Also:

  human dissection (grave robbing)
  translating the Bible into English
  silk production outside of China (death penalty for exporting worm eggs)
  rubber production in Asia (seeds smuggled out of Brazil)
  the Underground Railroad
  heliocentrism
  AIDS treatment (see Dallas Buyers Club)
  Needle exchange programs for IV drug users
  Ridesharing/airbnb/napster (obvious ones)
  SF gay marriage licenses (in defiance of CA law)

Translating the Bible into English was not illegal. I very much doubt Bede or the monks of Lindisfarne were breaking the law!

The same for heliocentrism. No one took Copernicus to court.

With silk and rubber the smuggling was illegal, the actual cultivation was not

Grave robbing was illegal (and still is) but dissection was not.

Needle exchange was illegal in some US states but was legal in many other countries.

Galileo. You are right about Copernicus.

>Needle exchange was illegal in some US states but was legal in many other countries

I'm not sure what your point is here

Reference to support the claim that translating the bible into English was banned (William Tyndale was executed for doing it): https://nobimu.no/en/subject-articles/banned-translations-of...

You can nitpick that "the church executing people for it" is not exactly the same as "illegal" but that's missing the point.

Unauthorized Bible translations were prohibited in England at the time, but Tyndale was executed in the Netherlands, where there was no such ban: https://books.google.de/books?id=mfZlsUVYClwC&pg=P315&source...

The context of this is the list of examples was of things done illegally for the first time - it lists these things as "also" in response to a claim that water was *first* chlorinated illegally.

While there were bans or a requirement for authorisation of translations of the Bible in certain times and places (mostly the 1300s to 1500s) the first translations of (parts of the) Bible into English had been done centuries before this, some as early at the 7th century. This makes them some of the oldest written works we know of in English at all. They were also done by the church.

> You can nitpick that "the church executing people for it" is not exactly the same as "illegal" but that's missing the point.

When did this happen? Tyndale was tried and executed by the secular authorities in a place where there were no laws against translating the Bible.

The earliest translations into English were done by the Church.

Sublingual is even harder. The sublingual mucosa is thin but selective. It strongly favors molecules that are small, lipophilic and uncharged. Semaglutide is about 8-10x too big, highly polar and charged.

Injection is really the only method with any substantial bioavailability. BUT, low (<1%) bioavailability does not necessarily mean useless.

> BUT, low (<1%) bioavailability does not necessarily mean useless.

Can you say more about that point ?

If the drug has a relatively low marginal cost of production, and the stomach just breaks down 99% of it without side effects, you can just manufacture 100x more, give it orally, and eat the cost of the 99% that gets lost along the way.

Injectable Semaglutide/Tirzepatide (>99.8% pure) are currently sold at a profit from China for around $2-3/weekly dose. Rybelsus (oral semaglutide) is sold at roughly the same cost per milligram, even though it's made in FDA-approved facilities (you just need to take >= 40x more milligrams per month, bringing it to $1000/month in the USA)

So manufacturing oral doses 100x higher than injectable seems to be economically viable.

We have too much mental baggage about what a "number" is.

Real numbers function as magnitudes or objects, while complex numbers function as coordinatizations - a way of packaging structure that exists independently of them, e.g. rotations in SO(2) together with scaling). Complex numbers are a choice of coordinates on structure that exists independently of them. They are bookkeeping (a la double‑entry accounting) not money

> We have too much mental baggage about what a "number" is.

I do feel like when I was young or when I tried to teach some of my neighbour's daughter something once.

At some point, one just has to accept it when they are young.

It's sort of a pattern, you really can't explain it to them. You can just show them and if they don't understand, then just repeat it. You really can't explain say complex numbers or philosophy or even negative numbers or decimals.

A lot of it is visual. I see one apple and then the teacher added one more and calls it two.

Its even hard for me to explain this right now because the very sentence that I am trying to say requires me to say one and two so on and this is the very thing that the children are taught to learn. So I can't really say one apple without saying one but I think that now my point is that I couldnt have said one without seeing one apple in the first place.

