We didn't know as much about possible nuclear reactions back then, so I think they thought there was a possibility that there was an exothermic chain involving N or O that could be ignited by the bomb and would be self sustaining. While an asteroid impact is very powerful over large scales, it doesn't create nuclear reactions, so Trinity was indeed a first at that scale.
But, and I'm not sure how much of this they knew back then, we do get bombarded by high-energy cosmic rays, so chances are one of these hypothetical N or O reactions should've already randomly occurred at least in isolated events over the last few billion years if possible.
So Nate & Co sell out to a big corporation then are upset that it does big corporation stuff? I'm more mad at Nate here because 538 was my go-to for political coverage pre-sellout, and because of his greed it went away.
538 had some decent years through its various sellout phases and imo hit its peak after Nate Silver left - he'd long since exposed himself more as a contrarian than a serious analyst and had become a real detriment to the brand.
It was definitely sad to lose 538 how we did, but G Elliott Morris has really stepped up to continue the spirit on his Strength in Numbers blog. It's the best data-driven US politics reporting out there right now imo. He also contributes to Fifty Plus One with Mary Radcliffe, and that's excellent too, reminiscent of the old 538 polling roundup stuff that went beyond just core US politics. Recently he started a podcast with David Nir of The Downballot, which is another solid resource for lower level races.
IIRC, he got to keep all of the models and etc from 538 which is kinda all that mattered about it. Like anybody is really going to lookup the 2016 election in 2030 but they're definitely want the model's output in 2030 for 2030.
Management seems to be clearly inept and if somebody wants to give you a wheelbarrow of cash for something worthless you're generally foolish to not accept.
It's petty even for a corporation. It's not exactly maximizing shareholder value. But yeah, it's the sort of stuff corporations (especially media corporations) can be expected to do.
I think Nate has become better at this sort of stuff in recent years. But still, he said that Disney "hardly ever" interfered in their editorial process, oblivious to the implication.
(What it means is that Disney/ABC were perfectly willing to interfere in their editorial process, but rarely needed to since Nate said what they wanted him to say anyway).
538 has basically always been a licensed product, first with the NYT in 2010, and then with ESPN/ABC/Disney since they left the NYT in 2013. There were only 2 years where it was an independent blog
538 got one election right a decade and a half ago with a contrarian alternative data source, and hooked a bunch of partisan gamblers since
now you can actually bet on your beliefs and dont need to debate with anyone on whether the koolaid colored wave of choice will actually happen, or whether you are a slave to an algorithm induced hall of mirrors. note, the senate has been 50-50 for over a decade, its probably the latter
so the only intervention necessary here is on yourself, focusing on things you cant control while delusionally thinking this time will be different, over and over and over again
extracting value from partisan gullibility and pathetic power struggles is unironically the move
There's no "getting elections right"; these models just estimate probability. They gave Trump a 29% change in 2016 -- that's almost 1 in 3!
A better way to assess accuracy would be to bin predictions (0-10% chance, 10-20% chance, etc.) and see if the observed frequency aligns with the predictions.
They don't really 'call' elections since they only publish probabilities. If you'd bet on the candidate 538/Silver was more bullish than the bookies, then the only election year you wouldn't have made money would have been 2024.
That's a funny response in the context of "Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers" given I remember posting with him on the 2+2 forums in the early aughts poker boom days where he was a popular poster teaching a lot of people how to profit off gamblers.
Your annoyance is understandable, but it's worth remembering: he is not your slave. He does not exist to do things for you. His providing you with something good for a time does not obligate him to provide it to you forever. Because he is not your slave.
Did you prefer the Yahoo/internet frontpage approach to google search though? I didn't, but I remember a time when it was a live debate. It has been interesting to see some sites like youtube or wikipedia evolve a quasi-hierarchical frontpage though.
I did. I made my own custom start page back in the day with frequently used searches, along with headlines, weather, stocks, etc. Instead of menus, it just divided topics using horizontal rules, much like an actual newspaper.
Bingo. Compared to troff and what preceded, TeX was amazing just in its usage. But its real value was in the quality of its typesetting. Knuth put a lot of effort into the beauty and historical correctness of the output, so much so that it was solving optimization problems to calculate line breaks. MS Word still can't break a line properly in 2026.
