All of jefftk's Comments + Replies

But your accounts would be up so much that you'd only need a tiny fraction of them to fund your immediate consumption

Maybe you want to use the money altruistically? To spend on labor, compute, etc?

Some altruistically-motivated projects would be valid investments for a Checkbook IRA. I guess if you wanted to donate 401k/IRA earnings to charity you'd still have to pay the 10% penalty (though not the tax if the donation was deductible) but that seems the same whether it's pretax or a heavily-appreciated Roth.

I think a lot of this depends on your distribution of potential futures:

  • What sort of returns (or inflation) do you expect, in worlds where you need the money at various ages?

  • What future legal changes do you expect?

  • How likely are you to have a 5y warning before you'll want to spend the money you've put in a traditional 401k?

  • What are your current and future tax brackets?

  • How likely are you to be in a situation where means testing means you lose a large portion of non-protected money?

  • How likely are you to lose a lawsuit for more than your (un

... (read more)

The third example I give is exactly that, where Andrew produced our CD, so a lot of overlap!

Helping you be a better live band in the moment, though, seems like it's usually not going to come out of working with a record producer?

Not having been in a band or recorded an album I wouldn't be able to comment, I don't know how much of live playing skills translate to the modern recording process. I realize things aren't like when Black Sabbath laid down their self-titled in a weekend, basically playing their live set. Comping is more affordable in Post. And even then, I assume, the lack of a live audience to reflect and 'bounce' off of changes the playing dynamic, right?

This is subtle and I may be missing something, but it seems to me that using a pretax 401k helps some but not that much, and the Roth scenario is only slightly worse than the regular investment account. Compare the three, chosen to be maximally favorable to your scenario:

  1. You contribute to your pre-tax 401k, it grows (and inflates) 2x. You roll it over into a Roth IRA, paying taxes on the conversion. Over the next five years it grows 1.3x. You withdraw the contribution and leave the gains.

  2. You contribute to your post-tax Roth 401k, it grows (and inf

... (read more)

The catastrophic error IMO is:

Five years from when you open your account there are options for taking gains out tax-free even if you're not 59.5 yet. You can take "substantially equal periodic payments", but there are also ones for various kinds of hardship.

For Roth you mostly can't take out gains tax-free. The hardship ones are limited, and SEPP doesn't let you access much of it early. The big ones of Roth conversions and just eating the 10% penalty only work for pretax.

[As an aside Roth accounts are worse for most people vs pretax for multiple reasons, e... (read more)

The original version of this post had results from a simulation where the key results were off by a factor of 100. See the update at the top of the post for more.

Many cooperative board games run into a problem where if there are people of differing skill levels on the same team than the strongest player ends up doing most of the playing. Hanabi is the only multiplayer game I've tried that successfully avoids this, where every player needs to be engaged and trying their best.

I know what you mean, and it used to absolutely be an issue in our group, especially with games like Eldritch Horror or Pandemic Legacy, i.e. multi-hour games where you have full information about everything every player is doing. That said, an obvious design which circumvents this problem is co-op games where every player has some private information: then other players can't play for you and vice versa. Incidentally, all the non-team co-op games I suggested above have this design. Just One is a co-op party game where the active player must guess a word and each other player independently provides a word hint. Then the hint givers compare hints and eliminate all hints that were given multiple times (hence the title, "Just One"). Resulting game flow: If everyone tries to give an "obvious" hint (e.g. giving the hint "metal" for the word "steel"), then multiple people will likely give the same hint, and as such this hint will be unavailable to the active player. Whereas if nobody gives obvious hints, there's a higher chance that there are no duplicate hints to eliminate, so the active player can work with a lot of hints but might get misled by all hints being non-obvious. This makes it an interesting challenge for what kinds of hints to give and how to interpret the hints one receives. Meanwhile Letter Jam is a bit like Hanabi: Every player has one letter card facing away from themselves, so everyone but themselves knows what it is. The goal is for everyone to guess their 4-7 letter cards in as few rounds as possible. Every round one player (chosen by the group) gives a word hint to the other players based on the letters they see. E.g. suppose there are four players. Then I would see the letter cards of the three other players, plus 1-2 letters visible to everyone, plus finally a joker which can substitute for any one letter. And suppose I see the player letters P L A, and an open letter T. Then I could make the word hint PLANT (by using the joker for the N). Thi

Often, but not always: your plan might not allow in-service withdrawals, so taking the money out right away might require leaving your company.

In your 50% of worlds where we get AGI in the next 3y, do you have important uses for the money?

