The reason indexing services don't work synchronously is because it would cause file IO to get far slower than apps expect, and that can break user interfaces and cause unexpected slow downs. There's also no real reason for it to be synchronous in most cases.
You are correct, it couldn't and in fact 1850 has traditionally been referred to in climatology as "pre industrial", but this site is really the wrong place to try and actually talk about science. The intellectual curiosity fans here don't like it at all.
Thank you - I was surprised by the down votes, although I could have added more detail to make my objection even more clear, e.g:
Using the Stefan Boltzmann law, 1 extra degree corresponds to about an extra 3 W/m2 of greenhouse radiation (using an emissivity of 0.6 for the atmosphere.) To raise 1 m2, 1 cm thick water (10 kg) by 1 C would require (4 J/g/K)*(10,000 g) ~ 40,000 J, or about 4 hours. So 100 m would take 4 years, 3 km (the average depth of the ocean) ~100 years, assuming perfect mixing. So the ocean temperature would lag by decades, possibly centuries, even if the atmosphere ramped up by 1 degree from 1850-1900, which it didn't.
You got lucky. My father went to a&e recently with breathing problems due to some non COVID respiratory virus. He was struggling to breathe. They had zero free beds and he stayed overnight on the chairs waiting to be admitted. Eventually they found him a recliner.
And then of course you have the constant strikes and inability to even see a doctor at all unless you win the game of phone lottery.
The NHS may have a simple user interface, but it doesn't actually work when you need it so that's not very helpful. And the idea this is a Tory problem is propaganda. The NHS budget only ever goes higher yet service gets worse. Dumping ever more money into this third world system is never going to work.
Part of it is a Tory problem - when they changed how the funding gets distributed, so that overall bigger fund is divided now into smaller pieces that still have to cover the same population, but without the scaling benefits that previous allocation provided.
It's visible in other systems too, where for example you end up with local government politicians fighting for "prestige" or even perceived need to have a specific kind of hospital in their area, but they don't have a way to bring enough patients to support it, so you get a system too fragmented to sustain despite spending more and more money.
The NHS doesn't have a problem with too few patients anywhere. Just look at the chaos of the recently opened dentists that saw massive queues down the street, where police had to intervene to control the crowds. The reason: the dentist was new and accepting NHS patients.
A system that can't even provide dental slots without needing police to break up fights is a catastrophically failed system and it is a huge problem of the UK that people have loyalty to this dying corpse of a department.
It is a problem with funding when you need to break it down into smaller pieces because some very expensive things that are used by less patients now do not have support of budget for a larger area, and become an extra drain on the administrative region - because you still need to maintain neurosurgery units etc.
Suddenly there's less money for smaller, cheaper things.
Sure. Most parts of the world don't have the government run the entire healthcare system. It's an obviously bad idea everywhere
To everyone except Brits.
It's talking to the author of the article, who rather ludicrously diagnosed the problem with the Messenger as it being not biased and ideological enough.
That isn't clear at all. You seem to be saying that if you anticipate that people might question other people's competence or motives, or in your view a discussion won't lead people to think the right thoughts ("encourage actual understanding") then you flag it to try to ensure nobody can discuss it.
But you also say that making it undiscussable is also not about making the topic untouchable. That's just playing with words, isn't it? It's exactly what you're trying to do and exactly why you're flagging it.
This particular case is really egregious. Fauci has said this draconian policy "just sort of appeared", yet you damn anyone questioning his competence or motives as lacking humility? What would it take for you to allow criticism of this guy?
Your response highlights the exact thing I'm talking about, as it ascribes motives to me that are totally foreign to me, and takes the tone that flagging an article means that I think I want to "ensure nobody can discuss it."
I could respond to some of your other sentences, but you've exactly proven my point, so thank you.
It doesn't get less curious that "I try to bury discussion before it even happens and can't even explain why". You should be ashamed that you spend so much time here yet fundamentally do not get the rules.
Empirically they are not. What you mean is that you don't like to be faced with the reality revealed by these stories and the comments.
But this attitude explains a lot of the abusive flagging that goes on here. Stories get flagged because they make people feel ick, and they feel ick because they previously took positions that were wrong. So they flag. And when asked, why do you flag, they say "I don't know, I just don't like it", forgetting that the site exists supposedly to help drive intellectual curiousity. You may not like these stories, but other people do find them useful and you should not interfere with them.
