I expected the -48VDC telco standard to become popular as people had more solar, batteries, etc. I guess we will get there the most complicated way possible with usb-c.
This might be my bubble showing, but I expect this would have worked better if DC lighting became more popular 20+ years ago, when many many more people had landlines.
(I suppose a lot of people in the US still probably do have landlines, but I know very few, if any, people who do.)
Then again, my house (built in 2009) is still wired for a landline, but the wires (and the voltage on them) remain unused...
A critical factor for doing a screening is how many bad burns you've had on the chest and back which would probably be similar to many times the burns on the arms in terms of surface area x added probability.
Unfortunately, that I know of there are not many studies that compare 'frequent low/moderate exposure followed by high exposure' vs 'very low exposure (high sunscreen use) followed by high exposure'
These results show the specificity of the positive association between melanoma risk and intermittent sun exposure, in contrast to a reduced risk with high levels of occupational exposure.
Both the low-intermittent (HR = 1.26; 95%CI = 1.17–1.38) and high exposure groups (HR = 1.13; 95%CI = 1.01–1.26) had higher rates of melanoma than indoor workers.
The low-intermittent exposure group had elevated melanoma rates on the arms and trunk (body), while the high exposure group had an elevated rate on the head and trunk.
Digging into the data, the moderate exposure group had no detectable increase at any body site and a weak suggestion of lower risk (not statistically significant):
Why would the low-exposure group have a higher rate on the arms and trunk? Could it be because when they do go to the pool/beach, their arms are not protected? Whereas in the high exposure group, their arms are protected due to everyday exposure, but their trunk is only exposed when they go to the pool? Then again, you would think the low-exposure group would also have high trunk incidence, so there might be some confounding factors like ethnicity/behavior/dress.
Anyway, hopefully I convinced you that it's not as simple as more sun = always bad.
My point is more that you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data.
High sunscreen use (assuming rational choices for when to use it) and left arm truck driver risk is very consistent with a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell determining probability for any given cell.
Some other problems with a study of Ontario work exposure are covered in the study itself. In essence this is low exposure compared to leisure time sun bathing that may be more desirable depending on work environment.
> you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data
If you say so.
> left arm truck driver risk
Truck driver sunlight exposure is spectrally different from ordinary sunlight. It is all UVA, over many hours a day. To repeat myself, moderate exposure to preferentially UVB likely yields the highest reward/risk.
> a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the economics stuff but in addition to not mentioning the UVA/UVB difference, your model doesn't seem to take into account host repair pathways, which actually require some moderate damage to be activated, but are overloaded by too much damage (similar to the effect of exercise on the body).
Enhancement of UVB-induced DNA damage repair after a chronic low-dose UVB pre-stimulation
> Some other problems with a study of Ontario work exposure are covered in the study itself.
Some other potential problems, sure, along with a mention of potential benefits of vitamin D from optimal sunlight levels.
Since sunlight is associated with a lower risk of almost all cancers (including recovery from melanoma), not to mention autoimmune diseases, and skin cancers are amongst the easiest to catch early and to treat when caught early, it is very irresponsible to argue against the benefits of sun exposure. The idea that every additional unit of "UVR" carries an identical marginal risk is especially harmful.
If we live long enough to reproduce and usually impart some guidance to offspring evolution has done the optimization it will do. You seem to want to believe in a lot of systems that may sort of work but really we are not right to expect that every dose of UVR isn't a roll of the dice for a game plan that works out to less than 30 years in the sun while having hair or taking reasonable precautions for having no hair.
Trying to hide low but perpetual UVR risk for people who think they are going to be immortal is counterproductive compared to fixing the delusion that would make someone avoid life expecting to get more of it.
No, that's a bit reverse prejudice and also a bit wrong on assumptions. If you bring in people who are levels above they aren't inherently on the spectrum and it's once you bring them in that you have a dependence on finding more instead of working at a complexity and expertise level that might be more maintainable.
Of course, you don't have to be on the spectrum to be skilled. I was counteracting the argument that a company of developers who love chatting whilst eating pizza is the ideal for programming ability and maintenance of decades of code output.
Assuming that a love of social interaction equates to programming skill would be a mistake, as would assuming that lack of love of social interactions equates to programming skill. The two sets of skills are unrelated, but in a company of people who don't enjoy socialising, forcing a social interaction is counterproductive.
Your example is wrong because the people who write apps always think they are the important work that should steal focus. The user on the other hand knows how to give focus to what they want to use when they want to use it and doesn't benefit from nondeterministic behavior.
It will obviously be a large part of the economy like online shopping is today. The companies that built up a lot of debt to be brand names in online shopping primarily went bankrupt because new companies had no debt (and perhaps no negative sentiment from early customer experiences.)
the difference is all the current capex is going to durable, hard to get physical assets + things like PPAs. In your online shopping analogy, the hyperscalars are acting like Amazon in 1998
What destroyed hardware manufacturers after the first bubble burst was all the old but overpowered server hardware ending up in resale after bankruptcies. Hard to get hardware is a bad investment that is also potentially obsolete after new optimizations make the next generation much more efficient. The companies that think their individual optimizations are going to outpace industry wide optimization are delusional, historically speaking.
Scientifically interesting, but it's kind of the same problem whether supplements are dangerous on their own or from contamination. Given how little value an unnecessary medication is it makes no sense to test it to eliminate a risk that is also eliminated by not taking it.
CEOs can definitely be "hacked" by scammers but I think the public will react differently when a large company puts a lot of control in the hands of AI and it is scammed with some kind of cognitive hack that people assume wouldn't work as well on expensive wetware.
I'm kinda curious how AI would cope with immoral or ammoral decisions and tactics used daily by competition and if itself would start to practice them.
For 50 years the idea of selling used hardware and hardware facilities at a profit was a joke. If it is not a joke again in under 10 years then the overall economics of the world are going to be the joke and it will be a very dark one.
