As soon as FAANG starts hiring people in Utah, Arkansas and Minnesota for the same roles at the same wages as they hire in the Bay, then people will move. As soon as VCs start funding founders in Boise, Kansas City and Chattanooga, then people will move.

Until then, maybe we work to improve the places where most of us are required to live by our jobs. (And yes, in parallel we can work to reduce the employer-mandated dependence on those areas).

You ... may want to read the indictment before you form an opinion on this one. There were free speech materials in the box, but in the same box there was also evidence of conspiracy to commit violent felonies, and THAT is what the guy's wife had asked him to hide.

EDIT to add: as for a crackdown on dissidents and protestors, how many of the people attending "No Kings" protests have been arrested? How many people attending anti-ICE protests who were not committing other crimes (such as trespassing) in the process have been arrested? And of those arrested, how many of them got length sentences like this?

According to the indictment — and the jury who saw the evidence was convinced enough to convict them on most of the charges — this was a group that had planned ahead to commit violent crimes and claim that they were just protesting. (They showed up with weapons and body armor, clearly prepared ahead of time for violence — and there was more, but the indictment is lengthy and I don't want to repeat all of it). THAT kind of behavior, I want to see cracked down on with as lengthy sentences as the law allows for. Because it endangers everyone, including all the non-violent protestors. (Because at every protest later, the cops will be on edge, wondering at what point someone is going to start shooting at them. And nervous cops are more likely to make mistakes in judgment — and when someone is nervous and armed, mistakes in judgment have a tendency to be lethal.)

I do NOT want peaceful protestors slammed with ridiculous sentences. But these people were NOT peaceful protestors. And I WANT the kind of thing they did cracked down on. My parents lived through the 1970's, with domestic terrorist groups active all over the place, using peaceful protestors as their cover and endangering everyone by their behavior. I do NOT want to live through a repeat of that.

> They showed up with weapons and body armor, clearly prepared ahead of time for violence

How come this argument doesn't hold water in so many other cases? Americans can't be anti-second amendment but only for people who disagree with the government.

Body armor. Showing up with weapons is normal in some places, including Texas. Body armor, not so much. It's the body armor that's the real evidence of preparation.

P.S. Also, there's no inconsistency. Simply apply basic logic. You have the right to be armed. You do not have the right to shoot at law enforcement officials; that's a felony. Nor do you have the right to plan ahead of time to commit a felony, including shooting at law enforcement officials.

Is wearing body armour illegal?

You're shifting the goalposts rather a lot here; at first you said that just bearing arms (allowed by 2nd amendment) and wearing body armour (not forbidden) was proof that they're 'clearly prepared ahead of time for violence', and now you're saying that they're simply not allowed to shoot at law enforcement, which no one disputed.

Which is it? And why don't you apply that standard evenly?

I'm going to lose interest in this conversation soon, but to clarify for anyone else who might be reading: wearing body armor is not common, and tends to be evidence that you are preparing for violence. When you commit a crime of violence, such as attempted murder, preparations ahead of time become evidence of prior intent, which raises the level of the felony involved. E.g., if you get into a verbal confrontation and, in the heat of the moment, pull out a gun and shoot the guy you were fighting with, that's murder, but it's not premeditated murder. It'll be murder in the third degree or second degree, depending on circumstances (and, I think, the definition of degree might vary from state to state).

But if you put on body armor before going into the confrontation, a prosecutor is likely to argue that you were preparing ahead of time for a fight, and that it's evidence that you were planning ahead of time to get into a gunfight. Which means he may well charge you with murder in the first degree, premeditated murder. Whether the jury buys his argument that you were planning the confrontation is up to them, and the other evidence the prosecution advances.

Perhaps I was unwise to assume that people would read the indictment and that I didn't need to repeat what it contained. So, to be clear: the evidence of pre-planning in the indictment included purchasing rifles ahead of time because "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off" (direct quote by the guy who ended up sentenced to 100 years for, among several other crimes, shooting an ICE officer in the neck). This suggests that the intent was to use the weapons to shoot at law enforcement officers. Carrying weapons is protected under the Second Amendment, but preparing to commit a violent crime is not.

That's the standard. The only thing that's been shifting is my opinion of whether you're actually looking at the evidence vs. forming an opinion ahead of time and not letting yourself be budged by evidence. Which is why I will no longer engage with you after this comment.

Given that police routinely assault peaceful demonstrators, journalists and random bystanders, wearing body armor if you might be anywhere near a protest (whether as a protestor or just because you live, work or transit through such an area) seems like common sense.

Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.

Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.

> when the effects of climate change are undeniable

I understand your meaning, but kind of a tragically funny statement given that really that's just... now.

So, it'll just be a continuation of the same insane talking points as today - "Weather has always changed" or "There have always been hurricanes/droughts/floods" while ignoring or denying or not understanding increasing frequency or intensity.

Also a lot of nonsense that because someone somewhere was still polluting (china, billionaires, whoever) that there was no benefit in decreasing pollution where we could, as if the problem was a binary where the only options were "zero pollution" and "unlimited pollution".

> A CC-BY license permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the work, including for commercial purposes, so long as appropriate attribution is given

This is a good thing. Building upon the published research of others is the entire foundation of academic publications. The "appropriate attribution" is the citations which are often the primary metric by which work is recognized as impactful and important.

