Fine, here's a source where both the second and corresponding authors are from Harvard that says the same thing [0]. That said, you don't need to be from a prestigious institution to observe the basic statistic that long COVID is most frequently reported in women ages 40-60.

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

I hope you don't take pride in that sentence because I'm still not sure what it means.

Also, automation and pride can go hand in hand. Pride doesn't mean "make it by hand," that would be silly.

Pencils here are a bit like grains. The market works for them because they fall into such a niche that economic "laws" works there.

But it's a fallacy to apply it elsewhere and there are millions of examples where the free market failed to optimize a product.

I don't agree. Loads of things are like this. Cars, microchips, hard drive storage, monitors, TVs, laptops. All either much better than they used to be, or much cheaper, or both.

Not if 100 companies did it and they all got away.

This is to teach a lesson because you cannot prosecute all thieves.

Yale Law Journal actually writes about this, the goal is to deter crime because in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place.

If in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place, then what is the lesson being taught? Doesn't that just create a moral hazard where you "randomly" choose who to penalize?

It's about sending a message.

The message being you’ll likely get away with it?

They're setting up a pretty simple EV calc:

(Probability of not getting away with it) 0.01 * (Cost if caught) 1000 = 10x (Expected Cost) = not worth it

The EV calculation completely goes away if you add a layer of limited liability corporation.

Even if the goal is to deter crime, we still have a principle of proportionate punishment. We don't cut people's hands of for petty theft, and we don't execute people for exceeding the speed limit even though both should be pretty effective deterrents.

This, there is always middle ground.

Personally, I have only used AI to write actual code when it is for Bash and Python scripts that are self contained. In my case self contained means they are interfaced to via command line so their boundaries are very well defined.

I have never returned to look at any of the code.

I would never use it to generate domain code for my codebase because then I'd have to code review it anyways. I mean, if I have an agentic AI solving an issue and generating a PR, great, I can review that and give it feedback on how to change the code before its accepted.

Unless I can either throw the code away or review it for maintainability rather than correctness then I have no need for a tool that write my code for me.

Oh, unless the AI can be the product owner and understand the financial ramifications of not doing its job correctly but I would be worried that the solution is to not have a product by reducing the users to ash.

Working and not being able to live is not an "economic opportunity."

It's more likely the reason some of these folks aren't employed.

Lowering wages doesn't create anything except depravity on the part of employers.

We'd still be waiting for healthcare with this kind of plan.

Before the ACA it simply was not a choice to be an independent professional and have health insurance.

If people could understand why it is unacceptable to force independent professionals and entrepreneurs to give up healthcare they would see the ACA was necessary in whatever form it could be passed.

when you fall from a bicycle in traffic and need more than ten stitches, you probably want clean conditions and high skill people ready. Ordinary daily care is done by ordinary daily care people because there is so much of it to do. It is fairly rare to need ten stitches from a bicycle accident. This is an example of people in ordinary good health. When you get to chronic care and elder care, things change again.

this call for "less reliance on insurance" lacks context and is overly-simplistic IMHO

Doctors can't exist without insurance? Hell we don't need doctors to diagnose strep etc. My argument is to remove insurance from the common. I've never crashed a bike requiring 10+ stitches probably never will, but might be a good reason for to carry insurance for it. However I don't want it plugging up the bill flow when I go to get antibiotics for a routine illness.

This is the point of High Deductible Health Plans with access to HSA contributions.

Usually you want to boot from a cryptographic-ally verified medium where a checksum can be verified before you execute the system.

The emphasis is on running the correct software. If you have to input cryptographic data every time you boot that's okay because you're offline and should be in a secure room (no internet connected devices).

But yeah, malware attack is still possible if you don't have a secure chain and that's a long one.

Ditto.

The internet is adversarial, a cold wallet should only be reachable by a wrench attack.

Medical students can't be learning for free now.

The comment was not sincere and is meant to amuse.

If you believe amusement is a disservice to the community then I believe many others disagree.

edit: For clarity, the "since inception" part is an absurd setup for the, equally absurd, "well funded open source" part.

Taking over Open Source, just for the LULz.

There is an extreme lack of sense of humor around these parts.

I lol'd, and thank you for that.