How does your remaining 50% smear across "soon but >3y" through "AI fizzle"?

7Daniel Kokotajlo12d
In the worlds where we get AGI in the next 3y, the money can (and large chunks of it will) get donated, partly to GiveDirectly and suchlike, and partly to stuff that helps AGI go better. The remaining 50% basically exponentially decays for a bit and then has a big fat tail. So off the top of my head I'm thinking something like this: 15% - 2024 15% - 2025 15% - 2026 10% - 2027 5% - 2028 5% - 2029 3% - 2030 2% - 2031 2% - 2032 2% - 2033 2% - 2034 2% - 2035 ... you get the idea.  

Saving, but avoiding protected "retirement" plans so you can invest in traditional taxed assets. This is very hard to justify, for the reasons you give. I'd classify as mostly dumb.

This is the only one I'm trying to argue against in the post, fwiw.

My biggest concern with future solar panels is that net metering rules for new installs might get substantially less favorable.

(In general, net metering is kind of absurd. The idea that power I draw from the grid whenever is most convenient to me is worth the same amount as power I send to the grid whenever is most convenient to me is very far from correct.)

1Shankar Sivarajan14d
Sure, that's a reasonable concern. But energy storage might also get much cheaper, making energy prices less time-variant. At any rate, these are still comparisons between buying panels now and buying panels later.

If you ran that $2/therm gas (~$0.07/kWh) through a reasonably efficient (~40%) natural gas genset it would produce electricity cheaper than what you currently pay for power, and you would have 2/3rds of the gas energy left over as heat.

I was curious about this, and here are the numbers I got. I looked around and even a 23% efficient Generac 7171 comes out ahead. It's rated for 9kW at full output on natural gas. They say it uses 127 ft3/hr which is 1.37 or 39kWh. This is $0.304/kWh.

Of course this ignores the cost of the generator, maintenance, lower... (read more)

Yeah, I came to say the same. You're basically running into the problem that electricity in MA is expensive relative to natural gas, which is very much a contingent fact of policy/history/infrastructure. If you were living elsewhere, or living off-grid, the numbers would look very different. You may (or may not) find the MA policy mix and cost structure changing in the future, so if nothing else, be ready to revise your numbers over time. Especially if your current gas system breaks and you have to replace it with something no matter what, that can change the economics a lot too. 

the power company locally should be able to buy natural gas generators and fuel for around the same price as a power company anywhere else

I don't think this is true. Getting natural gas into this part of the country is very expensive. We don't have enough pipeline capacity, and voters are strongly against building more, so the marginal therm arrives on LNG tankers.

Given tariff asymmetries between feeding-in and drawing power locally to/from the grid, there tends to exist a strong self-consumption incentive

MA has net metering, so unless you are producing more electricity than your house consumes averaged over the year, this isn't a consideration in favor of adding additional self-consumption.

2Steven Byrnes22d
In MA, it’s a bad idea (from a selfish monetary perspective) to produce more solar electricity than the amount of electricity you consume. So if you already have solar panels, then it’s plausible that you originally sized the panels to match your then-current electricity consumption. In that case, if you install mini-splits later on, then you’re consuming more electricity than you’re producing, and buying grid electricity. However, another possibility is that you installed solar panels after already having mini-splits, or that you installed extra solar panels in the expectation that you were imminently going to also install mini-splits. In that case, I think FlorianH’s point is correct: we should be comparing to rooftop solar electricity costs not grid electricity price. (And this is a point in favor of mini-splits.) I was getting bids from solar installers recently, and they absolutely have been saying “hey, are you planning to install mini-splits? or buy an electric car? if so, we should definitely quote you for more panels than one would think from your recent electricity bills.”

Interesting: comparing the DLCPRBH18AAK you linked to the MXZ-SM42NAMHZ2 I was quoted for, yours has maximum efficiency at a relatively high output level while mine has maximum efficiency at it's lowest output level. And yours even is even labeled as able to put out more heat at 5F than 17F, without losing COP, which is pretty weird?

4Gerald Monroe23d
Yes that's weird and probably wrong. Real question is what would the crossover temperature be if you had both gas and these.

I think what confuses me the most about your model is:

a. I'm pretty sure the immunity you get from having had an iteration of the virus and from having had the imperfect vaccine are similar.

b. Then the selection pressures of vaccination vs infection are quite similar.

(Separately, if it were actually the case that annual imperfect vaccination made things worse for the people not getting the vaccine, which in the US is a large majority, then it seems like the CDC should not be recommending them. What do they, and other public health authorities, think of these evolutionary arguments?)

