If you look up that film stabilized [1], it becomes really apparent that it's just a guy in a ape costume. The shaky camera is the only thing that makes it harder to determine what's going on.
9 out of 10 experts agree. It's that last one. That one person is just enough for people to latch on. Then, of the 9, 6 of them get tired of yelling at clouds and quit. The 6 get replaced with those that believe the one so that there's not 7. That goes on for long enough, you get people in charge that do away with vaccinations and measles has a come back.
That's not actually how the measles thing happens.
What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine. Until someone with an authoritarian streak gets tired of winning debates with lizardmen guy and instead tries to shut him up, or starts suppressing data that doesn't actually support the crazy theory but is kind of inconvenient or complicated to explain.
Then you're screwed because you're letting the conspiracy guy point to an actual conspiracy to suppress his views, which provides evidentiary support for the claim that their crazy theory isn't mainstream because it's being suppressed. Meanwhile you get free speech defenders concerned about a bad precedent coming out to oppose you, and then political lines get drawn over something that never should have been partisan, but now everyone is expected to pick a side. And a lot of people end up on the side of lizardmen guy.
But once it's partisan, people are hopeless at being neutral. If you're on lizardmen guy's side then you're giving him the benefit of the doubt and on the lookout for any fault in his critics, which is how you get way too many people actually believing in lizardmen.
The problem is fundamentally that censoring something discredits you rather than them.
> That's not actually how the measles thing happens.
> What really happens is that the one nutter stands in the town square ranting about lizardmen and 99.99% of people ignore him, or an actual scientist gets bored and challenges him to a debate and then lizardmen guy gets trounced and further discredited, and everything is fine.
My observation (in Germany) is rather that many antivaxxer (and sceptics of forced measles vaccination) read the scientific literature quite deeply, but come to very different conclusions. Additionally, they often have marked "live and let live" personality traits, which authorities do not like.
Because of their deep intellectual investment in this topic, they often have a much deeper knowledge about the whole topic than working doctors. The only people who are real counterparties for them are actual respected scientific experts on the topic. While these are clearly even more knowledgeable, these actual experts fear the well-read antivaxxers because the latter
- love to show gaps in the whole theoretical frameworks,
One is the "do vaccines cause autism" sort of thing, which, basically, they don't, but there are a lot of wrong people who think they do for bad reasons. That's the thing where if you try to censor things you're screwing yourself by creating the breeding ground for bad conspiracy theories. And how you get enough people refusing vaccines for bad reasons to cause problems etc.
Then there's the policy debate on whether vaccines should be mandatory, where people can make some pretty non-crazy arguments that they shouldn't be. Or the question of whether a specific person in a specific circumstance should get a specific vaccine, to which a reasonable answer could occasionally be no. But the people making those arguments aren't even necessarily wrong and having them push back on something when they have a reason to push back on it is perfectly legitimate and the people wanting to stop them are the baddies.
In the "do vaccines cause autism" sort of thing, they don't.
But then frauds like Wakefield somehow got a bullshit paper published saying they do and it's off to the toon races.
The paper wasn't censored, it was disproven by multiple studies and discredited by investigation. The Wakefield paper studied 12 children (multiple who had siblings with autism) and was funded by lawyers suing the vaccine companies at the time.
Today Wakefield is on the anti-vax circuit giving talks and continuing to lie.
Measles is a Solved Problem. Polio is a Solved Problem.
But the toons are running the Fed now, canceling science and telling lies. So we'll have to wait until 2028 to get a final death count, assuming anyone is still tracking it.
Those "well-read antivaxxers" are the same as e.g. people with a fear of flying: they spend too much time looking at extremely rare catastrophic outcomes (dying or being seriously injured because of a plane crash or a vaccine side effect) and then think that it will surely happen to them or their children. The only difference is just that when someone who's afraid of flying doesn't take a plane, it only affects very few people (if that), whereas lowering herd immunity affects us all.
The difference between yesteryear, when everyone ignored the nutter ranting about lizardmen in the town square, and today is that the nutters can now find company and reinforcement for their beliefs thanks to the Internet. And ultimately it leads to people like Elon Musk getting high on their own supply of toxic disinformation and causing the death of thousands of people by shutting down USAID because they believe some far-right nutter on X more than what "the establishment" has been saying for decades...
Aircraft manufacturers and airlines have a lot at stake if they let any risks slip through. If anyone dies it will be big news and visible to everyone, with real consequences for the companies responsible.
