Given the junk food analogy, things with much higher information density would be like drinking neat olive oil.
I think a more useful thing is to filter news down to only that news which is important rather than merely engaging, and leave engagement for either friends or hobbies with a ratio depending on your personal level of introversion/extroversion.
I just checked front side of CNN, first 6 titles are about some unofficial trip. They do not know if it will happen, what will happen, where it may happen, what that means...
There is no value for me there. Even if I invest time into filtering, there is no value to gain from that. Maybe it is important, but I am not policy maker or investor, it is not important right now for me!
I can find out about that visit week later, after it actually happened. Without all the speculations and opinions. And since it will be podcast I can listen while running or exercising, and with much lower investment from my side.
I think you've underestimated what I mean by filtering in this case: unless you're a politician, almost literally all political news is pointless; unless you are a game developer or unsatisfied with your VR headset, literally all news about VR headsets is pointless; there's no point watching a weather forecast for any place you are not going to be in; unless you're an investor or looking to invest or borrow, financial news is pointless; unless you're in the royal family or selling memorabilia, gossip about any royal family is worthless; …
Does CNN have any content that's genuinely important to you?
But the argument also applies to podcasts: no value in any fact-based podcast if you don't act on the information it gives you, just as there's no point in fiction-based podcasts if they don't entertain you.
NBER typically waits a year before declaring a recession. They want to make sure they have all the facts. Many economic statistics are revised several times, and don't settle to their final form till 6 months after they were announced (not even mentioning the statistics that get revised 20 years later). It wasn't till December of 2008 that they announced the recession, which they said had begun in December of 2007.
> I am worried we will get another wave of censorship about "recession conspiracy".
Yup, without a doubt. Anyone talking about a recession will be an anti-biden conspiracy theorist. Then, shortly after the election, they will admit there is a recession but that they are doing a really good job combating it.
A quick search on the New York Times website (nyt.com) shows quite a few articles discussing recession. Just search "recession". And you can see different articles and different contributors discussing various points of view.
It is true, as the Biden folks argued, that the nation’s official recession arbiter, the National Bureau of Economic Research, has yet to call one, because it relies on many more signals. Still, it sure sounded as if the Biden team was splitting hairs. (It's a recession opinion)
But we won’t be. That’s not how recessions are defined; more important, it’s not how they should be defined. It’s possible that the people who actually decide whether we’re in a recession — more about them in a minute — will eventually declare that a recession began in the United States in the first half of this year, although that’s unlikely given other economic data. But they won’t base their decision solely on whether we’ve had two successive quarters of falling real G.D.P. (It's not a recession opinion)
That is true — not every recession includes two full quarters of negative growth, and in 1947 the economy shrank for two quarters without a recession declaration. But typically, two quarters of contraction lead to a recession call. (It's a recession opinion)
Stock Market Drop Accelerated as Recession Seemed More Likely
Personally I think we're in a recession and/or facing economic headwinds due to a lot of different factors. I also don't know that it matters. If Biden came out today and said "we're in a recession" what exactly has changed? What specific actions should be taken so that we're not in a recession? Should we never be in a recession? Is that possible? If we are in a recession then why is that the case? Can anyone even point to specific actions that any organization or person has taken to cause a recession? I mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine is for sure a big deal in the global economy. Interest rates rising is a big factor. Do we point to those and say "those caused a recession"? If we do, then what do we do about it? Lower interest rates and lift sanctions on Russia so we're no in a recession?
And recession discussions are all over mainstream news and extensively covered by journalists and bloggers so I'm really confused as to why anyone who is talking about a recession would be an anti-Biden conspiracy theorist. Is the entire US public square an anti-Biden conspiracy since everyone is talking about it?
Delusions of persecution are strong here. Who on earth would say that disagreeing with the WH on the technical definition of recession is a conspiracy theory?
The existence of covid was called a conspiracy theory at one point, the term is used so loosely that it has lost all meaning and just used as a sort of cognitive stop sign. You could say the widespread use of the term conspiracy theory to mean something other than literally a theory that there is a group conspiring about something is itself a conspiracy and it would be consistent with mainstream usage, blame the people who watered the term down to be meaningless
I havent experienced it being meaningless. I do see this comment often, and I universally encounter it said by conspiracy theorists or their apologists. Ie., those people with unjustified conspiracy narratives born of delusions of paranoia.
The 'theory' that china deliberately manufactured and released covid is a conspiracy theory. I have not seen COVID called one, nor even, the idea that a lab in china was researching it, nor that its release is accidental.
There being a pandemic, that a lab is somewhere researching COVID, that a lab may have accidentally released COVID do not contain any conspiracies.
