Unless you're already at full Norwood VII pre-transplant, you have hair that you'll continue to lose post-transplant. Being on the medications that help stop that in its tracks will mean a better looking long term result and keep you from having to undergo future transplants.

More directly, at the risk of a handwavey evo-psych just-so story: Hundreds of millions of years of evolution, perhaps? A ton of characteristics driving attraction are signals of health / youthfulness. Weight, musculature, nice skin, good teeth, etc. And yeah, good hair! Male pattern baldness is definitely associated with aging even though many people will probably spend more of their lives follicularly challenged than they did with good hair.

Are there many stories where the bad guys create the metaverse? AFAIK, Stephenson coined the term in Snow Crash and there it was built by the main character and his buds.

The Matrix, I suppose? Though I think Zuck's (immediate) vision and who he identifies as is way more Hiro Protagonist or James Halliday.

I think the bigger hang up is that they're still slower and less capable than the frontier models, especially at the hardware specs most home users are likely to have.

Those are much more specialized models with pretty mediocre tokens per second.

Per you, it surely must be important to fewer than 71% of Americans, no? The state of infringement on privacy seems to evidence that it's not so important to a lot of people such that they continue to be perfectly willing to elect and re-elect the politicians who enact the changes allowing infringing on it/fail to legislate in favor of privacy. Connecting it to an issue more people care about seems an attempt to argue for its important to those who otherwise are willing to look the other way.

FWIW, I fed my reply above into Claude and asked it to guess who wrote it. It refused (for safety) while also calling me out: "The style here (tight logical structure, the "per you" construction, the move of turning someone's own framing back on them) is common across a lot of contrarian-leaning commenters on HN"

https://www.moreno.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/FIL...

>No Member of the Senate may enter into, or offer to enter into, an agreement, contract, or transaction that provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or delivery that is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of a specific event.

Kind of seems like Senators would now be barred from like getting home or life insurance and certain kinds of casino gambling. Or like, making an offer on a home that is rescindable upon a failed inspection?

If we simulated a hurricane by somehow inducing a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms over warm tropical waters with wind speeds over 75+ mph, the difference could end up being fairly unimportant to those in the simulation's path.

Computer simulations of hurricanes obviously lack those important properties of what makes something a hurricane. I'm not so sure that the same would apply to something as abstract and difficult to define as consciousness.

I do wonder about how they're calculating some of this. It looks like in the chart is saying 16% of the cohort born between 1981 and 1996 (aka millennials) owned a home in 2000. I wouldn't even expect 16% of that group to be over 18.

Those two seem a little at odds. People are going to vote against it, but not when it's specifically on the ballot?