If you instead fully evaluate the generator expression before calling any of the functions (for example, by passing it to the list constructor), you get the same behavior as the list comprehension case:

    >>> [f() for f in list(lambda: i for i in range(0, 10))]
    [9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9]

For the difference to be explained solely by there being more old people because old people are more vulnerable to COVID, I would interpret that to mean that any particular individual is not more or less likely to die depending on whether they live in California or Florida and the overall difference is determined by the difference in age distribution. But, as a limiting case, if all COVID deaths were among elderly people, then a 100%+ higher overall death rate in Florida which has only a 43% larger share of its population who are elderly compared to California would require that deaths per capita among the elderly population would have to be ~40% higher in Florida than in California (2 / 1.43). It's possible that my intuition is making an error here, but I think that the situation with only elderly people dying is the upper bound on how much effect the age distribution can directly have. So, something further is necessary to explain the additional (at least) 40%.

> Is there direct evidence that it's masks and not the density and quantity of old people?

I don't know whether masks explain the cited difference (I haven't seen convincing evidence but I also haven't really examined the matter), just that age distribution cannot explain the entirety of the difference. At least some age groups must have been more likely to die due to COVID-19 if they lived in Florida than in California during the cited period. It's certainly possible that some portion of that additional difference can be explained through downstream effects of the age distribution, but demonstrating that would require some additional evidence beyond the bare fact of the age distribution differences.

My understanding is there were also other policy differences between the two states besides mask requirements, but I do not have any specific reason to believe them to have had a significant (or any) effect, just like I don't have any specific reason to believe that downstream consequences of the age distribution to have had a significant (or any) effect.

> I guess it's subjective levels or risk. Is two percent lower infection rate worth it to require everyone to wear masks?

I couldn't say, although it's also worth remembering that the positivity rate data in question doesn't tell you anything about the infection rate. It doesn't even tell you what proportion of people who got tested received positive results, since the data in question is about samples rather than patients.

GP actually did speak in terms of per capita numbers (hence "population share"). In absolute numbers, California would exceed Florida in old people; as shares of the population, California has (according to your second link) 14.3% of their population over age 65, while Florida has 20.5%. This works out to be Florida having about 43% more old people per capita than California. If the claim upthread that deaths per capita in Florida more than doubled that in California is accurate, then 43% more people 65 or older per capita does not explain more than 100% more deaths per capita.

> Guess what STILL less than California. Guess what positivity rate at the BOTTOM of all states.

As to your positivity rate point, I can't confidently speak to whether your argument would be valid if the data was as you said, but your data is not accurate: your link lists Florida at the bottom of all states, but it also lists them as having a 0.0% positivity rate. The latter is, unsurprisingly, not correct, and neither is the former. Going through to its listed data source [1], I calculated positivity rates (number of positive results / number of total results) for each state using the data as of October 11 [2] (filtering for "date" equal to October 11 of this year).

Using cumulative numbers ("total_results_reported"), Florida has a positivity rate of 10.4% (18th highest), California has 5.7% (44th highest). Using new results with a date of October 11 ("new_results_reported"), Florida is doing better than earlier: only 4.6% positive (42th highest). Still twice California's 2.1% (53rd, below every other state and every US territory, but ahead of the District of Columbia).

1: https://healthdata.gov/dataset/COVID-19-Diagnostic-Laborator...

2: arbitrarily picked to be far enough back I could be sure I would not be missing data for some states due to reporting lag on the first try.

Your claim upthread was:

> Even the threads here on HN from back then where epik gets mentioned don't mention that stuff.

but the HN search links demonstrate that the threads here on HN from back then where Epik gets mentioned are almost all specifically about that stuff! Not all of that discussion was opposed to Epik, but that wasn't the claim you took issue with.

As to your Google Trends link, yes, Gab has never been an especially popular website, and it was not as frequently searched for then as in the period immediately after Donald Trump's twitter account was suspended, but your trends link shows that the Epik coverage (and the only HN thread about Epik to get any traction in 2018 or 2019) coincided with the most searches Gab ever got (as a result of coverage related to the Tree of Life synagogue shooting) prior to Trump's twitter suspension, and was about three times as much as it gets nowadays. It was only exceeded during the week of January 10th through 16th of this year. Epik itself, of course, has never been as frequently searched for as even Gab ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... ).

External criticism from prominent publications and organizations of Epik for its hosting of far-right sites also dates back at least as far as early 2019 [5][6].

HN search provides a story about Epik hosting Gab [7] as the highest popularity story result for "Epik" in the date range Jan 8th 2018 to Dec 30th 2019 (HN search is weird about date ranges and wouldn't let me do 1st to 31st) [8]. The front page of that search result has 5 other stories that are not just incorrectly matching on the word "Epic" or companies named "Epic", one of which is about Epik's "forever domains" service and got 3 points and 2 comments. One is about 8chan getting kicked off its previous provider and mentions them moving to Epik (it appears to be the same article as my [3]), but the comments mostly does not talk about Epik. The other articles are all about Epik hosting Gab or far-right sites but received few upvotes and comments.

