Pilfer

6 ms·

1.
by Pilfer 5y ago
That is not at all what I, nor the author, is claiming, and instead of retorting with a shallow dismissal I recommend you review the HN guidelines.
2.
by Pilfer 5y ago
Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia, provides many examples of how Wikipedia articles are heavily biased towards mainstream viewpoints. https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-... > with
3.
by Pilfer 6y ago
Looks like it triggered the flamewar detector. This usually happens if a post has more comments than votes, and the post did not reach the minimum threshold (40 points).
4.
by Pilfer 8y ago
The effect size is quite large. From the paper, The differences were substantial: in some cases, such as total brain volume, more than a standard deviation. The effect size of d = −1.41 for total brain volume (Table 1) translates to 92.1%
5.
by Pilfer 8y ago
I did not bring global temperatures into the discussion as I don't believe they pose as serious a threat as increased CO2 levels. Wikipedia has a nice graph showing estimated global average temperatures over time https://en.
6.
by Pilfer 8y ago
Which is moving the goalposts and changing the question. He's asking if a "hypothetical human time traveler" could survive hundreds of millions of years ago, and based off historical CO2 data, it could be possible.
7.
by Pilfer 8y ago
>It's common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of lif
8.
by Pilfer 8y ago
>A hypothetical human time traveler, however, wouldn't survive a hypothetical time travel back to [the Cambrian explosion]. I assume you are referencing about CO2 levels. Yes, around ~500 million years ago, CO2 levels reached 10,000
9.
by Pilfer 8y ago
Fair, but that doesn't detract from the point that CO2 levels maintained 1000-2000ppm for over 100 million years. This was during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, when life was thriving on earth. Present CO2 levels are low on a g
10.
by Pilfer 8y ago
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1... On a geologic timescale, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today. >In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric C
11.
by Pilfer 8y ago
Coffeeshops only need to print a piece of paper and tape it to the wall. The cost of compliance is less than $0.20 I think there are better arguments for your PoV than this one.
12.
by Pilfer 8y ago
The pedestrian is 1) wearing black 2) not wearing any sort of safety reflectors 3) crossing in darkness not under street lights. In the safety video I linked, it's clear that such a pedestrian in the road would be very tough spot and r
13.
by Pilfer 8y ago
I think the point the poster is trying to make is that if the pedestrian was looking while crossing the street, they would have ample time to react to the oncoming car. Car headlights can be seen from over 1000 feet away, and at the speed t
14.
by Pilfer 8y ago
>A human driver could have seen the person and/or bike from a long way off. Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows. Humans have problems detecting objects in the shadows, especiall
15.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I have read the lawsuit, and it accuses Facebook of making false and misleading statements in their data privacy policy. It takes issue with this section of Facebook's privacy policy: While you are allowing us to use the information w
16.
by Pilfer 9y ago
What material fact did Facebook lie to their investors about?
17.
by Pilfer 9y ago
It is. In my experience, Cogent has more peering problems than other transit providers do (e.g. L3). The submitted article is a clear example of this. I don't find these peering problems surprising, given Cogent is much cheaper vs the
18.
by Pilfer 9y ago
The real takeaway is that Cogent over-promises and under-delivers. If you want reliable transit, switch providers.
19.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I am sorry, but you are still making the same mistake I pointed out earlier, conflating statistical concepts with colloquial ones. You don’t seem to understand the point I am making at all. To understand a statistical argument like the pape
20.
by Pilfer 9y ago
You are playing word games with the phrase ‘considered normal’. The phrase has different meanings whether you consider it from a statistical (as the submitted scientific paper would) or colloquial (as you are) standpoint. Google does not pu
21.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> but does not strongly suggest that close to normal people on average have a difference A valid point, but that does not apply to Google engineers because their hiring practices directly discriminate for ability, as they select the bes
22.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I'm addressing this point. Earlier you stated > it seems like he hasn't touched the editorial side at all which on the surface looks true, but under the surface isn't. Bezos has been directing editorial coverage behind t
23.
by Pilfer 9y ago
The change in coverage occurred before Trump was president, when he was still a candidate competing for the 2016 Republican nomination. This wasn't just 'a new interest in reporting on The Whitehouse'.
24.
by Pilfer 9y ago
He has touched the editorial side. Bezos personally ordered the Washington Post to cover as many stories as possible on Trump and the Post dedicated 20 full time editors to him at his direction. I don't think Bezos has told reporters t
25.
by Pilfer 9y ago
Using weasel words like "standard network management" doesn't imply those standards conform to net neutrality principles. It's clear that that some of those standards, such blanket blocking port 25, are a direct violatio
26.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I'm aware. Either way it's still censorship.
27.
by Pilfer 9y ago
ISPs should be dumb pipes. They should not be inspecting nor blocking packets and should transmit data regardless of its content. The alternative, that ISPs should not route unlawful traffic, would require ISPs to search packets and block t
28.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> I don't see how you can read that from the linked wikipedia page. Here's how net neutrality is defined. "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and
29.
by Pilfer 9y ago
Please direct me to a source explaining why malicious network traffic is exempt from net neutrality. Under the net neutrality definition linked above, blocking specific ports is a clear violation. Also, the port 25 ban directly affects legi
30.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I'm not surprised at all. I bring it up because it's an example of a blatant net neutrality violation that many people agree is acceptable. Same goes for IP ingress filtering.

More ›