Pyramus

9 ms·

1.
by Pyramus 3y ago
I don't get the 'too high resolution' argument in 2024. The additional power consumption is negligible as has been pointed out by others. My 2013 Nexus 5 had a 1080p display. > if you can't drive this I assume your us
2.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction. It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this increm
3.
by Pyramus 3y ago
No, we don't have a definitive answer. We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep. But a definitive answer? There isn'
4.
by Pyramus 3y ago
I would add that it's a measure in particular how active the yeast is in your starter culture, and yeast is the crucial ingredient for fermentation.
5.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> When you bake with such flours, you get a denser bread and when you create a starter with them, you'll struggle to get them to double in size for the same reason. Sharing my personal experience: I use a 100% rye starter (wholemeal
6.
by Pyramus 3y ago
You are not wrong, but as always, reality is more nuanced than assigning utilities to a game. Russia would benefit in two ways: a) Sending a message about capabilities and willingness to attack infrastructure (in NATO countries!), b) Sowing
7.
by Pyramus 3y ago
You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.
8.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> there's no reason to force them to do anything. So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content tha
9.
by Pyramus 3y ago
No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is? > There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact. Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network
10.
by Pyramus 3y ago
So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?
11.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Some analysts say the situation is (was) more nuanced: Prigozhin was pro-Putin but anti-MOD. His intention was to replace the MOD, claim their resources and fight in lieu thereof, for Putin. The article also hints at that.
12.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Original headline: "Yevgeny Prigozhin onboard plane in fatal crash, says Russia"
13.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Not sure I understand your post, both spam and threats are speech (at least in the US), so maybe something was lost in translation? Here are some of the limits of free speech in the US: > Categories of speech that are given lesser or no
14.
by Pyramus 3y ago
From what I've learned here on HN someone who thinks that "free speech" is absolute - their right to free speech outshines the personal rights of others. So instead of discussing where my rights end and your rights start, the
15.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> so once you do get to the end you have the law There is no end. Laws are just very very well performing models. But every 'law' breaks down if you violate the assumptions of the model: make things too big/small/hot&
16.
by Pyramus 3y ago
There is no (general) right to anonymity, but there is, at least in some Western countries, a right to privacy.
17.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Yes there are some points where it is, e.g. elections, whistleblowing, witness protection etc., which goes to show that in general, in Western democratic societies, anonymity is not a requirement for free speech.
18.
by Pyramus 3y ago
No, almost all parts of society require identification, you could say it's a fundamental principle (Western democratic) societies are built upon. Your freedom is based on me being held accountable to respect it. Anonymity is protected
19.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Reminds of the time Musk said chess is "too simple" because there is no "fog of war" and no "technology tree".
20.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> To me (an European) that is a bonkers way of looking at the issue. Came here to say exactly this. If you do not trust your democratically elected institutions you need to improve your democratic system. > "Popular sovereignty i
21.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> Often something is presented as a scientific consensus > During COVID a lot of things were presented to the public as if it were 100% obvious and agreed with by every specialist Who is it that presents things to the public? Who are
22.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> I got direct experience of this when my wife got COVID and was sick for a couple of weeks, I was then quarantined by the government at home but never got sick. How this could happen was never officially explained. It seems you have bee
23.
by Pyramus 3y ago
No worries, appreciate your concrete calculation. I would argue it's just one more convenient assumption that leads us away from a realistic estimation. It seems to me USD 2500 is an idealistic best case scenario.
24.
by Pyramus 3y ago
You have conveniently left out the cost differential for the printed edition, and you are conveniently pricing the trust/risk/hassle that comes with it at 0. And even in this case I doubt the USD 5 pw is the market price, you are
25.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Okay, then please propose a concrete example with costs of labor, premium for print subscription etc. Happy to be proven wrong, but USD 2500 seems unrealistic.
26.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Real life is rarely about evidence or not evidence, which is a categorical decision (in contrast to evidence in court, which can be circumstantial). Some more context in addition to the sibling comment: The classical example is this. You wa
27.
by Pyramus 3y ago
> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Exactly. It's a significant cognitive bias / logical fallacy that's very easy to fall for leading to wrong conclusions. The not-inclusion of factor A for lack of evidence i
28.
by Pyramus 3y ago
My interpretation is that it is some sort of cognitive bias, which is very common: Because A is better than B, we start to think of B as not good, while in reality B is still good and A is just better. In particular A may only be marginally
29.
by Pyramus 3y ago
Here we go again: HN user educates experts from different domain about said domain. Why not say "I prefer X" instead of "you are too stupid to do X"? Which might be a legit point and could lead to an interesting conversa
30.
by Pyramus 3y ago
I'm not saying the content of a post can not be personal data. I'm saying it is not by default. The words "Hello world" posted on any subreddit is not personal data. In this case the company could simply delete the infor

More ›