SerialStateLineXer
No bio...
User ID: 1345
That's far smaller than the bill that the Apollo creator would be getting for my usage when I'm on mobile.
Reddit's been saying that under their current pricing model the average Apollo user would incur about $2.50/month in API charges, and that Apollo is a particularly inefficient user of the API, with other applications like RIF incurring about a dollar per month per user in API charges.
However, it's not really clear what an "average" user is. Maybe it's diluted by a bunch of users who only use it for a few minutes per day.
The EPA tried to moot the case by withdrawing their compliance order, but
Come on, man! I'm on the edge of my seat here!
It's interesting and a little encouraging that even the liberal members of the court (except Ginsburg) are not eager to give the executive infinite unappealable power.
I can't imagine that she's all that eager these days, either.
It was this executive order, repealed on Biden's first day in office.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Obligatory reminder that one of the first actions Biden took upon taking office was rescinding Trump's executive order banning executive-branch training that makes these sorts of claims about white people.
Edit: It wasn't limited to white people, but it was widely understood that nobody with any real power in the executive branch wanted to run trainings that made similar claims about people of any other race.
It's not about what the revenues are used for. It's about internalizing the externalities. When you use roads, that imposes a certain cost on society, because it costs money to build and maintain the roads, and only so many people can use them at the same time. When you burn fuel, you impose a certain cost on society by contributing to global warming, and also emitting other pollutants.
US gas taxes might be high enough to cover one of these, but are probably not high enough to cover both of them. So maybe burning a gallon of gas has a total social cost (including the cost of extracting the gas, road upkeep, and pollution) of $3.50, but you only have to pay $2.75. Or whatever. This means that if you get $3 of value out of burning a gallon of gas, you'll do it, even though it does $3.50 worth of damage. That's a bad outcome. We want an incentive structure in which you only do $3.50 of damage if you get at least $3.50 in value from it.
Specifically, in the last couple of years, I've become a LOT more authoritarian on crime.
I don't think supporting a crackdown on crime is authoritarian. Rather, I see my libertarianism and support for incarcerating criminals as two sides of the same coin. I think government should be in the business of protecting people's right to life, liberty, and property. I oppose government trying to take these away, and I oppose criminals trying to take them away.
Drug Dealer Adam might enjoy dealing drugs, doing drugs, robbing stores, driving stolen cars in street races, exploiting Drug Addict Bella and Catherine for sex and molesting their children, fighting turf wars, doing drive by shootings... But all those things are bad for everyone else.
Drug Dealer Adam is a utility monster, so it's okay.
In the NEJM tirzepatide study, they reported a final fat-to-lean ratio of 0.7, which means that the subjects were still about 0.7/1.7 = 40% body fat.
"Billions served" wasn't about the number of unique customers. By the time they stopped posting the counter in the 90s, they were up to 100 billion. It was the number of orders served.
There are gas taxes, but they're mostly to fund roads, so they may cover the cost of roads (though I'm not 100% sure of even that), but they don't also cover the social cost of carbon emissions. There also aren't generally taxes on other uses of fossil fuels.
They should just tax emissions, but it's very important to Democrats that a) they be seen by their base as sticking it to corporations, and b) the increase in the cost of owning and operating a vehicle be seen by the base as caused by corporations raising prices, rather than by Democrats raising taxes.
I don't know of a good way to work it a priori. I guess chip designers must have a way to be reasonably sure before they make the chips that they'll be faster than their predecessors.
But generally you'll want to use benchmarks, like https://www.cpubenchmark.net/. Benchmarking software runs a computationally expensive test, which is ideally somewhat representative of real-world workloads, to see how a given CPU performs. This is complicated by systems with the same CPU having different other components, but I assume they adjust for that somehow.
Greg Mankiw says that the stress tests probably wouldn't have caught this, although I imagine that they'll be modified to cover this scenario in the future.
Right. If an increase in parents picking up children late is a problem, you're not charging enough. If you charge the right price, either parents will pick their kids up on time, or you'll make enough money from the late fee that you don't care.