My guess is the author is primarily unhappy about the making explicit that everyone, not just other academic researchers in the same field, can participate in this. But again, this is normal and good. As a society, we want people to turn research into real commercial products or to incorporate research into policies, regulations & best practices.

I'm a hiring manager. We post jobs on our website, along with LinkedIn and probably some others. We review applications from that, and interview and hire those people.

We get a lot of bots, but the software itself filters out 99% of that and then our recruiters filter out the rest. Referrals push candidates to the top of the queue for interviews, but otherwise it's literally just hiring people who cold applied to a job posting they saw online.

That's not to say it's not still terrible to be interviewing, just my point is, don't write off applying just because it sucks.

Why not charge $1 to apply ? Would drastically filter down spam applications.

Have you noticed an increase in valid applications?

Presumably AI is helping some-to-many reasonable candidates apply to many more positions

I never voted for any of the copyright laws, and hope those archaic tools of oppression get tossed out entirely.

If given the option to vote for this, yes I would absolutely vote for an exemption.

But also, this is clearly "Fair Use" even under our current draconian copyright laws.

Peter Attia is a graduate of Stanford medical school and spent 5 years in surgical residency at Johns Hopkins, and his podcast is largely using his expertise to give context to recently published research. His opinions are always pretty directly linked to peer reviewed research and he updates his stances as new research becomes available and explains why (eg, his shift away from fasting).

He really shouldn't be lumped in with the general "health and fitness Youtubers".

Often, there's a recruiter or HR person (or piece of software) that's doing an initial screening against those "requirements" though, often with zero understanding or context.

Recruiters hiring for a Java role will pass on a candidate with 10 years of C# experience, or other similar tech-stack-swapping scenarios where the skill set is 95% transferable because they don't know anything about the actual technologies or understand the work.

And of course, the lack of honest feedback makes the whole system inscrutable. Did you get ghosted because the job was fake? Because your resume lacked some key words? Because they had a referral? Because they preferred more diverse applicants? Because they never even looked at your resume? Because you have too many years of experience? Too few? Who knows!

As a non-aphantasia person, this just seems like a really, really bad "test".

Famously, there's a psychology experiment where a person in a gorilla costume walks through the middle of a scene and beats their chest before walking off the other side of the screen, but people who've been given a challenge of tracking a ball being passed around will completely miss the gorilla. They'll laugh in shock on watching the same video a second time, amazed that they didn't "see" the gorilla on first viewing when their attention was on the ball.

In your simple test, focus is going to be drawn to other components - "fast", "zipping" and "windy" make me pay attention to the curves of the road, the wheels, the trees or cliffs causing the road to wind. The color of the car is irrelevant, so I don't pay attention to it.

I can't tell you what color the car was, but when I watched the gorilla video (without knowing in advance about it) I didn't know a gorilla had walked through the video either.

I believe both that aphantasia may be a real thing, and that the vast majority of discussion about it online is plagued by so much imprecision and variety in use of language that it can be hard to say how many people who think they may have it, actually do.

Consider attempts in this very thread to compare conscious visualization to visualization in dreaming. Someone who isn't in a critical frame of mind or doesn't know about the limitations of vision in dreams and how our brains trick us about dream-sight (or the fairly different limitations of real vision and how our brains also trick us about that, as you mention) may follow a train of thought like, "well, I 'see' just fine in dreams, and my conscious 'mind's eye' is very similar to that, so sure, by the transitive property, I can 'see' about as well when I visualize as I actually see things with my real eyes"

Me, I go "well dream vision for approximately everyone is total shit but with a layer of trickery on top, and my 'inner eye' is similar to that except with the trickery dialed way down so I can tell where the seams are and if I try I can be aware of when I've just invented some detail that was 'always there' but actually wasn't a moment earlier and I can tell that I'm not actually seeing with my eyes (unlike a dream, where I think I'm 'seeing'), so yeah those two are pretty close for me, and the ways in which they differ are basically just how much my brain's lying to me so arguably aren't 'real' differences anyway, but both are entirely unlike actually seeing, so no, I don't 'see' when I visualize the same way as I 'see' with my eyes, though it is close to how I 'see' in a dream except I'm less-fooled about how bad it is"

... and I propose that these two responses could come from people with identical actual capacity for mental visualization.

When one of the former meet the latter, it might end in the latter thinking they have aphantasia or at least lean farther that direction, without any difference in their actual experience of or capacity for visualization.

....

I've seen a supposed set of autism test questions (I don't know if they're really used in autism diagnostics) that include something like "would you rather go to a party, or stay home and read a book?" and supposedly the "autistic" indicator is asking follow up questions or excessive hesitation. Meanwhile I'm very sure you could find people who instantly answered "go to a party" but actually choose that far less often when presented with the real choice involving those two things (necessarily with a lot more details and context filled in). I don't think they're lying or deceiving themselves! I think they're regarding the question very differently from how some others do. I think something similar is going on here, with two "tribes" with different perspectives on the question itself trying to communicate and talking right past one another, leading to much confusion.

(Meanwhile, I do think it's entirely possible aphantasia is real, I just also strongly suspect a lot of the people who've been led, by online discussion, to believe they're far from the median in this regard, actually aren't)

As mentioned elsewhere, researchers have done brain scans while asking people to imagine something, and for the majority of people the visual cortex lights up, but for a small number of people the visual parts of the brain are not so active.

This is very much a real thing, but largely goes unnoticed because it doesn’t really affect anything, except for people going about their lives thinking that the word ‘visualise’ is a metaphor.