Then came some half bit apples which we started calling fractions and mixed fractions and then we got taught of a magic dot to convert fractions -> decimals -> rationals -> real numbers / exponents -> complex numbers -> (??)

A lot of the times atleast in schooling I feel like one just has to accept them the way they are because you really cant get philosophical about them or necessarily have the privilege or intellectual ability to do so.

We are systematically given mental baggage about what a number is because for 99.9% use cases that's probably enough (Accounting and literally even shopkeeping or just the whole world revolves around numbers and we all know it)

I honestly don't know what I am typing right now. I am writing whatever I am thinking but I thought about that we aren't the only ones like this.

We might think we are special in this but Crows are really intelligent as well (a little funny but I saw a cronelius shorts channel and If this sort of humour entertains you, I will link their channel as well)

I searched if crows can count numbers and found this article https://www.npr.org/2024/07/18/g-s1-9773/crows-count-out-lou...

And I Found this to be pretty interesting to maybe share. Maybe even after all of this/all development made, we are still made of flesh & still similar to our peers at animal kingdom and they might be as smart as some toddlers when we were first taught what numbers are and maybe they are capable of learning these mythical abstract baggage and we humans are capable of transferring/training others with this mental baggage not necessarily even being humans (Crows in this case)

It's always sad to see how humanity ignores other animals sometimes.

We might have created weapons of mass destructions, went to moon and back but we as a society are still restricted by basic human guilts/flaws which I feel like are inevitable whether the society is large & connected creating different types of flaws & also the same when its small & hunter-gathering oriented.

It's really these issues combined with whenever some real problems comes with us that we push for the next generation and so on and so on and then later we try to find scapegoats and do wars and just struggle but once again the struggle is felt the most by a middle class or the poor.

The rules of the game of life are still/might still be fundamentally broken but we are taught to accept it when we are young in a similar fashion to numbers which might be broken too if you stare too long into them.

But I guess there's hope because the system still has love and moments of intimacy and we have improved from past, perhaps we can improve in future as well. One can be sad and depressed about current realities or if the future looks bleak. Perhaps it is, perhaps not, only future can tell but the only thing we can do right now is to hopefully stay happy and smile and just pain/suffering is a universal constant in life but maybe one can derive their own meaning of existence withstanding all these hardships and having optimism for a better future and maybe even taking actions in each of our individual ways doing what we do best, doing what we enjoy, spending time with our family/community. Maybe its a cope for a world which is flawed but maybe that's all we need to chug along and maybe leave a footprint in this world when the days are feeling down.

I don't know but lets just be kind to each other. Let's be kind to animals and humans alike. Because I feel like most of us are similar than different and sometimes we feel empty for very minor reasons in which even minor gestures from others might be enough to make us happy again. Let's try to be those others as well and maybe reach out if there's something troubling anyone.

I am really unable to explain myself but my point is that there's still beauty and life's still good even with these flaws. It's kind of like a sine wave and if one would zoom enough they would only see things flat (whether at the top of the curve or at the bottom) but in a reality both are likely. Both are part of life as-is and if one can be happy in both, and still intend to do good just for the good it might do and the sake for it itself, then I feel as if that might be the meaning of life in general.

Can we be happy in just existing? and still do our best to improve our lives and potentially others surrounding us in a community whether its small or large that's besides the point imo

I feel as if we all are in a loop keeping the system of humanity alive while maybe going through some troubles in a more isolationist period at times. We are so connected yet so disconnected at the same time in today's world. This is really the crux of so many issues I feel. We as humanity have so many paradoxical properties but a system will still work as long as not all people question it simultaneously.

I hope this message can atleast make one feel more aware & more like not being in an automatic loop of sorts and sort of snapping out of it & perhaps using this awareness for a more deeper reflection in life itself and maybe finding the will to live or forging it for yourself and periodically going to it to find one's own sense of meaning in a world of meaninglessness.

