jkaufman's Comments


I've considered it, and have done similar things before, but I'm also really worried about touching the networking setup at all in any way because of how dependent we are on it right now. The likelihood of breaking something is low, but the benefit if I succeed isn't all that high.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs PS3 Review

I also have Little Big Planet, Little Big Planet Karting, and Minecraft, but I haven't gotten any of them out yet. I'm thinking I should wait until they seem pretty done with Cloudy?

When I do get one out, I'm thinking it should either be LBP or LBP:K; do you have recommendations on which one to do next?

Price Gouging and Speculative Costs

That's a much better version than my "require companies to disclose and document production plans, require them to share their probability estimates of how likely they think things are to be needed, keep them honest by allowing third parties to bet against them at their published probabilities".

This is a lot like a pandemic bond, though apparently they existing ones still haven't paid out? https://apnews.com/9b6191d5d82145c237b470525e2e9515 https://www.npr.org/2020/03/24/821000049/pandemic-bonds

Authorities and Amateurs

These articles were widely shared at the time, and people were taking them seriously. https://medium.com/@noahhaber/flatten-the-curve-of-armchair-epidemiology-9aa8cf92d652 and https://medium.com/@ameliahoovergreen/listen-to-actual-experts-on-coronavirus-please-1b0e7f2c763e were a response to that saying "please stop paying attention to these widely shared articles because they are not written by experts". I'm saying that the attention was reasonable given the circumstances and the contents of the articles.

If the "please stop paying attention" articles had contained substantive criticisms of the articles ("they say Italy's CFR is X but they're missing Y") I would feel very differently.

Authorities and Amateurs

Notalgebraist posted a reasonable critique of Flattening The Curve Is a Deadly Delusion, explaining how it's incorrect to assume that flattenings won't reduce the total number of cases, and that it doesn't make sense to assume a normal distribution.

I see the Deadly Delusion post saying "My back-of-the-envelope calculation is not a proper simulation, or a good model of what’s going on either. Don’t cite it as such! In reality, the spread of a disease does not follow a normal distribution. The main bump of the curve will be on the left, with a long tail on the right. There is always going to be some effective mitigation (prevention of public gatherings, conferences, non-essential travel). The model is quite sensitive to the length of the stay in the ICU. If we get that down, fewer people will need these resources simultaneously, and the peaks of the curves will come down. We may be able to fight the inflammation during pneumonia, and reduce the number of critical cases. The available medical resources will increase over time to deal with the need. Regulations will be dropped, new treatments will be explored, and some of them will work. At some point in the near future, we may have to blow into a tube before we enter an airplane or an important public building, and a little screen tells us within seconds if our airways hold COVID-19, H1N1 or the common flu. But the point of my argument is not that we are doomed, or that 6% of our population has to die, but that we must understand that containment is unavoidable, and should not be postponed, because later containment is going to be less effective and more expensive, and leads to additional deaths." This seems to address Notalgebraist's concerns pretty well? I thought maybe it was added to the post in response to feedback, but I see it in the first wayback capture https://web.archive.org/web/20200314031533/https://medium.com/@joschabach/flattening-the-curve-is-a-deadly-delusion-eea324fe9727 which looks like it's older than https://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/612592471097147392/flattening-the-curve-is-a-deadly-delusion

3 days later, the Imperial College study made the same point in a much better and more rigorous way (among lots of other good points), but it was less widely shared on social media.

While the paper itself wasn't widely shared (not too surprising!) lots of news stories that cited it and passed on its conclusions were shared: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/coronavirus-imperial-college-johnson.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-chilling-scientific-paper-helped-upend-us-and-uk-coronavirus-strategies/2020/03/17/aaa84116-6851-11ea-b199-3a9799c54512_story.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/health/coronavirus-uk-model-study/index.html

Authorities and Amateurs

The posts I'm referring to made claims that were much stronger than "we should be reacting more". If you look through https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca and https://medium.com/@joschabach/flattening-the-curve-is-a-deadly-delusion-eea324fe9727, and the follow-up https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56 they're making detailed claims about how the world is and how it will soon be.

When to Donate Masks?

Yes, that sounds like the right time to donate

Programmers Should Plan For Lower Pay

That was not how I was expecting this bet to resolve!

March Coronavirus Open Thread

Allergies and asthma are rare in China and other poorer countries. The standard explanation I'vev head is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

March Coronavirus Open Thread

I wrote something looking into bleach: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QJfiKwicwTXYMzJ7q/bleach

Summary: it's extremely concentrated, and a highly recommended disinfectant, but it's also dangerous and you need to be careful with it in specific ways

Load More