That is all quite reasonable! I. Regarding the CDC I tried to write about the CDC taking hyperpathogenic evolution due to imperfect vaccines seriously at an object level (where the CDC was the object level thing being looked at). It kept veering into, selectorate theory, first past the post voting, Solzhenitsyn, and so on. Best not to talk much about that when the OP is about dancing and voluntary association :-) Treating imperfect diseases as the object level, and "going doubly meta", I'd point out that (1) argument screens off authority, and also (2) the best way for a group of umpires to get the right answer most reliably is for all of them to look ONLY at the object level: collecting the maximally feasible de-correlated observations using all the available eyes and then use good aggregation procedures to reach Bayesian Agreement over the totality of the observations. Ideal umpires only give correlated answers through the intermediary of describing the same thing in the world (the actual ball landing in some actual place, and so on). This is why each additional umpire's voice means something extra, on an epistemic (rather than military/strategic) level. If you want to talk politics, we can, but I think I'd rather talk "umpire to umpire", about "the thing in front of us". (And also separately, if we get into politics, I don't think the CDC is anything like an ideal umpire, hence why I'd prefer to treat "politics" as a semantic stopsign for now. Why does the CDC say what it says? Politics. Does this answer help predict anything else about the CDC? Mostly not. Does it help keep other arguments clean and safe? Hopefully yes.) II. Regarding Imperfect Vaccines And Imperfect Immune Operation I think your "A" and "B" are roughly right, and a sign that I've communicated effectively and you've understood what I'm saying :-) I think imperfect "endogenous immune responses" in one population would/should/could breed diseases that are unusually pathogenic in other po

Reading the paper you linked, the idea is that vaccination that doesn't result in eradication contributes to the evolution of the pathogen. They propose targeting vaccines toward virulence antigens (markers highly correlated to the pathogen being unpleasant) to influence the pathogen to evolve to lower virulence.

Their successful examples are all bacterial, which makes sense: it's much easier to separate the functions of a bacterial pathogen. Their viral example is HPV, where they discuss the idea of targeting vaccines to make it less likely to cause cancer... (read more)

This is an idea that feels "really really important if true" but that I'm not actually certain about and often bounce off of. Pushing on it a little more, this paper on Marek's Disease from 2015 sketches a theory of "hotness". Hotness is a hypothetical "conflation of transmissibility and pathogenicity" that might sometimes occur as a spandrel at first, which then is found to be useful by some evolutionary systems, which optimize the spandrel "on purpose". You could imagine a disease which has one "hotness level" with no vaccines at all (H0?), and a different "hotness level" (H1) in patients with an imperfect vaccine. With no background knowledge at all H0 > H1 could be true on average regarding viruses (and that is consistent with the idea that vaccines are DESIGNED to help the patient by reducing pathogenicity from a patient-centric perspective). However, we expect some amount of "hotness" might contribute (from a virus-centric perspective) to "transmissibility" as well... if your nose became so runny you die of dehydration before transmitting that would be "too hot" from a virus centric perspective, but if your nose is not runny at all in any way then maybe the virus isn't causing the host to shed as many viral particles as would maximize the total number of downstream infections. The thing I'd suggest is that maybe "we as a collective herd" are LUCKY when only 20% of the population is defecting on the strategy that would tame any given virus? Here's a hypothetical bad path, that probably only kicks in if almost everyone takes these imperfect vaccines, sketched as a possible future: On step ZERO he first imperfect vaccine is deployed against a naive pathogen, with 60% uptake. H1_0 is kinder to the patient at first (and a reason to buy and take the vaccine, selfishly, for each patient) but H0_0 is tolerable and not (yet) a strong downside reason to take the vaccine to avoid the symptoms... But then on step ONE the disease, which already had an optimized hot

The LW/EA overlap with contra is pretty much only in the younger crowd, driven mostly (I think) by LW/EA being younger overall.

That seems pretty unlikely to be popular.

It also requires producing far more vaccine than if you just spray it in people's noses, and gives up control of the dosage and timing.

2Nathan Helm-Burger1mo
Yeah. Administering it in some way that is relatively controlled, such as a puff of mist in the face when boarding an international flight seems doable though. But yeah, a variety of downsides w current tech. Ten years from now? Hard to say what the world will look like.

I'm guessing contra dance attendees skew younger than zen center attendees

Nationally I suspect this isn't the case; I'd guess 80% of contra dancers are baby boomers. But some communities have much younger demographics.

