https://www.quora.com/While-at-the-sea-what-did-Vikings-do-f...

Frankly, even without AI, most communities get degraded as they become more popular and the stream of comments becomes overwhelming. Like there are over 1000 comments on this story and let's be honest, most of it isn't adding value. A great many of them are repeats of other posts, so the person didn't read other people's comments either.

The solutions seem to boil down to making the karma system more draconian. Like instead of focused more on downvoting garbage and upvoting gems, the slush of "mid" posts has to be dealt with somehow. Not sure if rate-limiting accounts would make a noticeable difference. Ironically, perhaps AI is also a solution to the issue, since obviously it can, for example, know all the other comments and could potentially assign some value score in the overall context.

I probably wouldn't post this here post either but I'm hitting reply because of the topic at hand...

Some things like this are nevertheless generally known to be wrong despite usage

I'm sure it helps that it's not getting outside of well-established facts, and is asking for facts and not novel design tasks.

I'm not sure but it also seems to adopt a more intimate tone of voice as they get deeper into a topic, very cozy. The voice itself is tuned to the conversational context. It probably infers that this is kid stuff too.

California already a dumb communal insurance thing, the "California FAIR Plan" for people who can't get insurance due to high risk. They force insurance companies who operate in the state to fund it. So basically everyone has to subsidize the high-risk people... but then the insurance companies leave.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-fair-pl...

Everyone knows SSDs made a big difference in user experience. For the CPU, normally if you aren't gaming at high settings or "crunching" something (compiling or processing video etc.) then it's not obvious why CPU upgrades should be making much difference even vs. years-old Intel chips, in terms of that feel.

There is the issue of running heavy JS sites in browsers but I can avoid those.

The main issue seems to be how the OS itself is optimized for snappiness, and how well it's caching/preloading things. I've noticed Windows 10 file system caching seems to be not very sophisticated for example... it goes to disk too often for things I've accessed recently-but-not-immediately-prior.

Similarly when it comes to generating heat, if laptops are getting hot even while doing undemanding office tasks with huge periods of idle time then basically it points to stupid software -- or let's say poorly balanced (likely aimed purely at benchmark numbers than user experience).

https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-...

It did not build half as many homes, it was 82917 homes in 2023 vs. 51172 in 2005. Also, the profit number should be corrected for inflation when comparing across almost 2 decades.

"Hacking" is a mindset that can still be applied in interesting ways to social problems and assumptions. The standard political discourse does not generally operate with such a mindset (ideally intelligent, thoughtful, humble regarding uncertainties or alternative views etc.)

The audience here and moderation structure creates somewhat different takes on things even if comments are too limiting to have "debates".

These are fuzzy topics where it is difficult to objectively prove arguments, difficult to agree on philosophical scoring/ranking of various social states or end goals. The academic background is lacking in rigor and apparently ignores or suppresses large swathes of potential investigative topics.

There should be more attention given to the meta level of these topics. Having a more precise language and names for concepts would help have higher-level discussion without repeating basics all the time, and without the "appeal to emotion" type of anecdotal/moral/rage-filled discussion.

Maybe the FAA should actually encourage neutral third-parties to observe pilots.

It appears that most of the handwringing is about politically disagreeing with the bans, not hardships of obeying bans. There are always bans. But they want this material (sexuality, gender, "race theory") available even to pretty young children because of their societal goals/agenda. Others do not want that. Fight.

This recent WSJ article mentions primarily reasons of salary and student behavior, as any layman would guess from first principles. It did mention "political battles over issues such as how race and gender are discussed". Well, this is not going away -- the battle is fought from multiple directions. Another direction is the industry profits from institutions being morally obligated to buy a lot of new diversity-related books.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/teachers-leaving-quitt...

The article cited a particular school district directive which seems to be a temporary review procedure for its high schools. It would be disingenuous to say that means teachers can't keep a library, full stop, and even in that case it seems it was immediately backtracked. The law in question has since been clarified.

Also, do you think these laws have been important regarding the "decline by 9" of 9-year olds reading for enjoyment?

One possible issue on the contrary side is promotion of kids' books involving racial diversity themes. Often such moralizing books are not very interesting for pure entertainment value. They are there to meet a market trend, some may be better than others but in general have not stood the test of time.

It also avoids discussing which age is appropriate for these topics. Most of the support for including explicit sexual violence seems to be about high school, and even there it's not clear that explicit content is necessary to these purposes (I'm not familiar with the books in question).

Then there are the books by Kendi etc. and an example where that was required reading in an AP course (college-level). Sure, that's debatable but isn't of much relevance to reading, reading for enjoyment in particular, by young kids, which is the topic of this HN post.

The pen.org article says "books aren’t harmful—censorship is." So it gives no credence to any kind of concern about age-appropriate topics.