The phrase is a very clear term of art in my view: a conspiracy theory is a story about how the world works which places implausible conspiracies at the heart of its causal structure; in the manner of movie plots; and presents a paranoid style of reasoning in which major events, and their distal effects, are the deliberate decisions of a small number of people.
Conspiracy theories, and theorists, are by definition engaged in an epistemic vice; a pseudoscientific activity of explanation; a kind of intellectualised schizoprehnia.
Is the vaccine mandatory? Who said it would "stop" the disease?
Which "conservatives" said Russia wouldn't invade? The realist view of IR is, largely, the conservative one -- and many conservatives were saying Russia was strongly inclined to engage in this sort of politics.
I have no idea what you're talking about. This just seems like apologetics for conspiracy theories.
"'They said' X was a conspiracy, and it isnt! When I say Y is, soon you'll find out it isnt too!".
Well 'They' didnt say it was; these mythologies of persecution reveal a lot.
Not the original person you responded to by in my eyes when you say the vaccinated can't get covid and the vaccinated cant spread covid you are implying it will stop the disease but again that is just my opinion. Both the CDC director and our current president said these things...
1) its mandatory if you want to keep your job in many places, and if you want to travel. Its not a choice.
2) its been claimed multiple times the vaccine could prevent the spread of covid or gaining it if I remember correctly.
3) fox news and many other groups claimed russia wouldn't invade. many disagreed but that is beside the point, we are talking about the slander of speculation.
4) that quote is a useless flanderization of my argument, I claimed many groups use the conspiracy argument to silence speculation.
as we see now its highly likely we are in recession, thats hardly a conspiracy theory I am pushing.
yeah I was providing two examples for each side, if I remember fox news claimed russia wouldn't invade.
The whole point was to show that its a common tactic regardless of your "side" of the political spectrum to demonize speculations as foolish conspiracy theories.
It's also worth noting that the recession that started in Dec '07 was definitely a factor in the election of Nov '08 despite not being called til Dec '08.
It's reasonable to think that the fact of a recession is of more electoral consequence than the declaration; I'm a little curious if the common definition or the NBER definition correlates with incumbent (dis) advantage better.
》epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be observed.
Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus.
And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically never gave solid predictions! Stellar parallax (main prediction from Copernicus theory) was not confirmed until 19th century! Heliocentrism is mainly philosophical concept!
I will stick with my primitive old thinking and biases, thank you! If I get mugged a few times in a neighbourhood, I will assume it is not safe. There is no need to overthink it!
I would normally be skeptical of an article that starts with a description of epicycles because it probably means that whatever is going to be described next is totally bullshit.
In this case I’m not so sure. As a plebeian normie, it seems like the “rational actor” model of economics has a lot of problems.
Now I do believe that All people are All of the time trying to achieve their goals and meet their needs as can best be achieved in the given situation and in the way that they best know how.
But this includes a junkie digging through trash for things to sell, a housewife poisoning her abusive husband, and a schizophrenic blowing up mailboxes to stop an international plot against her. It includes a recent widower staying in bed for two weeks. It certainly includes your exclusion of an entire neighborhood and its thousands of inhabitants from your care due to some harrowing experiences.
As I understand it, most economists, and certainly the ones that influence policy, are not really thinking of these things as “rational”. To them rational means “increasing your own wealth or exchanging your money in the most efficient and expedient way possible”. And that’s very good because this is the way that corporations and rich people that hire people to manage their money effectively operate. But it doesn’t really work for normal people in normal situations. Our lack of information about our surroundings and our incredibly wide array of emotional states doesnt leave a lot of room for rationality.
I won’t really expound on it because this is already so long, but having a single definition of rationality also excludes any possibility of having an informed multicultural viewpoint.
The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country?
I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons:
1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again).
2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it.
3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.
Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are.
Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck.
People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general. Yes, I include myself. Most struggle with delayed gratification, let alone retirement planning.
A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate. Without one, well, you'll likely end up with Grafton, NH, writ large - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
I'm not arguing for no Government. I'm arguing against Government intervention in the economy. I disagree on many points though (I have seen the Vox article before - I don't have much respect for Vox as it is very biased, so I tend to ignore it, just like The Guardian or Fox News).
"Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are".
A Government is made of people. "Shouldn't" doesn't mean "Isn't". You need to convince me that it "Isn't".
"Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck."
I disagree. What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire. Yes, there are bad apples and stupid people, but you can't design a system that prevent people to do things because there are some bad apples. Look at the big tech, they are mostly investing voluntarily to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Of course if there is a market failure that really can be solved by the Government and that would otherwise kill us all, then I'm in favor of (indirect and market based) intervention.
"People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general."
Disagree, people have different plans, some shorter term some longer term.
