> Yes, they know.

> Starlink is already planned for a scale of tens of thousands of satellites.

Meanwhile Google installed that many TPUs yesterday afternoon. The idea is still stupid.

I didn't do more than 30 seconds of research here so I won't claim to be an expert, but according to the report in [1], Texas is the state with the fifth highest medical bills, "highest percentage of adults who have chosen not to see a doctor at some point in the past 12 months due to cost", and "the highest percentage of children—14.9%—whose families struggled to pay for their child’s medical bills in the past 12 months".

Some of that is no doubt Texas refusing to expand Medicaid under the ACA, but also "the study found that Texas exhibits the fourth-highest annual premium for both plus-one health insurance coverage ($4,626) and family health insurance coverage ($7,051.33) through an employer," so "a good deal cheaper" doesn't really seem an apt descriptor.

[1] https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article291990...

Structurally this means evidence gathered by internal investigations will often be destroyed and can't be used for possible criminal charges, as well as plenty of time to tighten up stories and close ranks with each other.

And used to be an F5 company.

Don't listen to mc32, they're intentionally confusing the issue. This is the paper they're presumably referencing from last month[1].

The IPCC reports are based on a number of carbon emissions scenarios based on how the world acts: how do countries coordinate, what are the mixes of new electricity generation that come online, how are old fossil fuel plants shut down, what cars are sold, etc. In their reports they simulate multiple scenarios to show what could happen depending on the choices made, since you can't really simulate policy decisions (like presidents paying companies billions to shut down wind projects), wars (ahem), and economic changes.

There were five main scenarios in the IPCC sixth report, from very low to very high GHG emissions.

What was "walked back" is not about climate simulation or feedback loops, but they've retired the very high emissions scenario they developed in the mid 2010s of a world that went all in on heavy economic growth all powered by fossil fuels and little effort toward electrification or decarbonization.

Basically based on renewable energy prices in the years since, electrification, etc, it's just not plausible that the world will grow in that way, so it's no longer worth trying to do simulations based on it.

Note that this was literally called the "very high emissions scenario" in the report, and that's there's still a "high" emissions scenario that will be included in the seventh IPCC report as an upper bound of plausible emissions. A couple of economic models already estimated that we'll likely emit less carbon than the new upper bound high emissions scenario, the same as it was for the very high scenario in the sixth report. Like then, though, it's still worth simulating because it is at least still plausible, and you never know how things will develop sociopolitically (this paper proposes six scenarios from very low to high and a new "high to low" scenario, see section 2.3) .

[1] https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/2627/2026/

"harness engineering" is the term claimed by that article to have originated in February. It does seem obvious in retrospect and I don't remember an origination point, but there's at least one hn comment predating that in December[2] and it doesn't treat it as novel.

I will admit that my bias is against any self congratulatory buzzword fads (I'm still not over "MCP is the USB of LLMs" or whatever and that's been a year now too). "Who coined the term harness engineering?" -> who cares? It was already widely being done.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7mqp8uRnnPdbBzJZE/is-gemini-...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46331242

They don't boil live kittens either, I believe. Doesn't seem relevant though.

That was in reference to the original story, that human annotation is happening on videos that no one knew were getting reviewed. If you want to talk about not collecting at all, well:

> If you want to get stricter and talk about collecting at all, Meta already has that solution too, by leaving the video in the user's camera roll. Let the user manually add the video to the Meta AI app or whatever if they want to share it with others there.

> And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do?

This is written as if logically exhaustive, but it misses the very obvious alternative that none of these videos should have been reviewed by a human at all (aka no reason to "recognize it as untouchable"; they're all untouchable).

If you want to get stricter and talk about collecting at all, Meta already has that solution too, by leaving the video in the user's camera roll. Let the user manually add the video to the Meta AI app or whatever if they want to share it with others there.

> Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed.

You said the opposite:

> Responder says the email, photos, and docs still need a warrant because they're like your thoughts or mail

From Orin Kerr's live tweets (Feigin for DOJ, Unikowsky for Chatrie) of what I believe you were summarizing there:

> Barrett: I'm concerned with your position being maximalist, too. Calendars, photos, email. And monitoring of homes. Are you conceding this would be a search?

> Feigin: Warrant is needed for calendars, photos, email. [OK comments: Virtual lockers]. Not conceding homes.

...

> Finally, Unikowksy rebuttal: We welcome the government's concession as to calendars, photos. But I don't understand how they distinguish that from this.

https://bsky.app/profile/orinkerr.bsky.social/post/3mkigsbw6...

https://xcancel.com/OrinKerr/status/2048793893420875849#m

This is a bit of a specious argument, though, since of course what they wrote often didn't clearly articulate what they necessarily meant. You even point this out above: what is ownership, and what is unreasonable? Does entrusting your effects to a third party for safe keeping make them less your effects, etc.

You must have misheard this as this is not true country wide (see US v Warshak) and in practice the government treats these as needing a warrant because of that and the time requirement in the Stored Communications Act (and any major provider will explicitly refuse handing over content data without a warrant).

Gorsuch in particular thinks the Third Party Doctrine is bullshit and is happy to write that down (like in Carpenter) and today seemed to be trotting that out again (though I only read the beginning of arguments).

But just wanted to correct for the historical record:

> Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser.

Where 2 did not have a product, successful or not. They were an unreleased demo looking for investors and luckily got into a room with Larry Page of 2004.

comparing Fall 2019 to Fall 2022

Heat hot enough to kill diseases will have killed you long before. Fevers are really a pretty small temperature rise.

It does appear that fevers are an adaptive defense, but FWIW there's been basically no evidence that not taking medicine to bring down a fever will improve outcomes in practice. OTOH, evidence also shows that typical fevers won't themselves hurt you either, so they don't necessarily have to be treated.

Current medical guidance in kids and (non-pregnant) adults is to treat discomfort, usually the associated muscle aches, body chills, etc, but in general we shouldn't encourage people to suffer for no benefit. The fever isn't cleaning you out.

In case you don't know, CliffsNotes isn't you writing notes, it's using someone else's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CliffsNotes

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47785627

I don't think we should pat ourselves on the back too hard for milquetoast takes devoid of any specifics.

(also I think you misread the responses to your post)

Weird to quote that when that's not what the GP said and appears to be a paraphrase that loses quite a bit of specificity and so misses the point:

> We need more “for all of humanity” mindset instead of this “barbaric tribes beat each other over the head for sticky oil”

Being realistic about the species is useful, but let's not be disingenuous for imaginary rhetorical points.