There seems to be a general variance in what pulse oximeters display when measuring healthy individuals with readings from 94% - 100%. I also seem to remember reading that they are sensitive to altitude, whether hands are cold etc (n.b typing on phone, can't verify at the mo)

Talking to a doctor friend -- in clinical settings if an oximeter shows a reading < 90%, it's considered serious, but different people respond differently, but closely enough for the purposes of this discussion to fall into two groups. Either you develop a shortness of breath by the time its at 92%, for eg., and you have to go an ER anyway. Or you feel fine, but have less than 90% reading and you'll end up going to the ER (because you've looked at the range of normal measurements)

If the suggestion of use of the pulse oximeter is supposed to be a diagnostic about whether you need to go to the ER or not (and thus avoid picking something up at the hospital), it doesn't seem to help? It also doesn't tell you anything specific to Covid-19, I mean, you could be short of breath for a variety of reaons (note: short of breath sustained for many minutes, not the kind where you are panting after climbing stairs for eg.)

Very cool, fun idea. For the time travelling and debugging purposes, one could conceivably run a POSIX path system on top of an in-memory object store such as RocksDB and get fast, persistent snapshots as well!

Then, unfortunately, you must compartmentalise, wear a mask, whatever that makes shurikens endlessly fascinating for you until you (make money to) get your ship fixed. Then set sail, and cast away the mask.

V'z fbeel V cbfgrq zber naq gura qryrgrq vg, V ernyvmrq gung guvf jnf n choyvp sbehz naq V nz cnenabvq nobhg cevinpl. Cyrnfr rznvy zr ng zl yj unaqyr ng tznvy, V'yy or unccl gb nafjre nal dhrfgvbaf lbh unir.

Vs V nz ubarfg, gura, V zhfg nqzvg gung gur cenpgvpr vf pbzzba va fbhgu Vaqvn, va gur fznyy gbja naq ivyyntrf. Pbzr penpx bs qnja lbh'yy svaq jbzra fjrrcvat naq jngrevat gur ragenaprf gb gur gurve ubzrf :) Ner lbh jevgvat na rffnl nobhg fbhgu Vaqvn? Gur fnaqrq sybbef naq gur juvgrjnfurq jnyyf ner nyfb erzvaqref bs gur fnzr guvat.

For #2 Fcevaxyvat jngre ba gur tebhaq gb xrrc vg sebz envfvat qhfg?

Similarly, and this should be scary to anyone who cares about epistemic rationality, suppose you have various false beliefs and you decide that those beliefs are so important to your identity that people who don't also believe them can't possibly love you the way you are, so you only surround yourself with people who agree with them..

Sure, in such a case, I've optimized for my own 'social harmony'. We all do this to varying degrees anyway. Signalling, sub-cultures and all that blah. Note that the quote simply speaks of a process (selection) to maximize an end (social harmony, however that is defined). It doesn't say anything about whether such selection should be for false or true values (however these are defined).

I think I parsed that quote less along the lines of 'dude, you hardly know any math and so I won't love you' and more along the lines of 'dude, you seem to have the same taste for movies and music and we can have a conversation -- I love (hanging out with) you'.

The former has an objective measure and thus one can speak of definite growth while the latter is subjective.

I suppose it does, in as objective a measure something like 'harmony' is.