The thing is, it's not just left: It's oblivious left. They demonstrate absolutely no awareness of then existence of obvious counterarguments to the ridiculous things they say. After the split, /r/SlateStarCodex didn't just move left. It got dumber. The /r/ : SSC ratio increased.
Are you able to breathe through your nose easily while awake? Are your upper teeth crowded, or did you have to have premolars extracted to make room to straighten them out? You may have narrow nasal passages due to maxillary hypoplasia, which can be corrected.
states that the reason 13% of the population makes up 52% of the arrests
27% of all arrests. It's only in the 50% neighborhood for homicide, robbery, and gambling.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43
in case it's paywalled
It's not. National Review only paywalls the NR Plus articles, which are labeled by a red box at the top.
You cite the unadjusted PE RR of 1.54, but after they adjust for the fact that patients receiving the Pfizer vaccine were older and more likely to be in nursing homes than the controls, the RR fell to 1.15. Given the small RR, the fact that they made many comparisons, and the fact that no such increase was observed for the Moderna vaccine, with a similar mechanism of action and higher dose, this is very likely to be either spurious, or possibly related to a Pfizer-specific adjuvant rather than to the mRNA LNPs.
Also, that autopsy paper you're tricking out all over the thread is not the smoking gun you think it is. It's been known and widely acknowledged that the mRNA vaccines are associated with myocarditis and pericarditis mostly in young males at a rate of about 5 per 100k, compared to 150 per 100k in infected patients. If you live in a country with a high chance of infection, such as the US, vaccination greatly reduces risk even when ignoring all the other sequelae of COVID-19 infection and considering only myocarditis risk.
There's been a group of people who clearly have a deep ideological and emotional investment in mRNA vaccines being far more harmful than COVID-19, and who have demonstrated a tendency to grossly misinterpret various data, anecdotes, or urban legends in order to provide support for that claim. After chasing down numerous such claims and finding that they don't hold up, I usually just don't bother. When I do, it's more in the spirit of, "How specifically did was this nonsense rationalized?" rather than out of wanting to see whether it's true. Anti-vaxxers just have no credibility left.
Hepatotoxicity actually is a real problem with many different classes of drugs, including NSAID and opioid painkillers. It's not just a coincidence.
The liver likes to grab onto and break down drugs in the bloodstream, which is a problem with drug delivery; not only can many drugs harm the liver, but the liver also prevents the drugs from reaching their target tissues.
Of course, hepatotoxicity from medicine is much more of a problem for people whose livers are busy and/or damaged from processing excessive alcohol and/or fructose. For most people with healthy livers, occasional use of painkillers is fine.
Yeah, but I meant Americans.
The Philippines was a Spanish colony, but there are few native Spanish speakers. Macao was a Portuguese colony, so, like Brazil, it's not Hispanic. Also, hardly anybody there speaks Portuguese anyway.
Are you talking about the ~500k native Spanish speakers in the Philippines? Most Filipinos speak Tagalog, Cebuano, or some other Austronesian language as their native language.
I would argue that HBD, properly understood, is the least divisive explanation for racial achievement gaps. There are a few competing mainstream explanations:
HBD allows for the possibility that it's nobody's fault. White people aren't keeping black people down. Rich people aren't keeping poor people down (and neither are Jews). And black people don't just need to try harder (obviously this would help any individual on the margin, but it's not the main reason for group disparities).
Some of the more insightful leftists actually understand this, and hate HBD precisely because it offers an alternative to their libelous villain-and-victim narratives. Over the past week or so, I've seen several people "accuse" HBD advocates of being defenders of the "status quo," as if rejecting the idea that society is a conspiracy by whites/rich people/Jews to screw over everyone else were indisputable evidence of bad faith.
HBD also gives us a clear path to a biological fix to a problem that has stubbornly resisted all sociological approaches to remediation. We need to invest much more into understanding the genetics of human intelligence and developing technology for polygenic gene therapy. HBD is a red pill, not a black pill, and it offers a way forward out of this madness.
Edit: Wacky but also kind of serious idea to tide us over until STEMlords save the day: Offer low-SES women free access to semen from high-IQ men, explaining to them that this will give their children a much better chance at succeeding in life and greatly reduce the odds that they'll end up in prison.
More options
Context Copy link