(I'm in the US so this may only be relevant there)
Childhood vaccines could cause a serious chronic disease in 1% of kids and we would have no way to know because:
1) Many vaccine clinical trials only monitor outcomes for a few days to a couple weeks.
2) Most vaccine clinical trials have no placebo control. If they have do have a control group in most cases the control group gets a different vaccine.
3) Most kids in vaccine clinical trials are also getting 10-30 other vaccine injections during their first two years of life during the period that they're being monitored for the one vaccine in their trial. So the only way this could even produce a signal would be if the one vaccine under trial was the only one that caused harm and all other vaccines did not.
I am not saying that vaccines do cause chronic disease in 1% of kids - just that it seems to me we don't have a good way to know.
Furthermore, even if it was proved that vaccines caused harm, vaccine manufacturers are not liable for harms from vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule.
Flying is safe, but I think it is not because some rules/regulations or due to "science".
A plane falling out of sky is a pretty big event and cannot be suppressed or silenced. It affects a large number of people at once. If planes starts to fall out of sky often, then the commercial aviation will come to a halt in a month. Given this eventuality, if you want to make money by flying people, it in imperative that there is no other way than to * do everything possible to make sure* planes don't fall from the sky.
If planes could fall out of sky without everyone knowing about it (For example, imagine that when a plane crashes, instead of killing the passengers right away, they only get hit after a month or so, and it is hard to link the deaths with the flight they took a month before), and affecting their business, then I bet that flying will no longer be very safe as companies will start cutting expenses with maintenance etc and paying off regulators/inspectors..
A stock market crash is also a pretty big event that cannot be suppressed or silenced, but they still happen regularly. The sad truth is that people (and companies) are greedy and will gladly cut corners with safety if it means making more money. So regulations (and enforcement of those regulations) are needed to prevent a race to the bottom that will eventually lead to a crash. Coming back to aviation, you only have to look at countries like Nepal (https://kathmandupost.com/money/2025/11/10/nepali-sky-remain...) to see what happens when there are no regulations, or regulations are not enforced.
> There's not another obvious solution to the problem
The problem with this solution is it's far too overly broad while also not working well. It leaves out the most important parts from the legislation while specifying universal compliance.
What the law should have been is "Operating systems intended to be used by minors should have this age verification specification implemented" with a nice documentation of that specification and how it should work. As written, you'll basically end up with the potential that every single OS ends up with it's own age verification system, which defeats the entire point of these laws in the first place.
Saying "all operating systems" puts us in this complicated and dumb position where now an embedded OS needs to worry about age verification of it's user.
IMO, the reason they didn't sell is the ideal usage for them is pairing them with some slow spinning disks. The issue Optane had is that SSD capacity grew dramatically while the price plummeted. The difference between Optane and SSDs was too small. Especially since the M.2 standard proliferated and SSDs took advantage of PCI-E performance.
I believe Optane retained a performance advantage (and I think even today it's still faster than the best SSDs) but SSDs remain good enough and fast enough while being a lot cheaper.
That may have been the ideal usage back in the day, but ideal usage now is just for setting up swap. Write-heavy workloads are king with Optane, and threshing to swap is the prototypical example of something that's so write-heavy it's a terrible fit for NAND. Optane might not have been "as fast as DRAM" but it was plenty close enough to be fit for purpose.
That would be fine if I could put it in an M.2 slot. But all my computers already have RAM in their RAM slots, and even if I had a spare RAM slot, I don't know that I'd trust the software stack to treat one RAM slot as a drive...
And their whole deal was making RAM persistent anyway, which isn't exactly what I want.
Interesting, all I ever saw advertised was that weird persistent kinda slow RAM stick. Does the M.2 version just show up as a normal block device or is that too trying to be persistent RAM?
That could be addressed with a small NVMe heatsink. They're available and their use is advised already for NAND PCIe 4.0 and 5.0 hardware, but they would fit the Optane use just as well.
It was also the best boot drive money could buy. Still is, I think, though other comments in the thread ask how it compares against today's best, which I'd also love to see.
This concept was very popular back in the days when computers used to boot from HDD, but now it doesn't make much sense. I wouldn't notice If my laptop boots for 5 sec instead of 10.
At the time of their introduction Optane drives were noticeably faster to boot your machine than even the fastest available Flash SSD. So in a workstation with multiple hard drives installed anyway, buying one to boot off of made decent sense.
