Inducing sexual arousal seems like a better equilibrium, as long as everyone consents. It has positive valence roughly proportional to ΔHR, solves gender ratio problems and incentivizes people to learn effective flirting.

I'm not planning to have kids soon but if I did, this would be worth several thousand dollars to me. IVF is such an investment and things are moving so rapidly that information on how to do things right should be extremely valuable.

Arguments will be won by the attendees with the best cardio fitness (low resting HR) + mental discipline (less affected by agitating surroundings). This creates a natural incentive to exercise and meditate.

Some of the arguments are very reasonable, particularly the evolution vs gradient descent thing. Some I disagree with. Ege has posted here so it really should have been crossposted; probably the only reason they haven't is because they think it'll be negatively received.

Yes any spacefaring country, probably not most private citizens given the ITAR controls that are already put on rocket tech to regulate ballistic missiles. As for bioweapons, they're higher on the escalation ladder and harder to control. Will be sure to think about it more and cover this

An indiscriminate space weapon against low earth orbit satellites is feasible for any spacefaring nation. Recent rumors claim that Russia is already developing one, so I'm writing a post about it. I will explain why I think

• This weapon could require just one launch to destroy every satellite in low Earth orbit, including all Starlinks, and deny it to everyone for months to years
• It would consist of about 10^8 to 10^9 small ball bearings in retrograde orbit. An alternate design involves a nuclear device.
• Further launches could deny GEO and other orbits
• Russia, China, or the US could have one in orbit right now, and Russia may be incentivized to use one
• Defense of current space assets is nearly impossible, whether by shooting it down or evading the debris [edit: I no longer believe this. Shielding of military satellites and moving Starlink to VLEO are both potentially viable]
• Once the weapon goes off the strategic landscape in space is unclear to me

What objections or details should I include? Also is it a dangerous infohazard?

I have a correction which would take a while to fully write up. Basically, it seems like non-maneuverable warheads could still evade cheap interceptors using static winglets/grid fins, because their enormous velocity means even a small amount of lift would allow them to pull several gs and move tens-hundreds of meters to the side. The defense has several options against this but I would need to see if any of them work.

Plausibly yes, but I'd be worried enough about residual exposure (reflections off walls, improper installation) to other UV wavelengths that installation is likely to require some care and expense too. The second link has several accounts of acute health effects from people doing upper room UV wrong. Probably still great to have in train stations, airports etc though given the enormous benefit/cost ratio.

how much more effective is far UVC (shone directly on people) vs upper room UV?

I'm not really sure, there would be a component from surfaces and a component from extra ACH due to not relying on vertical air mixing. There are probably studies.

The light should point mostly in a horizontal plane just below the ceiling of the room, so that no one has the light shining directly in their eyes. Here's a source and there are more sources linked from here, including a DIY guide.

Since upper room UVGI when not filtered to 222nm is probably safe, and far-UVC which IS filtered to 222nm is probably safe even when it shines on occupants' eyes and bodies, it stands to reason that upper-room UVC has enough safety margin. To the best of my knowledge, far-UVC has been tested up to doses equivalent to 3 years of 8h/day exposure at the current safety threshold, but eyes are delicate so I would prefer studies of 10-100x higher cumulative doses.

It's already safe beyond a reasonable doubt if kept above eye level (7 ft / 2.13m), since this massively cuts the dose absorbed. I think many public spaces should install uvc immediately, and if they're not convinced yet just use removable shutters that keep it above eye level until more research is done.