This is such a myopic perspective. You're not completely wrong about the risk, but there's no good reason health insurance should be so tied to employment.
What "is", right now, leads us to the suggestion of int32_64, which would actually be a good metric to keep track of.
You are right about what "ought" to be, but until and unless we can get there, maybe we can at least base our information on what "is" in the moment, not on what we would like to be the case?
I think the parent agrees with you and that tracking uninsured rather than unemployed is a better view of the economy from the ground floor.
My metric for "fully employed" would be has a job, has health insurance and has enough money in savings to fully cover their out of pocket max. Could not be a barer minimum of survival.
embedding-shape is quoting Jesus, who was in fact literally referring to killing people by throwing stones. (And, in fact, was talking to a mob that was literally about to do exactly that.)
Historically neither of them made any microcontrollers. Arduino shipped Atmel and Raspberry Pi chips. Adafruit has boards with a variety of microcontrollers from various brands on them.
This is different now that Arduino is Qualcomm-owned and ships Qualcomm silicon, of course.
This is weird to me. I've banned a bunch of channels and never seen them again. You're not just doing the "I'm not interested" thing, right?
I've heard this from a couple other people, though, which makes me wonder if the alleged "don't recommend channel" button is hooked up to different API calls in different UIs...
At least in the YouTube app on my Android phone, on the main suggestion feed, there's another option on the same 3-dot menu that is specifically labeled "Don't recommend channel". If you don't see it right there, maybe dig around.
Just checked, and I don't see it in the suggestions under a particular video, only on the main feed. I don't know if they're hiding it or what.
I want to hijack this comment to plug AlphaPhoenix (https://youtube.com/@alphaphoenixchannel), who is responsible for by far the best explanations of electricity that I've encountered in any format. For instance, this one that clarifies what happens when you try to send electricity on an open circuit, and (IIRC this is the right one) what impedance mismatch is actually about: https://youtu.be/2AXv49dDQJw
It's not science communication, but I don't know where to find anything quite like Perun's content in written form. It's military/economics issues, often pretty granular, at just the right level of detail for an interested layman.
There are endless military and economic publications, from nonsense to easy overviews to serious research. What does Perun produce? Do you have an example?
(I can suggest some if you are interested and give me a better idea.)
Between easy overview and serious research, probably just a bit shy of university intro course (depending on the university I guess). Some of the really fun stuff for me is organizational issues like procurement failures, corruption, etc. He also has does some pretty up-to-the-week analysis of major events (i.e. pretty recent, but late enough that the dust has settled and meaningful analysis is actually possible).
She's very hit or miss in her quality IMO. Also, she's explicitly disclaimed the title of "science communicator", so she might not want to be on this list anyway. :)
I kind of wish they hadn't included Veritasium either. He seems to have gone downhill.
Her content is mostly meta, vs science comm/teaching. I am really torn on her: Great communicator, funny, accomplished. Seems confident/smug?/conservative for a scientist. Something about her word choice and style feels more politician than learner/researcher. Not sure how to phrase this.
That's an interesting perspective. I definitely don't get a "politician" tone from her. Her tone seems very casual to me. Conservative in the broad sense, maybe (definitely not politically).
I think this tone is definitely a deliberate creative choice, and is something I personally enjoy. I'm reminded of this line from Taylor Swift's new album: "did you girlboss too close to the sun?"
It's borne out of the mountains of disrespect women scientists have to deal with, something she talks about towards the end of her video on Richard Feynman.
This feels just north of conspiracy theory logic. It's proven that humans can just barely sense large-scale magnetic fields, so how about if they can also sense extremely finely detailed fields in a way that solves long-standing philosophical and medical problems? Here are some supporting coincidences that have any number of alternate explanations, but it would sure be cool if this whole tower of conjecture was true, right? If you've seen conspiracy-theory debunks, the resemblance is rather strong.
This paper starts to go downhill around "The easier-than-expected problem of consciousness".
The Meta paper [1] is much more useful. They claim to be reading out what someone is seeing,
in a rather approximate way.
The sensing is improving. One project was able to sense magnetic fields at 13 points at 1KHZ using a custom helmet fitted with sensors.[2] The technology is still in the early stages, but they got rid of the high vacuum and cyrogenics needed for SQUID sensors. Progress.
This currently has fewer data points than functional MRI, but more bandwith. fMRI, after all, is measuring blood flow. It's like trying to figure out what an IC is doing by watching its infra-red heat emissions. "Look, the FPU is working hard now."
That paper is a few years old. What's been going on since?
This is further info because I think it’s interesting rather that any sort of correction but fMRI doesn’t quite measure blood flow - at least not directly.
Oxygenated and deoxygenated blood have slightly different magnetic properties. So the fMRI is trying to detect from that how oxygenated the blood is, with the assumption that active areas are using more oxygen which causes a small dip then blood flow increases so then there’s an increase that follows over about 5-6 seconds. I don’t know if more advanced things are used now but when I messed about with it you’d measure the change then apply a 6s linear convolution to the signal to estimate activity.
There’s an interesting set of layers of assumptions in all this, and to me the idea that the mri part works at all seems like wild magic.
> It's proven that humans can just barely sense large-scale magnetic fields
It's tentatively proven that humans react to large magnetic fields. The reaction can come from simple interference, without ever being processed as a sense.
But there's so much more bullshit. That an MEG measurement was decoded only means that the brain produces a magnetic field that correlates with the information it is processing. So there's no Faraday cage in our head. Great. But the brain already knows what it is doing. All that information is there, very fast and reliable. Why should it try to decode its much less detailed and very weak magnetic field then? Where are the sensors? MEG needs super-conduction to work, and doesn't work when there's any disturbance. In the institute where I worked, it was forbidden to use carts (for moving equipment or coffee or whatever) on all floors in the corner where the MEG was located when there was an experiment going on, because it would disturb measurements. A few crystals aren't going to overcome those problems.
> The easier-than-expected problem of consciousness
There was a comment years/decades ago on slashdot about someone walking under a malfunctioning ceiling-hung security CRT TV, and feeling like they were hit on the head when they walked under it. The assumption was that the TV had an abnormally large magnetic field (or the person was particularly sensitive).
I’ve tried to replicate it, but my chances have become slim-to-none with CRTs going out of fashion.
Mainly there's not remotely enough evidence to justify the claims. I don't even know if the hypothesis is impossible (though it certainly needs to explain why consciousness survives exposure to strong magnetic fields, etc), but the idea of long range, detailed internal communication in the brain by magnetic fields needs much, much more evidence to be taken seriously. And that's putting it gently.
Different kinds of scary. The tsunami is clearly more dangerous as an actual threat, but it basically looks and works like a flood. This is a pretty familiar threat.
We think the ground is familiar too. So watching it change into something else, a squirming alien beast, is a different kind of fear. It violates your assumptions about what is safe, about what is possible at all.
reply