I have an M1 for personal use, and recently got a Surface L7 for work. Build quality wise, its the closet thing you're gonna find to a macbook that runs windows.
I also run a custom Windows desktop and a synology NAS, so I like to consider myself mostly agnostic.
That's the often repeated argument. But as a counter point you have the Google Pixel. Google owns the hardware, even the SoC, and the software. And yet, battery is still poorer than third party Android phone manufacturers. And let's not even compare to Apple.
So controlling the entire stack isn't enough. There has to be a desire to do better, as well as technical competency.
third-party manufacturers cheat for battery life benchmarks and they don't even get that much better battery life. the current state of the pixel phones allows me all day battery life without such headaches.
in my experience with OnePlus, it aggressively kills and/or throttles applications that you want to be running in the background (e.g. fitness trackers or even audio players) even when you put them on the battery allowlist.
at the same time, my iPad just randomly decides to drain all of its battery even when it's been sitting unused without any apps installed. I don't have this problem on Pixel devices. (you do get this problem as soon as you install some misbehaving apps but that's something you've done to yourself)
Its not really an interpretation- he has literally talked about this as his playbook dozens of times.
One step in the playbook is reduce - “if you dont break things 10% of the time then you are not reducing enough” is almost verbatim what he has said, and done, for all of his companies.
I strongly disagree with my fellow Americans that government systems should be immune to this process or that people will be harmed. This sensitivity to perceived harm is a problem in and of itself.
Of course it isn't, for him; that 10% is people who rely on the state, which means the poor. He is not poor, he does not need the state. Until, that is, he has an accident, a surprise, something that derails his "normal" life, and then he will cry that the government wasn't there to save him.
America runs on the myth of "If you work hard enough, you'll succeed.". If you believe this, and you discount the role external factors has played in your life (who your parents are, whether you were discriminated against, that chance meeting with an investor who happened to like the same football team as you and gave you your break), you'll believe the opposite "If you're not successful, it's because you're lazy.", ignoring factors like poor education or hard luck like illness or accidents.
And so the poor get viewed as lazy grifters, while the billionaires are the piously hard-working...
The biggest problem for people like you is that there are plenty governments and companies that are being led by competent leaders that don’t need to wield an axe to effect change. To the people wielding the axe, every problem looks like a tree.
I would point out that former twitter lost both advertisers (you know money resource) and users. Its usability went down. Now the obvious difference is that x dont matter to people in real life, goverment does.
It is pretty obvious that real goal here is to cause maximal harm and destruction. Fascists do better in destroyed countries, Musk does not need consumer protection or functional FBI, he wants them corrupt and weak. Just as he made x weaker.
I am aware that pro-Musk people do not care about ethics, harm, morals or legality. Harm to other people is feature to people like you, I get it.
Its about assuming most people operate on dogma and heuristics. This is extremely true in my opinion.
By making this assumption, you dispel bad practices and behaviors that might have built up within an organization. Even more importantly you can reveal why certain chesterton’s fences exist.
Interestingly that is the exact opposite of the Chesterton's fence concept - it illustrates that it is much better to grasp the system as it exists before attempting to change it, as then you can learn why a Chesterton's fence exists without tearing it down.
Which works in fields removed from non-human reality or consequences. For example, when creating financial derivatives or other forms of social engineering, where the substrate changes and nothing seems fixed.
It falls to pieces when people with this mindset attempt to work up against the constraints of physics, or other unchanging limits. Those limits can be constructed on, and relied upon. Going back to first principles in these cases inevitably results in massive losses in the repetition of the uncountable quiet failure-corners of history.
Anecdotal results are highly dependent on the provider.
The scientific method is supposed to allow someone with no credibility to provide signal through >process< and then gain credibility.
Anecdotes from >a credible< person are very meaningful as they are often a high indicator of signal. A social heuristic outside of rigorous research.
Your results as an anon? Basically useless. On HN? Slightly better than on reddit or facebook. Provide your methodology? Better still, and now youre approaching a research proposal.
The meta discussion around anecdata being useful or not is silly.
If you want the protocol? Sure water temp 50-55f for 15 minutes 4-6 days a week (generally 5) for 3 months. Water chest height, arms generally above water.
How exactly does credibility matter here? Science is heavily reputation based because there’s so much at stake and so few experiments take place, but with anecdotal evidence I don’t see the credibility of individual datapoints mattering much.
I can’t tell if I minimally influenced my upper respiratory tract infection risk etc, all I can tell is the hassle wasn’t worth a benefit too small for me to notice. And that’s the issue, more than credibility if effect size was large enough to be noticeable to individuals you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies. Conversely if it isn’t showing up as extremely effective in the literature that’s strong evidence individuals are misattributing their experiences.
how often did you get sick? weight? what season did you do it in?
what was your goal in the first place?
> you’d get extremely strong results from scientific studies
check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional.
science is cool, scientists are just regular ol' people and enough regular ol' people do a lot to look good, to not be unemployed and having to write applications again, to get their tap on the head and or a nice bonus. **regular in their little slices under the bell curve
> check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional.
That tells you about those countries but very little about cold exposure specifically. One inherent difference is they lack a lot of tropical diseases because they aren’t in the tropics. You could still try and remove all those differences, but directly studying cold exposure itself is vastly more practical.
It's strange to question the work of scientists in this way. Precisely because they are only human the studies are peer reviewed and the meta studies have the most explanatory value and weight.
Unless you are assuming there is some global conspiracy of scientists to have jobs the system it selfs manages it by it's transparency.
Simplifying it in a "check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional" way is exactly the wrong approach. How do you know what kind of diet, genome and culture they have? There are so many variables that the mere fact of whether one diverse group does something different than another doesn't really say anything. It's so difficult to try to isolate individual problems. That's why we have the scientists.
Not till now. Thanks.
But as weird as it can sounds. The failing and iterationg over and over is integral part of science. Which includes method itself.
There are many things (I frankly don't think there's a more specific word for this) like diets and psychedelics where many of us (rigorously minded) are constantly seeking proofs within systems containing sufficient complexity to render conclusions nearly impossible.
Diet interventions aren't terribly hard to test, they just consistently tend to result in "as bad or worse than no intervention" (short of fixing the sort of malnutrition you rarely see in the contemporary developed world)
The rigorous result is right in front of us we just don't like the answer
I also run a custom Windows desktop and a synology NAS, so I like to consider myself mostly agnostic.
reply