Pyramus

I don't get the 'too high resolution' argument in 2024. The additional power consumption is negligible as has been pointed out by others. My 2013 Nexus 5 had a 1080p display.

> if you can't drive this

I assume your use case is playing Triple AAA games. But there are others such as Indie games and emulation which both benefit from higher resolutions. Especially in emulation a higher resolution will allow you to do integer scaling for a greater number of systems etc.

> Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction.

It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this incremental improvement to OP. In addition there is the benefit of being able to send a signal, and the associated utility is likely non-zero to OP as well.

> The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX.

What if OP already has the newest, safest car?

I would add that it's a measure in particular how active the yeast is in your starter culture, and yeast is the crucial ingredient for fermentation.

You are not wrong, but as always, reality is more nuanced than assigning utilities to a game. Russia would benefit in two ways:

a) Sending a message about capabilities and willingness to attack infrastructure (in NATO countries!),

b) Sowing distrust and misinformation (see e.g. Hersh article and US-Germany relations).

If you believe (big if!) Hersh's single source was a Russian asset, then b) worked wonderfully.

Overall I'm with you, current evidence doesn't point towards Russia.

You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.

> there's no reason to force them to do anything.

So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content that is traumatic, protect people's privacy etc?

I don't really understand? Is your point that we should not be doing this as well? Is your fear that the state of California will moderate Twitter?

No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?

> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.

So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.

It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.

So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?

Some analysts say the situation is (was) more nuanced: Prigozhin was pro-Putin but anti-MOD. His intention was to replace the MOD, claim their resources and fight in lieu thereof, for Putin. The article also hints at that.

Original headline: "Yevgeny Prigozhin onboard plane in fatal crash, says Russia"

From what I've learned here on HN someone who thinks that "free speech" is absolute - their right to free speech outshines the personal rights of others. So instead of discussing where my rights end and your rights start, they will argue that no line should be drawn.

In addition, from what I understand, they seem to think that democracy is a consequence of "free speech", not the other way around.

> so once you do get to the end you have the law

There is no end. Laws are just very very well performing models. But every 'law' breaks down if you violate the assumptions of the model: make things too big/small/hot/cold etc.