine.
Most people are not as far from the western deserts as Maine is, so they would see smaller losses. Add to that, as others have pointed out, a HVDC line is much better than 30% loss to get from Nevada to Maine.
So all this whinging is dumb. Lets build giant solar farms in Nevada deserts and ship it all across the country. Remember, I can't have local solar power past 4pm in January. This capability would replace wind or gas power
The financial fact is that solar is cheap enough that de-rating all panels by 30% to support such a "cross country grid" would be inconsequential. It's the equivalent to buying solar panels from a couple years in the past.
> A dose that might give a regular user a gentle buzz could render a first-time user completely stoned.
> It's possible that these people were all incredibly stoned while driving but it's also possible that many drivers in Ohio are regular THC users and have such a high tolerance that their function is unimpaired.
Can't you make this same argument with alcohol?
> Ultimately, as far as I can tell, the current state of things is that we're fairly certain that THC is able to impair driving ability but we have no idea how much THC is needed to do it or how impaired drivers become.
So how exactly would you propose states move forward with allowing people to consume THC and operate vehicles (or not)? We apparently can't even tell if someone is impaired in a reliable way.
Increased tolerance to THC actually makes it get you less high (for lack of a better term). You need a higher dose to be the same level of impaired. Real stoners can be totally functional and barely even high while hitting a vape every few minutes, but a first-time cannabis user might be on the floor after a single hit.
AFAIK the same isn’t true of alcohol - people who drink a lot may learn to be more functional while drunk, but I don’t believe that someone with a high tolerance has any faster of a reaction time than someone with a low tolerance, if their BACs are the same.
Technically the same thing applies, but to a much, much lesser degree.
While it's true that alcoholics can perform most tasks better than the average person after a few drinks, and there is some data showing they are less likely to get in accidents after drinking, they still become significantly impaired at about the same rate as everyone else.
They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap.
The amount of non-impaired alcoholics driving around with BACs above the legal limit is negligible.
The human body's ability to adapt to THC is far greater than its ability to adapt to alcohol.
The Endocannabinoid system safely saturates, you can only have so much before the next dose doesn't really do much more.
Alcohol, on the other hand, continues to have about the same marginal effect, until toxicity is reached.
> While it's true that alcoholics can perform most tasks better than the average person after a few drinks, and there is some data showing they are less likely to get in accidents after drinking, they still become significantly impaired at about the same rate as everyone else.
This is completely self contradictory. It’s absolutely not “the same rate” if alcoholics can drink multiple additional drinks without showing impairment compared to nonalcoholics.
> They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap.
This is kind of absurd. “Yeah, they can drink way more without impairment, but they’ll probably still drink to impairment.” This is borderline future crime.
I certainly don’t think we should allow alcoholics to drive with a higher BAC, mostly because the entire point of BAC is to make assessment more objective, but your logic is pretty tortured here.
I'm speaking in comparison to THC.
We are talking about order of magnitude differences with THC, especially in the blood after smoking or vaporizing.
The difference between a little drunk and very drunk is only a factor of 2, probably less.
I don't even think it's possible for a human to be 4 times as drunk as another also drunk human and survive.
The best way to think about tolerance to alcohol is buying a small constant headstart, while THC is better modeled as a difference of rates depending on tolerance.
I think most people will find that model useful, and the numbers (BAC) support that as a rule of thumb calculation.
Somehow you disagree that my model is accurate enough, but also agree that a constant cutoff is a good heuristic for legal intoxication from alcohol.
I have no idea about THC tolerance in comparison with alcohol. The numbers I see some people claim to consume is in your order of magnitude range vs what beginners are advised to use so it’s believable.
> Somehow you disagree that my model is accurate enough, but also agree that a constant cutoff is a good heuristic for legal intoxication from alcohol.
It’s not that I think your model isn’t accurate enough. It’s that I think your model is not consistent. A few extra drinks is enough to go from just barely under .08 to .16. If an alcoholic can run nearly double the alcohol intake (and double the BAC) of a nonalcoholic I don’t agree that this is nearly the same.
I agree with the constant cutoff because a constant reasonable limit is easier to administer. Less subjectivity for law enforcement is a good thing. I would probably support for the same for THC. “But I consume so much that I have a really high tolerance!” Ok, that’s not everyone else’s problem to deal with. Don’t drink if you’re over the limit.
They cant run double, it becomes clearer as the baseline goes up. At .16, the alcoholic would be up at .32 and at serious risk of dying from respiratory suppression. They’re more used to being drunk, but that doesn’t avoid the physical reality of alcohol toxicity.
It’s very different than THC where a 10x tolerance is pretty normal for a new user vs a heavy user. Relative to alcohol, that would be .08 vs .80 which is like twice the lethal limit.
