Are you also claiming infrastructure in Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia is better than the US, or just Saudi Arabia?

Too many variables to control for imo to abductively say the sun helped. Once you start controlling for enough variables to start teasing out causation, degrees of freedom and the power of the tests become precarious.

Not to mention issues with data dragging/p-hacking: we don’t know if they just tested a bunch of random things and are only reporting the interesting finding.

But regardless, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt regarding p-hacking, this paper has not reached a sufficient level of abduction to convince me of anything. Even if there is a correlation between sunlight and health, this correlation doesn’t deduce the mechanism, meaning I can’t prescribe myself any solution. Is it because going outside and enjoying yourself causes less stress? Then video games would be just as good. Maybe it’s the vitamin D? I could then just supplement. Maybe people who go out more are more connected to family? I could spend time with them inside. One could argue the mechanism is not important, but that ignores that sun damage dramatically increases skin aging and skin cancer risk, and also ignores that I could expose myself to the sun and unintentionally avoid the real mechanism behind the desired effect.

Reliance on occum’s razor would probably be less needed if this was a random control trial, but still the study would be correlative with alternative explanations still plausible.

Regarding health, focus on calorie control and getting enough fats/carbs/protein. Eat whole foods that are high enough on the satiety index because they make calorie maintenance more intuitive so you don’t have to count calories if you don’t want to. Those (and maybe a few other tips) are the only things that have a large enough effect for one to determine with almost (only almost, because everything empirical is a confidence interval/correlation) certainty that they’re effective.

Any study saying that blueberries are “superfoods” or any other hyper-specific food recommendation, I immediately don’t trust it. There just isn’t any organization that would fund a RTC of such a niche finding, especially considering you would need to pay and surveil thousands of people over the course of their whole life to change their diet and stick to it. I don’t think even the NIH is giving out millions of dollars to a research team to find out if blueberries are superfoods.

I don’t think there are current private organizations doing research similar to what Bell Labs did as the current corporate-governance systems wouldn’t allow for it.

Currently, industry research is more for profit-maximization at the expense of greater human prosperity/economic growth: such as you mention Monsanto making patented seeds, increasing profits by disallowing farmers to regrow crops more cheaply which otherwise could’ve been passed onto consumers/wider society.

I think there are negative externalities if the data is sold to insurance firms — who can use the genomic information in litigation and policy rejections — or if the data is sold to some sort of powerful, pro-eugenics political organization. The insurance externalities likely can be mitigated with minimal legislation (protecting consumers in a similar manner to how we protect those with pre-existing conditions) and it is reasonable to assume pro-eugenics political groups wouldn’t be any less dangerous without this genomic data available.

Thus, I struggle to see how this data changing hands would be especially detrimental to society. One could contend a moral dilemma will arise from future developments in cloning, but would it? We already have clones in the form of identical twins, and their existence does not seem to create many, if any, especially problematic moral dilemmas. Maybe people are worried that society will start cloning celebrities and famous intellectuals instead of having babies more naturally — creating a world of designer babies where the diversity of thought and talent shrinks in a “tragedy of the commons”-esque dilemma — but I don’t think this is people’s issue because most people frame their qualms as more of a personal privacy issue. Moreover, designer babies issue I describe would likely become an issue with or without cloning.

There are issues that come to mind regarding genomics in commerce — such as the ethics and market incentives of patenting certain genomic patterns — but again I don’t see how this 23andMe data changing hands make this issue any more pressing than before.

On the other hand, my instinct (which I have learned to never blindly trust) is that making the data more widely available may make it cheaper and easier for researchers to make impactful discoveries. Therefore, my biggest worry with the change of ownership is that the new owners may keep the data behind a bigger wall.

Previously, one could argue that choosing to give your labor to an industry with superior values and alignment of incentives over another would provide the most good as that industry will naturally assert and perpetuate its values and personal interest throughout society and government. However, it’s unclear what industry has superior values and best alignment of incentives with society.

Making the profession better paid and more well respected — both more respected for its societal necessity and the job’s rigor exceeding most other psychological/educational professions — would make the field less niche, more competitive, and more attractive to bright students choosing a career. I think school psychologists should be paid as well — if not better — than school principals. Problems like the one this article describes would be a lot less frequent if we make school psychology a more attractive profession.

Anyone who has had the privilege to live in a city where walking is easier than driving knows how much more freeing not having a car is than having one.

Inflation sucks but deflation is a death spiral. There is some more nuance, but most economists would agree that deflation is a lot scarier in general than inflation due to its feedback loop.

Moreover, the reason why we keep getting rampant inflation is more due to neoliberalism and neoconservative economic/fiscal policy rather than modern monetary theory and Keynesian monetary policy. If anything, these monetary policies have massively reduced the amount of inflation we have been feeling for the past several years.

From my understanding, this is all the original comment says about shallow geothermal. Correct me if I am misunderstanding.

Moreover, I do not see the quote: "The more than 1 gigawatt of geothermal power currently produced globally — from California to Iceland to the Philippines — relies nearly exclusively on such natural outpourings of the earth’s heat" anywhere.

Are we referring to the same comment, or am I misunderstanding something?

On the other hand, people don’t usually transact with BitCoin because of its volatility and because BitCoin’s currency deflation. I’m also almost certain Bitcoin protocols couldn’t keep up with global transactions even if the currency did stabilize. One last point (there are way too many to write them all here) is that there will be no incentive for people to verify blocks when all 21 billion coins are completely mined.

Bitcoin is a game of betting there is a bigger sucker who comes after you. Bitcoin whales realized that the government is the biggest sucker of them all. It’s ironic to me that they have lobbied so hard for the government to subsidize their assets when they have been preaching libertarian idolatry for years.