Also why would they have short-term thinking in the market but long term thinking at the election?
"A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate"
Very likely so. Although there are some ANCAP proposals I find interesting like the one form David Friedman, I'm not convinced it would work in practice.
However my ideal Government doesn't balance anything (I don't think it actually can without making more harm than good). It instead define the rules and what constitute private property, but it doesn't decide how to allocate these resources. That would be left entirely to the market.
> What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire.
Because then they have the money and you don't. That's all there is to it. Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it.
Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt.
Did you miss I wrote I don't know it would work.
Not an argument anyway? I don't know if you know the version I'm talking about. It doesn't even assume the non aggression principle.
"Because then they have the money and you don't".
Money can't buy you a planet (yet) and money only have value in a functioning economy.
"Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it"
Most very rich people are actually donating most of their time to fix what they think are the worst problems
"Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt"
Your assertion that people wouldn't damage the environment in the pursuit of self enrichment is possibly the most naive thing I've ever seen written down.
It also flies in the face of 'hard data' like climate change, pollution of waterways and the air, extermination of species and all the other stuff people do in pursuit of money.
But you can not approximate complex system like human brain with couple of variables. There are not hundreds, but millions of biases.
Advanced epicycle models had dozens moving parts. JPL planetary ephemerides (modern equivalent in polynomials) have several millions of parameters and terabytes of equations.
Gravity - some mystical force that attracts masses together - turns out to be a completely fictional thing. Mass curves spacetime, objects actually move in straight lines, and the fact you can explain the results of that as an 'attractive force' turns out to just be a convenient invention. The idea of summing how all that works in terms of a simple inverse square force is just an ingenious human observation and invention.
Prior to Newton's conception of gravity as objects attracting one another, the primary model used was the Aristotelian one, in which things tended to go to the "zone" where they belong. Things composed of earth (like a rock) tended to sink towards the center of the earth, while things composed of fire or air tended to rise towards the sky.
I visited Manhattan once, what I noticed was how run down metro (underground) was. I would compare it with Kiev metro around 2016, and that country was already at war. I have no idea how city hall can get away with doing so little!
I see some are down voting you, but that is an option. If the CPU has a design error then you can return it in many countries. If there is a firmware fix and that fix does not affect performance to a significant degree then it's probably OK.
Products should do what the marketing says they should do.
Products should do what the marketing says they should do.
...which is, that they were never designed to be side-channel-resistant. As early as the 80286 Intel was saying protected mode is not a real security boundary, only a mechanism to avoid accidental errors instead of deliberate maliciousness.
On the V8 teram we had a POC of forcing mispredicted instruction sequences in the interpreter that leaked data. Reorder buffers are 200-600 instructions these days, and indirect branch predictors needed to speculate through bytecode sequences are good enough that an interpreter is not safe.
Edge's newer "Enhanced Security"[1] toggles are essentially that, disabling JIT and WebAssembly (alongside other features) on sites you don't frequent. "Strict" disables them on all sites.
Has anyone produced meaningful benchmarks on real world websites? If I go to arstechnica, or NYTimes, or gmail — what will the difference be between JIT and non-JIT for page load and common operations?
> and found that disabling JIT improves performance more often than not
Well, kind of...
>> We find that disabling the JIT does not always have negative impacts. Our tests that measured improvements in power showed 15% improvement on average and our regressions showed around 11% increase in power consumption. Memory is also a mixed story with negatively impacted tests showing a 2.3% regression, but a larger gain on the tests that showed improvements. Page Load times show the most severe decrease with tests that show regressions averaging around 17%. Startup times, however, have only a positive impact and no regressions.
Most people are going to care about page load times more than anything else by far, and that's the one that quite clearly took a hit without JIT. It's great that no JIT makes Edge open faster, but how many times a day do you have to quit and restart your browser?
Why bait? Heathrow has terrible service and 400 pounds may be worth it to get normal service. It is something like bakshis in Egypt...
It pays off after couple of hours.
Some friends I know returned to Poland and other countries. It does not make a sense to stay in ultra expensive Dublin, if there is no work during covid.
When you were younger, it was worth it to work. Today basic wage often does not even cover rent and other living expenses. You loose money by working.
To get some perspective go to www.daft.ie and try to find studion near airport...
Feudalism was more like slavery. Serfs could not marry, move or own land without permission. Serfs could be sold (not individuals but entire villages). Comparing it to BMW ownership is disgusting!
Better way is to make a scientific committee, that would declare all side effects (muscle loss, bone density loss...) as totally random and uncorrelated to moon environment. Worked before...
That is a news equivalent of junk food. Clickbait partisan outrage generator.
I would suggest some independent podcast with daily or weekly summaries. Much higher information density.