This has been cathartic for me to write even though I feel as if I might not be able to make it all positive from perhaps despair to optimism but maybe that's the point because I do feel positive in just accepting reality as-is and leaving a foot print in humanity in our own way. Maybe this message is my way of shouting in the world that "hey I exist look at me" but I hope that the deeper reason behind this is because I feel cathartic writing it and perhaps maybe it can be useful to anyone else too.

A recommender engine that tries to capture and sustain attention in 1-2 second intervals, what else would you call it?

The traditional answer is "engagement," but there is a strong argument to me made that intentional engagement (engagement by conscious, willful choice) is not possible, repetitively, for a vast smorgasbord of content spinning by at short intervals

This assumes that a 2 second interval is appropriate for all travelling speeds.

This assumption is untrue at very low speeds, particularly when it takes longer than 2 seconds for a car to pass a point. For instance if we assume cars are 4m long, then with an interval of 2 seconds the cars would be touching at 4.47mph

The assumption is also untrue at very high speeds. You'll want a larger gap. That's partly because at such high speeds the ability of a vehicle to decelerate differs - if a vehicle with good brakes does an emergency stop and the car behind it has a respectable 2 second gap but has worse brakes then they can end up colliding. It's also partly because a 2 second gap at very high speeds means the car in front is further away, and that can cause a greater delay before the driver realises what is happening. As a third reason a greater margin needs to be used at very high speeds simply because the consequences of a crash are that much greater and should therefore be avoided even more than at lower speeds.

Therefore there is a kind of U-shaped curve in the "safe" following interval, and consequently a speed at which safe throughput is maximised.

That's why variable speed limits have been introduced in various places. For instance, in the UK which normally has a 70mph speed limit on motorways, in very high traffic conditions this can be lowered using electronic signs to increase the safe throughput of the road. It's commonly reduced to 50mph, though it does get lowered further in sections approaching a queue of vehicles that has actually stopped.

There's also the issue of speed oscillations. With a high speed limit and vehicles following too closely, a little variation in speed in one vehicle can turn into a larger variation in the following vehicles, causing a backwards-travelling wave of braking (sometimes to an absolute halt) and speeding up again. Lowering the speed limit reduces this.

By 2 sec following distance I am referring to their back bumper to your front bumper. So cars "overlapping" in your example is not possible

If you want 4 sec gap at higher speeds that's fine, the formula is speed-independent for throughput, not speed-independent for following distance. If you want 4 seconds at high speed then use 4 sec instead of 2 sec (i.e. 1 car/ 4 sec)

>There's also the issue of speed oscillations. With a high speed limit and vehicles following too closely, a little variation in speed in one vehicle can turn into a larger variation in the following vehicles, causing a backwards-travelling wave of braking (sometimes to an absolute halt) and speeding up again. Lowering the speed limit reduces this.

"Lowering the speed limit reduces oscillations." Exactly, that is my whole point, that (again, locally analyzed) you can ignore the waves, and instead look only at the following distance of the slowest car in the lane, to determine throughput of the road behind that car. Your idea of "lowering the speed limit" to eliminate waves is the same net effect on throughput as observing that the throughput cannot exceed that given by the longest-following car on the road.

A niggle - if you are referring to a 2 second gap between the back bumper and the following front bumper, then the formula is no longer speed independent, as you need to add the small overhead to account for the time taken for the length of the vehicle to pass as well. This will be small enough to be mostly negligible except at low speeds.

Totally.

If you take this measurement as the goal it would be best at near standstill speed (around 4m/s). If you want to maximize the traveled distance of the group it is around 60kph, which is the metric most people actually care about when discussing throughput.

1 car / (actual max following time) no matter the speed. Where do you see speed in the equation? It's not. You can put it in of course but my point is it's unnecessary if you know following distance, which is theoretically more invariable than speed on a road anyway

> If you double following distance, you halve the throughput. If you halve following distance, you double your throughput.

That postulate breaks down as soon as you move away from a laminar traffic assumption and include distracted drivers, lane changes, and weather influences. Which is why the wave theory model is important to understand the propagation of perturbations and their effect on maximum throughput.