In the first page of results for the corresponding search for comments [9] I can find 1 comment from 'sadris talking about Epik's low pricing, 1 comment from 'boultonmark on a non-Gab story describing Epik as seeming to be "the go to company for criminals online", 2 hiring posts from somebody who happens to have epik in their username near the bottom, and two comments using the word "epic" at the bottom. The 14 by my count other comments are all about Epik hosting Gab and/or either hosting or not hosting 8chan.

[1]: The SPLC article below [5] says this is the timing, but the Wayback machine[2] doesn't have frequent enough captures of their twitter account for me to verify the timing to more precisely than between

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20190119014600/https://twitter.c... has "Protector of responsible Free Speech." in their bio, tweets calling for popular Youtube channels (including Jordan Peterson) to move to BitChute, and referring to itself as "Alt-tech", which afaict is a term coined to refer specifically to technology providers that alt-right sites & people have moved to as a result of bans or moderation policies on more mainstream providers.

[3]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/5/20754943/8chan-epik-offlin...

[4]: https://www.epik.com/blog/epik-draws-line-on-acceptable-use....

[5]: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/01/11/problem-epik-...

[6]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gy4yg9/the-far-right-has-fou...

[7]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18383947

[8]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1577750400&dateRange=custom&...

[9]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1577750400&dateRange=custom&...

The introduction adds that the Jewish (or otherwise "undesirable") students "were given these problems one after another until they failed one of them, at which point they were given a failing mark."

Though Pinker himself has said he regrets having provided that aid, so I don't think he himself fully agrees with you if you want to argue against it being something he should not have done.

When my family was on food stamps, if we mismanaged our money and food stamps one month (spent them too inefficiently, accidentally let some food spoil, or such), then, yes, society would absolutely have let us starve (though not in the streets, as we did own our house and were in a rural area). We might have been able to get some further help from family or friends, but not from any form of welfare.

I'm not sure how much less weird allowing for that makes things, but your reasoning for concluding that hardcore gamers with lower Competition scores than the hardcore average make up only 4% of the sample isn't valid.

For example, if half of the hardcore gamers (around 10.5% of the sample) are above the hardcore average and half below, that would put about 81% of the nonhardcore gamers (about 63.5% of the full sample) below the hardcore average and the rest above (about 19% of the full sample).

In fact, major social media sites such as Youtube and Twitter frequently ban or otherwise sanction queer people for talking about their sexuality or gender and approximately no one cares.

There's no reason why the needs of disabled people must conflict with taking care of the environment. The apparent conflict in this situation was introduced because people developed their environmental policy proposals without any awareness of or care for the interests and needs of disabled people: if we do not account for the effects of policies on disabled people when deciding which policies to prioritize and how to implement them, some policies will look artificially more appealing because of our inattention to some of their costs and the policies we do choose to pursue will end up implemented in needlessly harmful ways simply because we weren't paying attention to whether we ended up causing harm to some people.

Metal straws are dangerous due to for many disabled people due to the risk of injuring themselves by biting down involuntarily because of the same disabilities which necessitate their use of straws in the first place. For many others, the inflexibility of metal straws mean that they do not actually enable them to drink independently.

> Why are people so helpless? Jesus christ, it takes half a second to figure out this solution for yourself.

It is indeed very easy to think of this approach. For people with disabilities which make metal straws unusable or dangerous, it probably doesn't take very long to think of why it isn't a solution for them.

(As a minor aside, as a person lacking any such disability: metal straws can be quite a painful experience with hot beverages. Although I'm given to understand that it's traditional in Argentina with mate, and my Argentine in-laws seemed much more comfortable doing so at a higher temperature than I was, so I guess it is probably possible to get used to that.)

Many of these alternatives are usable in some contexts for people with some disabilities requiring them to use straws, however, they're all also dangerous or unusable to some disabled people (paper straws can be a choking hazard, rigid straws of all kinds are dangerous for people with tics or other conditions that may lead to them biting down involuntarily, non-paper compostable straws pose allergy risks and are rarely labeled in such a way as to communicate whether they contain possible allergens, several types of reusable or compostable straws can be dangerous in sufficiently hot drinks) and disabled people with some combinations of conditions can end up having all of the alternatives potentially unsafe for them, save disposable non-compostable plastic.

> anyone who needs or wants straw should probably be proactive in preparing themselves in case facilities fail, which is simple enough to do.

That would be simple for most abled people to do, yes. It would be less simple for those disabled people for whom fetching a straw they brought with them and putting it in their drink would require assistance, which, as it happens, are also people who are rather likely to need straws to drink.

> I suspect the problems here are transition issues that'll disappear fairly soon

You don't seem to be aware of the problems that disabled people have been pointing out, so I think your suspicion may not be very well founded here.

Please cite the text of a law which actually says this or any case where someone has been convicted for this under a law which does not explicitly say it.

Some of the non-profits dedicated to fighting this opposed the bill!