Thus it’s very hard to set limits because one persons residual use from 6 hours ago is enough to get another person stoned off their ass. I don’t really have solutions there though.
I was using your “a few drinks more”. 4 standard beers over 2 hours supposedly puts a guy around .08. 3 more puts him at .16. But yeah, the near double drinking can’t continue because the alcoholic will just die at some point.
The THC thing is tough and I will leave it to experts and (more likely) politicians to hash it out. I’m not sure I want more reliance on field sobriety tests though. “His eyes were glassy and he was slurring. No, the camera can’t really capture the glassy eyes and don’t really pick up the slurring…”
> I don't even think it's possible for a human to be 4 times as drunk as another also drunk human and survive.
Considering some of the scores I have seen from the local police I beg to disagree. They have caught people with so much alcohol in their blood that your average person would probably be in a comma.
And I think your position on THC is irrational and probably motivated by your emotions.
I have smoked quite a bit and been around quite a lot of stoners, and they all think this way (oh, I'm used to it, no effect) but my experience tells me otherwise.
It's the power of magical thinking, but even a regular user is quite impaired, right after the first joint. I personally have been able to test this, with a quite lower performance in video games, even though I felt I was doing quite good. Stats said otherwise. And I can assure you that I was quite a heavy user at that time, since my brother was growing the stuff and I was getting it for free basically.
In my experience most cannabis users are quite irrational around the stuff because they want it to be magically better than what it is. But in the end, it is no better than alcohol and, in some ways, much worse: the effects last longer, pushing into the next day, which is what I believe happens in those accidents. The users believe they are more in control than they really are and their reaction times are quite worse, which would be actually very easy to measure...
> They might have an advantage of a few drinks compared to a regular person, but they often close that gap.
When the legal limit is 0.08 or lower, that's the difference between "too drunk for a non-alcoholic to drive" and "perfectly fine for an alcoholic", isn't it? Yet no court would accept that as an argument.
No because a once-daily user of THC will continue to test positive for 14+ days after quitting completely. For alcohol it's 6-12 hours. They are not comparable.
No, I was referring to the argument about tolerance.
"Your honor, my client is a raging alcoholic. Yes he blew 0.2, and while that may make the average person highly intoxicated, my client can function perfectly well at that level."
It is very hard to determine for thc-based intoxication via a test to determine not only when the person was intoxicated, but to what degree. They could have been stoned a week ago, or two weeks ago.
Other commentators are pointing out and linking to sources that explain how the tolerance bio-mechanisms are very different between alcohol and marijuana. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison that happen to use the same word "tolerance."
> So how exactly would you propose states move forward with allowing people to consume THC and operate vehicles
And that is the conundrum, ain't it? At the very least, the HN crowd is saying "don't take an approach that works well for A but not for B, and apply it to B anyways because it's an easy thing that makes your re-election campaign look like you're doing something instead of having the difficult, nuanced discussion of what IS the right enforcement model for something new."
The risk is these things tend to get cemented in once they're passed. We already did that once with marijuana when we scheduled it more dangerous than methamphetamine, fentanyl, and diazepam. But hey, that scheduling sure did win Nixon the political points he was looking for...
> Other commentators are pointing out and linking to sources that explain how the tolerance bio-mechanisms are very different between alcohol and marijuana. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Yes I've seen that but I have a HARD time believing that two or three beers affects an alcoholic the same as it affects someone who drinks once a month. Alcohol tolerance is also a thing, why are people suggesting it isn't?
> The risk is these things tend to get cemented in once they're passed.
Yes but, it sounds like you have to have some sort of test for this, lest it turns into an "officer discretion" kind of thing since there's no reliable way to measure intoxication. Otherwise, it basically sounds like you can get as high as you want and no one can possibly charge you with DUI because of "you can't prove how long ago I took it" or "I have a tolerance, it doesn't affect me" (which totally does not fly as an argument in court with alcohol).
Alcohol tolerance doesn't meaningfully affect reaction time. We use the same word ("tolerance") for alcohol and marijuana, but the mechanisms are quite different.
Are you suggesting that two people, same weight, same metabolism, but one is a lifelong alcoholic and the other a once-per-month drinker — if they both have three or four drinks, the alcoholic would be just as impaired as the other person? I doubt that. The whole “functioning” part of “functioning alcoholic” implies that the alcoholic is able to, well, function in a manner a normal person wouldn’t if they had been drinking as heavily.
> The whole “functioning” part of “functioning alcoholic” implies that the alcoholic is able to, well, function in a manner a normal person wouldn’t if they had been drinking as heavily.
Well, It's like "functioning" in "high-functioning autism"; it's speaks to how well they can function in society, not how well they can operate a motor vehicle (nor anything to do with reaction times).
If they had the same BAC, yes. It may not make intuitive sense, but that’s just how alcohol tolerance works. The slow reaction times don’t go away. Alcohol in the bloodstream has a direct effect on your brain’s neural pathways that you can’t develop a resistance to.