If they had been cheaper, I think they'd have been really, really popular.
By my reckoning, there was zero overlap between the period of time where a reasonable computer configurer would pick a hard drive to boot from and the period of time where Optane was available.
And even for the general concept of a cache drive, I don't think I've ever seen it do well in the mainstream. Just a few niche roles, and some hybrid drives that sucked because they had small flash chips and only used them as a read cache, not a write cache.
Also potentially relevant: in the 00s, the performance gap between gzip and bzip2 wasn't quite as wide - gzip has benefited far more from modern CPU optimizations - and slow networks / small disks made a higher compression ratio more valuable.
RAR/ACE/etc used continuous compression - all files were concatenated and compressed as if they were one single large file. Much like what is done with .tar.bz. Bzip on Windows did not do that, there was no equivalent of .tar.bz2 on Windows.
You can bzip2 -9 files in some source code directory and tar these .bz2 files. This would be more or less equivalent to creating ZIP archive with BWT compression method. Then you can compare result with tar-ing the same source directory and bzip2 -9 the resulting .tar.
Then you can compare.
The continuous mode in RAR was something back then, exactly because RAR had long LZ77 window and compressed files as continuous stream.
'Solid compression' (as WinRAR calls it) is still optional with RAR. I recall the default is 'off'. At the time, that mode was still pretty good compared to bzip2.
In fact, collusion with the likes of yeildstar is the name of the game. Everyone is setting prices based on what the algorithm tells them to set prices and they all benefit from that uprise in prices because there's basically no competition decreasing the price.
There's also been a steady consolidation of ownership of rental units which also artificially increases prices.
There's a reason nowhere in the country at this point has affordable housing.
Yup. Development companies contract when the housing market contracts. They aren't building houses for the fun of it, they are building them because they believe the 100 houses they build in a hot market will ultimately pay back the land purchase rights. They will never build so many houses as to decrease the cost of a home.
I actually got my home from a developer right after the housing bubble. They confided in me that they were giving away these homes pretty much at cost and that they had to fire a huge portion of their staff because the market was just crap at the time.
Really, the only way to actually achieve lower housing prices is through the state ownership and build out. The state could also spend a premium on building homes that it sells at a loss or rents at lower rates. But that will be pretty unpopular with the general public.
Yep — or aggressive subsidization of the inputs of housing production, or some other cost management of an input (such as a high LVT that discourages speculation and withholding of valuable land from use)
> Plus it is not literally putting money in people's hands which is often unpopular with some demographic groups
I'd be really opposed to this. It'd only be ok if we nationalized the industries where we set these rules and rates. Otherwise, this ends up being a simple handout to private industries.
For example, let's say we say x liters of water. Well who's deciding how much x liters cost? If it's a private company and the government is guaranteeing it, you can bet water (which is relatively cheap where I live) will end up being the most expensive resource imaginable. And that may actually be true depending on the location, but it'd also be true in non-desert areas with plenty of water.
We've effectively had that here with the ACA, where the government has decided that it will cover the first $800 or so dollars of your health insurance. What happened? Magically, the cost of health insurance increased by $800. Private industries aren't stupid, they'll always charge the maximum price the market will bear. And when we start talking about captured industries like data provider, power provider, or your water provider... well that's where we can trust private industry the least as they literally have the public over a barrel. Utility boards are an OK solution, but the better solution is to turn these into public institutes instead of private ones.
> We've effectively had that here with the ACA, where the government has decided that it will cover the first $800 or so dollars of your health insurance. What happened? Magically, the cost of health insurance increased by $800.
I don’t think that’s an accurate description of ACA [1], it didn’t lead to a dollar to dollar increase in premiums (share a citation if otherwise), and it’s a bit misleading to say it led to an increase in premiums because plans pre-ACA were effectively inaccessible to and lacking in benefits for impoverished people or people with pre-existing conditions.
[1] Here’s a brief description of ACA from Wikipedia:
> The act largely retained the existing structure of Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer market, but individual markets were radically overhauled.[1][11] Insurers were made to accept all applicants without charging based on pre-existing conditions or demographic status (except age). To combat the resultant adverse selection, the act mandated that individuals buy insurance (or pay a monetary penalty) and that insurers cover a list of "essential health benefits". Young people were allowed to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they were 26 years old.