4Gordon Seidoh Worley1mo
Oh wow! Everyone I know who is into contra dancing in the Bay Area seems to be late 20s to early 30s. I don't go to contra dances myself, though, so seems I may have incorrectly extrapolated about the demographics.

reduced your chance of giving it to others after you were sick.

What makes you confident?

I've seen a lot of reporting of this over the years, which I think is going back to seeing lower viral loads for vaccinated people? Here's an example study, which I've only looked at the abstract of:

I got the first three jabs out of a selfish desire to protect my health from a filthy world with no adequate public health systems. I'm thinking of getting a fourth now that I've heard that the new vaccines are finally putting new strains (but not the old strains) into the new formulation... ...but my suspicion is that all of these are anti-social, because by widely deploying imperfect vaccines (that attenuate the symptoms of an enormously infectious airborne illness (that is already known to spread a lot at the very beginning of the illness at low doses and with low symptoms)) we're doing something that is probably (should probably be considered?) low-key "immoral". Because it probably encourages the evolution of a disease that hurts people with fewer medical resources. Abstractly, it feels like defecting on an N-person prisoner's dilemma because it seems to be leading to a world where everyone has to get (imperfect?) vaccines in order to be safe from viruses that are harmful because everyone is getting imperfect vaccines.
4Nathan Helm-Burger1mo
I adapted some 3D print files found online and printed out the clips, then glued the clips to the small monitor. Now it just slips down from above and the clips rest on the lower screen bezel and back of the screen.

I want to call the section from two different pieces of code I'm experimenting with right now. At some point some of it will likely end up in a real system, but right now it's all very exploratory.

Then security doesn't matter and you can do whatever is simplest. Even the module space doesn't matter.

In my case, a big reason that I want the setup I now have is that I really like the laptop's keyboard and trackpad.

You mean with open("/path/to/") as inf: exec( I'd expect that to work, but:

  • It doesn't do namespacing (so instead of being any symbols in foo will just end up as bar)

  • I'd really prefer not to use exec: there are so many ways to misuse it, and it's hard to tell if it's being used properly from looking at it. Much less of an issue in research code, but I'd still rather not.

Yes, that's what I meant. There are many ways to abuse exec, but your way of using importlib.import_module with tweaked path has the same security issues. One death you have to die and exec seems to be the simplest.  Maybe you explain a bit more why you want to pull out the section from the main file. What is the real purpose? 

If you think they're very good songs, and especially if you think we're likely going to want to sing them at a future Boston Solstice?

The Reber plan was a very different proposal, involving barriers farther North. This is a much simpler proposal, which doesn't create any freshwater lakes.

There are a bunch of problems with this even if implemented in good faith, but an obvious attack is that you convince a friend external to the community to (meet the minimum qualifications for membership and) accuse your target. This gets your target and your friend banned without investigation, but of course your friend does not care about getting banned.

Creating a 501c3 is not the hard part. The hard part would be convincing a decentralized and informal community that they should accept the proposed central organization, including trusting it when it said who they should associate with.

(Which people are naturally wary of!)

If the organization owns the place where people meet, the organization can put someone on a blacklist, and the local community can either meet at that place without the banned person, or coordinate on finding a different place to meet at -- which would be difficult if the best local coordinators are members of the organization.
Agree. I don't think it will work well when an informal community already exists. It probably works best when you found the community is small (seven members). After the fact, it might work for sub-communities with specific purposes, such as organizing events.

in any way other than market competition forcing all major browsers to implement the feature, in which case it doesn’t practically matter whether the implementation requirement has legal weight.

I think it does matter? It's not clear that browsers can be required to do this, and even if it were legal to require them to it's not a good precedent. On the other hand, browsers working together with regulators and site owners to make a new technical standard (to communicate shared browser status) + rules (so it's legal to use the technical standard to not p... (read more)