Slower reaction times might not go away, but is there evidence you can't get better at handling slower reaction times? Practice generally improves performance in most tasks, I would presume someone with no experience at increased reaction times for instance would perform worse than someone experienced in it.
> People can make judgment calls. Those are opinions.
I'm not sure that's a helpful distinction. In some sense, everything we classify as a 'fact' is a judgement call: is the sun a giant ball of fusing hydrogen? I mean, probably, but maybe we're all living in some sort simulation and it doesn't really exist at all; Or maybe you are living in your own personal "Truman Show", being fed lies by everyone who shows you scientific "evidence" about the sun's nature.
But "the sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" is a different type of statement than "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla", or "Mozart is better than Beethoven".
"The sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" has the possibility of being proven false. This means it's either a true or false fact.
If I said "NYC is the capital of the United States"* I'm either lying or mistaken
What makes it a lie vs mistaken? Whether it's a genuine belief, that I have a reason to have the belief. For example if I made the assumption it's the capital because it's the biggest city then I'm mistaken.
It's a lie if I know it's not true, if I ignore information that falsifies the fact.
*To avoid semantics I mean the official capital of the country not like "it's important"
Right; and there are things which fall into the "true or false" category that are difficult to get clear answers for; economic policy is something that there are just too many confounding factors to prove to the same degree you can prove the laws of physics, for example.
And even for claims which are in the realm of "fact", which are false, but which are truly believed, we need to be careful about suppressing truth. There was a time when "the sun goes around the earth" was accepted "scientific fact". Lots of flat-earthers genuinely believe the falsehoods they're spreading. Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood"?
I don't have a clear answer, but I do think there needs to be a line.
>Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood"
The line is whether the person is genuine in belief and the potential harm. There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
> There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
No direct harm; but it may be comorbid with other things that cause harm, like vaccine skepticism.
There is a question about what the best response is. Just censoring disinformation like this may cause people who notice / experience the censorship to give more credence to the disinformation. But as is apparent from the whole "flat earth" fiasco, there are a large number of people who seem simply incapable of understanding basic math or scientific principles. The earth can be proven round by personal observations made by anyone. If people still cannot be convinced the earth is round, how are they to be convinced about things that they cannot collect personal observations, like vaccines, or the holocaust, or January 6th?
At any rate, I'm glad I'm not running a platform like YouTube; it's not an easy problem.
I think the most useful distinction is between “opinions” and “beliefs” rather than opinions and facts. A belief represents your confidence in the truth or falsehood of a statement. While an opinion has no underlying objective reality. “Apples are better than peaches” is an opinion. “More people ate apples than bananas in 2024” is a belief; it may be a true belief or a false belief but there is an answer.
@gwd: absolutely true; all the "facts" I know are either a long series of supporting ideas ("this is a chair and I can sit on it") or something I was told by an authority I trust ("Africa exists").
I still say there is a difference between "Africa exists" and "gwd's statement about the lack of 'facts' is heretical and they should be imprisoned".
I guarantee you that, if only they could, there are governments that would jail people for opinions. The US would have likely have done something to homosexuals, with or without sexual activity. Ditto on supporting Communism 'in your heart'. NK and other countries would do the same (OK, not NK for supporters of communism...).
> I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion
Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"?
To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"?
Saying "I think <public figure> is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the <insert pejorative here>."
And yeah, in North Korea you'll absolutely be jailed for expressing some opinions. That may make them illegal, but it doesn't make them no longer opinions.
How is "the earth is flat" not an opinion?
People form opinions based on the information they have (or are willing to accept). For their worldview, their opinion is valid. If they don't accept certain voices of reason, they have that right. We saw people not allowed to ask about the origins of the covid19 virus because it went against a public narrative. At the beginning of the pandemic, people who expressed that masks should be worn were rejected by even government officials.
People might not have gone to jail, but they did have voices and access to society limited or removed because of their opinions.
Not really an opinion but it can be a belief. I'm not sure why we are okay with people believing that Earth is ~6000 years old, but not with someone believing that we are in a simulation and everything before e.g. year 1999 is just a collective memory fabrication.
But would you dare state out loud in Germany that, in your opinion, the official number of Holocaust victims is actually much less than what's been widely reported? Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't.
> neither is, "Kick out all the <insert pejorative here>."
How about voicing your opinion that <people from some country> should be barred from emigrating to <European country> because <crime statistics>? Bet you wouldn't try that either, because your opinion is in "hate speech" territory now.
Solid evidence that generations of historians have somehow overlooked? Great, let’s hear it! I can assure you that Germany would welcome anything that lifts some guilt from our collective shoulders here, so if you as opposed to a lot of smart people know the truth, we will invite you on a beer for sure.
reply