This isn't actually COVID specific. It's a nasty and frequent tactic on this forum, where someone makes strong assertions about one side of an argument whilst simultaneously claiming that the other side can't be allowed to speak because it would be "fighting", a "flamewar", a "trash fire", "not curious", "tedious" or whatever. It's an attempt to manipulate the site rules to suppress debate and is itself anti-curious.
"Given the weak sourcing, it feels like this article, in particular, flunks the "divisive subjects require more thought and substance" test."
(on a Bari Weiss article arguing that health authorities weren't really driven by science, something they now admit themselves was true).
In other comments you asserted that COVID vaccines can't possibly be dangerous but also said, "Convincing suspicious vaccine-skeptics of the value of vaccines is not the goal here. We're not a public health service; we're a forum for curious conversation. Tedious rehashes of antivax arguments aren't curious; they're just tedious."
If you don't like such discussions, ignore them! Nobody forces you to click through to the comments section. But this tactic of trying to define disagreement with your very strong opinions as not "curious" enough is tiresome. Other people do in fact want curious conversation, which will sometimes mean conversations about topics that you don't like. I'll say it again: leave those discussions alone. Stay away by all means, but don't interfere with other people's curiousity.
Hm. I think what I'm going to do instead is relentlessly flag them.
Check this out. It's barely on the front page, and has just 3 comments right now. How great is this post? How much more would I rather be reading comments on this than about Bari Weiss? Infinity times more:
My son is a biochemist (interviewing for grad school slots right now, as in this actual evening, I'm living vicariously through him, wish him luck). I've been for years paying attention to bio/chem/biotech experts on HN, because I'm a biochem dad. We have lots of expertise about COVID here. None of it is on these COVID threads because all of them would apparently rather eat a bug than "truth it out" with people paraphrasing Bari Weiss. The verdict is in. You're on the wrong side of it!
But these have been useful data points for me, and I appreciate you offering them up. Have a great weekend!
Congratulations on your son becoming a biochemist! A wonderful achievement.
Surely his middle school biology teachers had something to do with it. You should pay them a visit. Maybe ask them how many genders there are and see their faces contort in horror.
Please note that on this, covid, and whatever other such... things.. I offer no opinions of my own. I don't actually care very much about those topics and also, perhaps similarly to you, am put off by the far-(right|left) fanatics obsessed with them.
My peeve is with what it did to good public discourse and good people.
Perhaps if you see it on the faces of your sons teachers, who no doubt have had a rather increasingly stressful job in the not so many years since he left them, and to whom he owes at least a modicum of his no doubt bright future - you will understand my objection to your behavior of drumming out people in this fashion.
> How much more would I rather be reading comments on this than about Bari Weiss? Infinity times more
So do so! Nobody forces you to click on the Bari Weiss stuff.
There is no doubt an evil twilight zone tptacek who flags the other way. And you both think you're great sheriffs clearing the joint from scum.
How much would I rather the thread you linked on daunting papers. How much more would I rather be reading comments on this than "you-are-wrong-about-my-sacred-cow, flagged!" remarks.
In my opinion you should just let people be wrong (see, no snarky air quotes from me! I hope you understand my tone and where I'm coming from) in the covid threads, leave each other alone and it won't boil over to more interesting threads. It's weird adults teach this in kindergarten but on a fancy I so smart forum we can't bring ourselves to rise above.
I don't think you understand the difference between a public health official and a biochemist. He cares what proteins think about his work, not what Bari Weiss does. It's not a persuasion job.
Anyways, my point is: we have subject matter experts on virology on HN. They tend not to participate in COVID threads, which are invariably overheated and Weiss-ian.
If you interpret Germany to mean German government mandate then I can see how it would seem misleading, but if you interpret Germany as the people who live there, then 45 random companies (that the journalist could find, there will be more) is actually pretty good evidence of a society wide exploration.
How can you have both brutal capitalism and regulated markets? Those are normally presented as opposites, as in, "we regulate markets to soften the impact of raw capitalism".
China isn't really a capitalist country. It's more capitalist than it used to be in the 70s, but as this refusing-to-liquidate nonsense shows, the basic rules of capitalism don't really work there. China ignores many things that are required to really do capitalism properly:
- IP rights aren't enforced
- Other kinds of property rights aren't enforced (see the ARM subsidiary that simply declared independence)
- Staying out of private business (see Ant Group)
- Many companies and industries are state owned
- Industrial policy is still the standard in China (compare to the USA)
- Markets aren't informed (rampant censorship, bad data)