Fair enough, although I put a little less weight on the undesirable precedent because I think that precedent is already largely being set today. (Once we have precedents for regulating specific functionality of both operating systems and individual websites, I feel like it’s only technically correct to say that the case for similar regulation in browsers is unresolved.) Also, the current legal standard just says that websites must give users a choice about the cookies; it doesn’t seem to say what the mechanism for that choice must be. The interpretation that the choice must be expressed via the website’s interface and cannot be facilitated by browser features is an interpretation, and I’d argue against that interpretation of the directive. I don’t see why browsers couldn’t create a ‘Do-Not-Track’-style preference protocol today for conveying a user’s request for necessary cookies vs all cookies vs an explicit prompt for selecting between types of optional cookies, nor any reason why sites couldn’t rely on that hypothetical protocol to avoid showing cookie preference prompts to many of their users (as long as the protocol specified that the browsers must require an explicit user choice before specifying any of the options that can skip cookie prompts; defaulting users to “necessary cookies only” or the all-cookies-without-prompts setting would break the requirement for user choice). But we don’t see initiatives like that, presumably in large part because browsers don’t expect to see much adoption if they implement such a feature, especially since it’s the type of feature that requires widespread adoption from all parties (browser makers, site owners, and users) before it creates much value. Instead, lots of sites show cookie banners to you and I while we browse the web from American soil using American IP addresses, seemingly because targeting different users with different website experiences is just too sophisticated for many businesses. They evidently see this a

After writing this I learned that the sign had been put up by Stephanie, a local parent and safer-streets advocate.

Sorry, I actually just misread your post as saying "maximum" where you wrote "minimum".

I don't think you need to mandate browser features: a big reason we don't have this sort of thing today is that even if the browser offered this setting it wouldn't be enough to satisfy the regulation. The regulation could say something vaguely like "web browsers may offer their users a choice between three profiles [insert your description] and communicate to websites which setting the user has chosen. If a website receives this information, it may save information to the client device etc"

In theory, yes. Do you have particular knowledge that things would likely play out as such if the regulations permitted, or are you reasoning that this is likely without special knowledge? If the former, then I’d want to update my views accordingly. But if it’s the latter, then I don’t really see a likely path for your regulatory proposal to meaningfully shift the market in any way other than market competition forcing all major browsers to implement the feature, in which case it doesn’t practically matter whether the implementation requirement has legal weight.

To the extent that the goal is to give privacy between multiple users, a way to explicitly say "this browser is just for me" and then not see cookie banners would be pretty great.

Once you’re willing to mandate browser features to bolster privacy between multiple users on the same device, I’d get rid of website-implemented cookie banners altogether (at least for this purpose) and make the browser mandate more robust instead.  I could see this as a browser preference with three mandated states (and perhaps an option for browsers to introduce additional options alongside these if they identify that a different tradeoff is worthwhile for many of their users): * Single user mode:  this browser (or browser profile) is only used by one user, accept local storage without warning under the same legal regime as remote storage of user data. * Shared device mode:  this browser (or browser profile) is shared among a constrained set of users, e.g. a role-oriented computer in an organization or a computer shared among members of a household.  Apply incognito-inspired policies to ensure that local storage cannot outlive a particular usage session except for allowlisted domains, and require the browser to provide a persistent visual indication of whether the current site is on the allowlist (similar to how browsers provide a persistent indication of SSL status). * Public device mode:  this browser (or browser profile) is broadly available for use by many people who do not necessarily trust each other at all, e.g. a machine in a school’s computer lab or in a public library.  Apply the same incognito-inspired policies as in shared device mode, but without the ability to allowlist specific sites that can store persistent cookies.  The browser must also offer the ability for the computer administrator to securely lock a browser in this mode to prevent untrusted users from changing the local-storage settings.

I haven’t personally needed to pay super close attention to the e-Privacy regulations but I thought they exclusively focused on cookies as a specific technology?

For better or worse, the e-privacy directive is not specific to cookies: it covers any form of client side data storage. For example, "Users should have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment."

Good to know, thanks! (And thanks in particular for linking to the original text — while your excerpt is suggestive, the meaning of “similar device” isn’t entirely clear without seeing that the surrounding paragraph is focused on preserving privacy between multiple users who share a single web-browsing device.  I feel like that is still a valid concern today and a reasonable reason for regulations to treat client-side storage slightly differently from server-side storage, even though it’s not most people‘s top privacy concern on the web these days and even though this directive doesn’t resolve that concern very effectively at all.)

I actually just completely misread my parents post and thought they wrote "maximum" and not "minimum".

I cannot recall having seen any recently but do recall seeing minimum speed limits posted on highways in the USA.

Could you be thinking of Canadian speed limit signs, which say "maximum"?

I wasn't but have seen those as well. The signs I was thinking of were those that stated Minimum 45 MPH on US highways. I think that also went along with the general rule that if you were driving under 45 on the highway you should have your warning flasher lights active.
Probably not, since some U.S. states do post minimum (fair-weather) speeds on Interstate highways.  Section 2.2 of this paper includes a slightly dated map indicating the minimum speeds in each state (where applicable).