> The throughput of a (full, i.e. rush-hour) road has nothing to do with speeds of people driving, and everything to do with following distance.

And yet, in the limit case of a bumper-to-bumper situation (or, in fluid dynamics parlance, an incompressible flow), the variable determining the change in mass flow-rate is the velocity of the medium. Mimetically, we could also look at ants. To ease congestion in a bumper-to-bumper situation, they accelerate.

YES to all! You're so close. Drivers do not accelerate in bumper-to-bumper the way ants do. They maintain a 2sec (or whatever they are trained) following time instead. Which therefore dictates velocity (car lengths per following time). Thus the limiter on flow-rate is actually following time!

>It's wild to me how often the left lane is not the fastest lane.

Reasons vary, but a lot of the time it can be explained by left exits/splits ahead on the highway. Which some may call poor design.

>I'd follow the drivers in front of me too closely

Best trick for managing this is to "drive through" the car in front of you. That is, judge your following distance based not on the car in front of you, but on the car in front of THEM.

And you don't have to "drive through" all the way down the road - it only takes one car/one level of abstraction for this approach to yield really great benefits, try it if you don't believe me.

This only works if you can see two vehicles ahead. Too many SUVs and pickup trucks are too high and have terrible visibility around them.

See "Lane Positions" under Basic Driving Skills: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv/pages/online_parent_guide_to...

This is a long thread of people talking past each other. The bottom line is simply this: if you want to drive with a larger-than-average following distance (call it whatever you want, a safety buffer, a "proper" following distance, the point is it is a distance less than the average following distance of the other drivers on the road) then you have to accept that you will not be able to drive at the same speed as the other traffic on the road. It's physically impossible. It can be psychologically frustrating because you see all the cars around you moving at X mph but your self-imposed constraints mean you can only make way at (X minus Y) mph. But them's the breaks, no pun intended

> It can be psychologically frustrating because you see all the cars around you moving at X mph but your self-imposed constraints mean you can only make way at (X minus Y) mph.

This is correct, but I get the sense that people overestimate Y.

Let's say you're driving 60 mph and following the "three second rule" which gives you a ~264 foot safety buffer. A driver then cuts into this safety buffer. Let's assume they like to go fast and enter closer to the front of the buffer so they reduce your safety buffer down to two seconds. In response, you gradually rebuild the safety buffer back to three seconds, costing you an extra second. Soon after you rebuild the safety buffer another car cuts in front of you. Let's say this process repeats every mile of your journey, costing you an extra second every time. This results in you traveling slightly over ~59 mph, making Y = ~1 mph.

Compare that to the lifetime odds of dying in a car crash in the U.S. which is roughly 1 in 100. It's hard to eliminate that entirely, but I'm willing to spend an extra ~1s per car that cuts in front of me to reduce it for myself and my passengers.

>It can be psychologically frustrating

True, though-

I like being a traffic hacker--come on in, plenty of room!

Weaving into the little spaces is my version of traffic hacking. I estimate every time I can do that, I shave 1-2 seconds off of my commute.

i'm upvoting you assuming you were being sarcastic. if not, i hope you die in a fire of your own making. (also sarcastic)

Thanks. (sarcastic)

Not so. Keeping a constant distance from the car ahead means both cars are moving at the same speed. When a jerk cuts in, after a moment all 3 cars will be moving at the same speed.

We are saying the same thing. When a jerk cuts in, drivers readjust their speed to maintain desired following distance. Net effect, slower speed for all but the lead car

If you personally start with that slower speed to begin with (AKA much longer following distance), you don't have to worry about adjusting down

>I really would like to see answers to the four questions at the end

The bottom line is that China has the biggest most economical tungsten reserves, they have been able to flood the market with predatory pricing for the last 40 years and they almost completely control the ore processing bottleneck as well.

For this to change the US govt would have to enter major agreements w US mines, offering relaxed permitting and a guaranteed price

Textbook whataboutism. I agree that US BigTech strategy of dumping free product is predatory and arguably a regulatory failure (or success, depending on your values and goals). But that's got absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.