There will never be a cited reason for increases, but here's 2023 where basically all insurers filled for a 10% increase in premiums. [1]
Since the 2022 covid bill which significantly increased the subsidization of premiums, health insurers have found various reasons to increase their premiums by inflation beating numbers.
That's obviously a "the market will bear it" situation.
The ACA was a big bill that did a lot. I'm not talking about all of it, but rather the premium subsidization along with the covid premium increase which both expired in 2026.
Look, the premiums expiring was bad. IDK if that was clear from my earlier comment. But there's a fundamentally unaddressed issue with insurers in general where they charge not based on competition or the cost of service, but based on what consumers can bear. Profit incentives for healthcare in the US are completely misaligned with providing good general healthcare. The ACA premiums are a bandaid over an artery laceration. Better than nothing, but that thing is going to very quickly start bleeding through. You can keep slapping on band-aides, but ultimately you'll be looking at more damage if you don't just address the issue.
Utilities in America refers to the service relative to ideas of basic needs for survival in the US so they are often public infrastructure with private operators but in the case of some things like the internet, it’s purely privatized.
> Would this is safe to do on a sunny warm weather? Would body heat plus the sun ruin the cream?
It's fairly safe. You can leave dairy products unrefrigerated for an uncomfortable amount of time :) Butter, in particular, can last for days outside a fridge.
The bacteria that tends to infest dairy products will usually (but not always) turn it into something tasty like yogurt.
Don't get me wrong, you can definitely get sick from spoiled dairy products, but it's not a 100% thing.
> Butter, in particular, can last for days outside a fridge.
I live in Ireland, and once we take butter out of the fridge (to replace the one that's now gone), it doesn't go back in, whatever the weather. All butter here is basically of Kerrygold quality (I'm talking real butter of course).
That's basically how we treated butter while I grew up. So long as it's salted, it rarely goes bad outside the fridge. We had a butter dish and that was about it. The cover keeps the butter from turning a darker yellow and drying out. But we'd still eat it even when that happened.
Gotta be honest, though, I'm not a fan of grassy dairy products :). I had dairy cows growing up and in the spring their milk definitely took on a distinct grassy flavor. I personally preferred it more when it was primarily hay flavored. Store milk tastes like basically nothing in particular.
Yes, also in Ireland and while I wouldn't leave homemade butter out for more than a day or two, Kerrygold salted will last two weeks at 19C without issue.
Yeah we keep butter in a butter dish in the cupboard, refill from the fridge as it is used up. I never knew this wasn’t what everyone did until my roommate in college was blown away about how good the butter was this way.
If I could change one thing in computing, it'd be how SQL handles NULL. But if I got a second thing, it'd be how IEEE handles NaN. I probably wouldn't even allow NaN as a representation. If some mathematical operation results in what would be NaN, I'd rather force the programming language to throw some sort of interrupt or exception. Much like what happens when you divide an integer by 0. Heck, I'd probably even stop infinity from being represented with floats. If someone did 1/0 or 0/0, I'd interrupt rather than generating an INF or NaN.
In my experience, INF and NaN are almost always an indicator of programming error.
If someone want's to programmatically represent those concepts, they could do it on top of and to the side of the floating point specification, not inside it.
People who criticize the IEEE standard typically have never read it.
Nobody forces you to use NaNs or to have partially-ordered floating-point numbers.
The default settings that have been recommended since the beginning by the standard were to not use NaNs and to have totally-ordered FP numbers.
For this choice, the invalid operation exception must not be masked.
However, it turns out that most programmers are lazy and do not want to bother to write an exception handler, so the standard libraries of C and of most other languages have chosen to mask by default this exception, which causes the generation of NaNs.
This bad default configuration in combination with the bad feature that most programming languages have only the 6 relational operators sufficient for a total order, instead of the 14 operators required for a partial order, makes necessary frequent tests for detecting whether a value is a NaN, to avoid surprising behavior in relational expressions.
I think that in most cases the extra checks for NaNs add up to much more work than writing at exception handler, so the better solution is to unmask the invalid operation exception, which makes the NaN problem go away.
> What actual useful skill do you think the gas station keeper could learn?
I mean, it's possible there are useful skills they could learn but there's not the interest or desire to learn those skills. It's completely possible that person is perfectly content doing that work.
If you look up that film stabilized [1], it becomes really apparent that it's just a guy in a ape costume. The shaky camera is the only thing that makes it harder to determine what's going on.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlRr_OfxZI
reply