How about instead of doing some random proposed change with speed limit maximums and what not we do some AB testing and figure out what's safer?

Rolling out this proposal on some randomly selected matched pairs of high-fatality roads and comparing outcomes would be relatively cheap.

In large parts of the country, there's nowhere that it's legal to drive anywhere near that fast

Nowhere legal on public roads; you could take your car to a track.

wouldn't it also be better if normal cars just weren't capable of going over, say, 90mph?

I mean, probably, but isn't people driving 100mph+ a tiny fraction of deaths from speeding?

What's the issue with tubes if you always bail if (a) you end up rotated so you can't see or (b) you're on track for an obstacle?

(I don't think the 'bounce' makes them safer; not arguing that.)

5Seth Herd2mo
If you do all of that perfectly, there's no downside. Kids don't do everything perfectly. So sleds seem way safer. Except for jumping. Tubes do offer protection from most jumps. Which can cause head impacts. Source: grew up next to a wooded hill in Northern Michigan where entertainment was scarce.

One of the hills around here is very steep, leading down to a fence. After someone died, hitting the fence pretty hard (not the first time, just the most recent), they started putting hay bales at the bottom every year.

You could do something like that on this hill, but it gets much less sledding traffic and is much less dangerous than the other one, so it's less clear it's worth it.

Thanks for finding this! That build was a lot more DIY than what I'm doing: almost the whole video is them building things that I got essentially "for free" with the screen I chose. I think the relevant bit is they used hinges to attach the additional monitor to a metal panel the size of the laptop screen, and then velcro'd that panel to the back of the laptop screen. They used custom 3d-printed hinges, and a kickstand to support the additional weight.

I do think I want something with hinges, or else I end up with a portable monitor + adapter setup which is awkwardly large. I think I may be able to find existing hinges (a door hinge?) that have the right properties without needing to 3d print something.

Also, velcro comes in many strength and sizes. I find heavy duty velcros to be frequently underused in such DIY projects

When I referenced this post on the EA Forum Jason commented:

... If the would-be author knows prior to publication that the sources have retracted, that could significantly increase the defamation-liability risk ...

Another option would be a tripod stand that goes down to the floor (ex).  It's bulky, but I could work with this at a chair with no desk, for example if I needed to get a bunch done while traveling.  Wouldn't work for airplanes or quick use, though.

I don't think duct tape would work: I'd need something rigid. But duct tape and something strong and light would work.

(I probably also would want a tape that doesn't leave a residue.)

I'm imagining positioning this so that it's vertical and balanced, and isn't loading the hinge very much towards either opening further or closing?

Consider that it's designed to hold the normal-weight screen in whatever position you leave it, including the maximum-leverage nearly-closed position, and it seems like it should be able to handle a somewhat heavier weight when close to the ideal angle?

It is very possible that it works - though I am somewhat doubtful and I don’t have a unit to test it. A quick way for us to learn more would be to I guess duct tape the screen to the laptop at the angle/height your want - and work with it for a bit. Might be able to get more experimental data than our theory crafting.

I see people doing this with side monitors (ex) but possibly these all have kickstands?

Indeed! But these are side loads instead of directly above the hinges.  Imagine this... you are a hinge. You are designed to take loads that roughly matches the motion of opening and closing of the lid + a bit of additional tolerance. But when someone mounts something heavy on the side of the laptop, you are mostly annoyed but OK with it because the side load will try to rip out the hinges out of their respective housing in different directions - the housing is usually plastic on cheaper computers, but perhaps aluminum on macs?  The problem with have that much weight on the top of your laptop would be... that your hinges would want to close when you don't want them to - they not designed to be stable while holding onto that much weight + the leverage given to the new screen from being far away from the hinge assembly. 

Yes, as a passenger

I'm coming from a starting place of assuming that if a bunch of people are doing X and would loudly protest if you told them to stop doing X, then preventing them from doing X is a cost to them. This assumption can be overruled with sufficient evidence that preventing them from doing X actually helps them, but I don't see that here?

The cost need not be anything to do with X, but about being told not to do X. People get pissed off at interfering jobsworths.

It certainly violates revealed preference

That statement of fact is indeed true. Would you mind saying more about your thoughts regarding it? There seems to be an unstated implication that this is bad. There is a part of me that agrees with that implication, but there are also parts of me that want to say "so what? that's irrelevant". (I feel ⌞explaining what the second set of shards is pointing to, would take more time and energy to write up than I am prepared to take right now⌝)

He's very good! Probably the fullest sounding one-person band I've seen, though, is Mezerg.

Load More