baddox

In the United States, 100,000 people died in the 1968 flu season, and the US population was about 200 million. There have been 200,000 COVID-19 deaths, and the US population is 328 million.

It's not crazy to have a device-independent presentational document that also contains enough data to enable some device-dependent rendering of its text and media contents.

I think the suggestion is that states shouldn’t get to decide how to act depending on whether they would “harm themselves,” but rather that the people should get to decide.

I think that's less of a huge difference when a small number of platforms dominate online media and aggressively use algorithms to determine or strongly influence what content people see. Yes, you can still absolutely find beautiful niche content on YouTube, and I value that a ton, but YouTube still has immense control over people's viewing in aggregate. It's a little bit like traditional broadcast TV if there were a billion channels but after every 3 minutes of viewing the TV chose which channel to flip you to unless you were constantly diligent about manually choosing what you want to watch.

The point is that the models and their accompanying scientific descriptions provide explanatory power that is a valid source of knowledge even though it is not empirical (empiricism is a false epistemology, but that's a topic for another time). If you have a bridge design produced according to good models, and another bridge design produced without using any such models or engineering knowledge, the epistemological status of the claims "this bridge design is safe" is different between the two bridge designs. That is true even before each bridge is actually built, and if it weren't true, then there would be no reason to have laws requiring bridges to be built according to certain standards (since "we wouldn't know if it's safe until we build it").

You obviously have to balance the legitimate cost against the illegitimate costs people will incur to get kids admitted. I don't know if 3x or 10x is the right value, but it's definitely not "more is better." If you make it cost a billion dollars to legitimately buy your kid into the school, there will still be millionaires utilizing these sorts of bribes.

It's probably true that generally rich kids could go to school pretty much anywhere and be okay, and that non-rich kids can have their lives transformed for the better by going to a reputable school. But isn't the latter due to the fact that people with power associate reputable schools with elite social status? Presumably if rich kids stopped going to a reputable school, it wouldn't take long for that school's reputation to diminish, even if the actual merit's of the education provided by the school didn't change.

What about, for instance, all the successful engineering that is driven by models of complex systems? We don't understand bridge dynamics at an atomic level, we have complex models that require a lot of specialized education to create, understand, and use. Same goes for microprocessor engineering. No human understands the design of a modern CPU at a transistor level, that design is also handled by computers (again guided by humans with specialized education).

> It trumps favoritism, empire building, and intra-office rivalries.

Does it? I associate those things very strongly with endeavors that are primarily concerned with making money.

So your argument is as follows:

1. People didn’t mind meeting with travel agencies.

2. Actually people hated meeting with travel agencies. Never mind number 1.

3. Automatic head scratchers are a waste of time.

4. Therefore online travel websites are a waste of time.

I don’t really see it as an indictment that we don’t yet have a short list of things from science fiction. The reason authors wrote about those things is because the are so beyond our technological capabilities—that’s why they make for interesting science fiction!

> They got dozens of servers with patient data hacked and encrypted and had to shutdown their intensive care and reroute patients elsewhere.

> What do you think?

I don't understand why this apparently seems so obvious to you. I think I would need more information about the attack, the hospital's preparations for such an attack, and the legal and industry-standard security expectations for such a hospital.

The simple fact that an attack took down a hospital's computer systems is not sufficient to conclude that the hospital was negligent in its security. Surely a sufficiently sophisticated actor (e.g. a state) could take down the computers at most hospitals if they chose to.

It's pretty easy to establish the malware attackers' responsibility. But the extent of the hospital's responsibility is much harder to establish, especially across all types of potential attacks. Basically, it's not easy to establish precisely which types of attacks a hospital needs to be prepared for in order for them to not be considered negligent.

In this case, I don't see many details, but it does sound like they simply couldn't access patient data and thus were transferring patients. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't have continued to provide emergency treatments that don't require networked computerized machinery.

But I'd want to know more about the attack before I could conclude that the hospital was negligent. Surely for every hospital there is some attack with sufficient sophistication to disrupt service at the hospital.

I agree that Apple lets too much crap into the App Store. But to be clear, that’s not an argument in defense of Epic. On the contrary, I think Apple should be much much more restrictive in what third-party apps they allow on iPhones.

Why do you suppose that? Surely there are many many more customers who can afford cheaper individual/student licenses.