Exactly. Hair and scalp. Evolution already made a MIPS system. The thing lacking it was the test dummies that Virginia Tech uses, so now they recommend we put it in helmets too.
I think they will already act like that, MIPS or not. Stick a helmet on your head, now wiggle it. It moves really quite a bit, unless you like to wear it so tight you get a headache.
If ruling out risks by a priori is a solution, why wear a helmet at all? Maybe you won't hit your head when you fall. Maybe you'll land in water or on a satin pillow (low friction).
> MIPS’ benefits will be poorer than portrayed in the lab in many realistic situations
How are they testing it in the lab? How do concussions work in realistic situations (is there one way?)? What is the distribution of realistic situations?
Maybe the benefits are better in realistic situations; maybe the lab tests are more aggressive than reality or the results are interpreted conservatively (because scientists spending years on something might have thought of a 30-second hot take), ...
I’m not saying that we need to regress further as a society. I was merely providing a counterpoint to the argument that the homeless need to have their agency stripped because they’re a negative value to “productive” society.
Their negative value isn't to productivity, but to your personal safety and quality of life, and frankly their safety and quality of life too. Accepting that people who cannot look after themselves need to be looked after by the community rather than left outside to die, I personally feel, should not be a controversial position.
The poor are impacted by lawlessness far more than the rich. No private security or fancy neighbourhoods. Cutting down on actually harmful bad behaviour (and by this I mean dealers and muggers, not broken taillights) is the best thing you can do for poor people.
Europe might have a hiccup until warming becomes more widespread and it goes back to 'normal'. The question is how long until Texas and Florida become uninhabitable because the heat isn't being shunted out to Europe, on top of the additional heat from global warming.
Agreed. You aren't going to convince people in India that their children should stay poor when there is an option to uplift them. That's an extra billion people of energy and material needs, all by itself.
''Now, the total population of well-off countries in the world is about 1
billion, while China has more than 1.3 billion people. If we are all to become
modernized, the well-off population must more than double. If we are to
consume as much energy in production and daily lives as the present well-off
people do, all the existing resources in the world would be far from enough for
us! The old path seems to be a dead end. Where is the new road? It lies in
scientific and technological innovation, and in the accelerated transition from
factor-driven and investment-driven growth to innovation-driven growth.''
-Xi Jinping, Governance of China
The question is whether you use solar PV or build more coal plants to supply them. The latter makes people sicker, but more dependent on the government, so you can guess which one gets the tax breaks and which one gets tariffs and international politics to make it more expensive to acquire.
Huh? Solar is widely acknowledged to be significantly cheaper than building new coal. And it is everywhere, you can just buy containers of it and have it delivered anywhere in the world.
Yes. You can just buy containers of PV equipment from China and have it delivered anywhere in the world. Until they decide not to sell it to you, or they decide to stop subsidizing it. Or we go to war with them. Then you're gonna wish you had built those coal plants.
Have you paid attention to anything since 2020? Are you paying attention to anything now?
Suggesting PV is "cheaper" because of the per-watt cost to install it misses so much reality it's hard to take seriously. We live in the now, not some idealized future state. We need energy NOW. Do you think solar cells are immune to supply and demand? And that the economics will not be affected by a global shift?
PV can't be switched off once sold, coal can stop being delivered. Coal is the one that brings centralisation and dependency on external parties, unless you happen to live somewhere with large coal deposits, and even in that case you get all the health problems of putting radioactive soot into the air.
You spend too much time online. The EU isn't bogged down with issues, it has uplifted an enormous part of itself out of abject post-communist poverty and yes growth isn't as fast, but it also isn't foisting as much debt on its citizens or working everyone to death. The problems you hear about on the news make the news because they are newsworthy, not because they are normal occurrences.
You reposted a link to the very comment I responded to. Yes I read it. Yes that was my response.
Would it have been better to do this 20 years ago? Sure, as with most things in hindsight. Is it a lost cause? No.
While the US builds its capital evaluation on the promise that everyone in the country has been convinced to work themselves to death for trinkets and healthcare, Europe has that as a human potential reserve that isn't tapped and frankly is actually managing to see the woods for the trees here.
I work a lot with the geometry side of computer vision (camera calibration, 3d reconstruction etc.) and LLMs have been really bad in this space. They throw stuff at the problem until a minor improvement is made by over fitting on a testset, then gaslight that this is the best thing possible. Then I go do something like working with raster-based data, or some JavaScript based visualization, and it goes super smoothly.
reply