mikelockz

Of course not that's a bit disingenuous. I would hope my colleagues write code that is comprehensible so it's maintainable. I think that if the code is so complex and inscrutable that only the author can understand it then it's not good code. AI doesn't create or solve this problem.

I do think when AI writes comprehensible code you can spend as much time as necessary asking questions to better understand it. You can ask about tradeoffs and alternatives without offending anybody and actually get to a better place in your own understanding than would be possible alone.

Bobby Knight led the Hoosiers to three national championships and 11 Big Ten championships. I'm not sure the definition of "bad manager" would fit succeeding at the most important metrics in sports - championship wins.

> the primary appeal of masks is for quelling fear and anxiety, not preventing spread.

The appeal of masks for me is definitely to lower spread. Yes there is signaling, but also because masks reduce amount of possibly covid-infected droplets expelled from the mouth and nose while breathing and speaking.

It is not possible to have a 6 foot bubble around everybody at all times. It is possible to always wear a mask.

This is not moralizing, this is science.

All things being equal, then unfairness should be spread evenly. If certain groups are always experience the same privilege then there is no social justice and the system itself perpetuates inequality - not randomness.

I like your table analogy. I would think that a more ergonomic hammer would also have tangible benefits like the ability to work longer and faster, creating more tables per day and lowering the overall costs of production resulting in cheaper tables.

Would customers be willing to buy a cheaper table that's wobbly vs a more expensive table that's not?

To clarify, there was and still is an active astroturf campaign organizing thousands of people to violate recommendations by the federal government about social distancing guidelines. Then there is a guy who registered a bunch of domains and is getting doxxed. Not sure why the later has an article in Mother Jones why the former does not.

The authority of a stackexchange thread notwithstanding - ER and urgent care visits are what happens when primary care physicians cannot accept same-day consultations with patients. By all means try to call your primary doctor, but if they can't see you that day I would ask them if the prudent course of action is to seek immediate medical care at the ER or urgent care.

Web3 (not Web 3.0) is how browsers communicate with the data that is not hosted on a web server, but rather on a decentralized blockchain. This means that these things are resistant to censorship.

You think a distributed virtual machine that executes code is scammy? Maybe it can be used for scams by people who are scammers. So is email scammy too? Are telephones scammy? I believe they are all technology and can be used for whatever people want to do with them.

I would posit it's more profitable to have customers that pay for insurance monthly but don't actually utilize any resources or services. Not using health care seems to be what is encouraged with high deductibles and copays for visits.

I read the comment differently and agree with the gp. I'm not allowed to forgo health insurance and take it as cash. I have no agency over the compensation arrangement besides choosing one of a limited amount of options provided to me by my employer.

Hard to believe there is a line of people trying to bag Mt Everest and possibly die trying while there remain places like this that have never seen a human before. Seems like both trips would require substantial financial resources and 3rd party outfitters who would do the planning and heavy lifting for you.

What's the fun in doing something that many people have done versus being the first to gaze into one of only eight known persistent lava lakes?

His statements about trust in "institutions" misses the mark for me. Deutsche Bank has been convicted and fined repeatedly for money laundering. They have neither reformed their operations not been penalized enough to impact their business. Same for all the other large financial institutions that caused the 2008 collapse. No figureheads or executives were punished financially or criminally. Another example would be the Equifax hack that stole the private data of 143 million Americans and again no civil or criminal penalties for the people responsible.

These companies are too big to fail and don't respond to market forces. They have captured the government regulators and create barriers to entry for competitors.

For many people there is no "institutional" trust as Schneier describes. There is forced institutional interaction, mostly likely because it benefits the government to monitor individuals. Perhaps cryptocurrencies are a fad, but I doubt his conclusion that there is no utility value in a "trustless" system. The current system is broken and nobody is fixing it.