That has not been my experience at all. I think Kirkland batteries have less capacity than the premium brands. Also the point of lithium batteries is that they don't leak, not that they last longer.
Kirkland Alkaline was on par with the Rayovac Fusion+ and Duracell Powerboost. Only Rayovac Fusion was noticeably better (oddly, the non-plus version was better), and even then, it's not significantly better considering the price.
In terms of dollars per mAh, Kirkland is #2, only behind AmazonBasics.
> Also the point of lithium batteries is that they don't leak, not that they last longer.
Not leaking is part of the point, but it's definitely not the only point. Alkaline batteries have half the capacity (roughly) compared to lithium cells. They also have lower voltages over time vs. lithium cells and are capable of less current. For certain applications (high current draw intermittent, or long life low current) they excel, and leaking isn't really part of that conversation.
I wouldn't call it a gimmick when the business has been so successful for so many years. They target educated shoppers who want to buy quality at minimum markup and not think too hard about it. If I want a TV, I know Costco will have good ones at a good price. If I need socks, same. Their food is cheaper and better than Kroger. It's just a win-win for shoppers and Costco. The only tradeoff is selection and dealing with the crowds.
What you wrote sounds intelligent but belies an ignorance of the business model.
Parallel to that, I have to imagine Costco makes a lot of money off of impulse purchases, which are induced by uncertainty in the specific items they will have available, plus mutable store layouts.
Long ago in undergrad I took a retail marketing class and we did a field trip to Costco; the GM told us it was part of their policy to rearrange parts of the store occasionally so that you had to browse the entire place to check off your shopping list. This increases the likelihood that you stumble across new products. So it’s this combination of “best price/quality without decision fatigue” plus some impulse buying that works for them. The fact that they are figuring out the price/quality trade off for you up front probably also makes it easier to impulse buy with fewer regrets.
Yea so true. Unlike many with families here, I (a single 26M) recently got a costco membership for the gas savings, whenever i stop by costco in the middle of the month, i'm looking for one or two things. This time it happened to be peanut butter, it's insane the amount of times I had to tell myself, no you dont need this, get peanut butter and leave.
Ofcourse it's very convenient that their app doesnt show what aisle things belong to so that was a fun realization.
I have seen things move for no reason, but I have seen things remain where they are for a decade. I am in south bay and go to Sunnyvale Costco. They move their bread, the oil and bunch of stuff many times, but the wine (which I do not partake) has not moved, the batteries are exactly in the same spot for decade(s), I find my dishwasher liquid exactly in the same spot, and although I do not consume it any more, but I am 100% certain the eggo waffles have not moved an inch in 2 decades. Yes toilet paper has moved but it is right adjacent and is explained by making it easier than harder to find things.
The word is treasure hunt. Stores like Costco or TJ Maxx (there are others) use what they call the treasure hunt. They design the whole experience around you walking around hunting for that new piece of treasure that you have to buy.
Yeah, this right here. I don't want to sift through thousands of options. Sometimes I just want a widget that is good quality and I don't want to get ripped off.
Exactly. Competition and choice is good for the market, but the ideal shopping experience is where there is exactly one option and it satisfies your needs.
A Tesla will out accelerate all but the most niche cars now. Even the cheapest cars can have giant screens and climate control. I don't think they are equal to a Rolls Royce, but extreme luxury has greater diminishing returns now than at any point in history.
Where I live pretty much all new houses are being built with granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Whether that's a good thing is a whole other topic ...
> Where I live pretty much all new houses are being built with granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Whether that's a good thing is a whole other topic ...
When land and labor (and fees leveraged by the city, state, etc.) are extremely expensive, the additional cost for these "luxury" items is very low by comparison. The buyers for these homes are buying everything new and it makes little sense to save $10k or so on such a visible amenity that is expensive to retrofit afterwards, on a home that costs $500k.
It is the same reason why crank windows are gone from cars. They aren't really status symbols.
And when my kitchen had to get rebuilt after a fire, I got neither. There are better synthetics for countertops and good tile is generally better for the floors. Maybe new houses are being built with granite and hardwood floors but they're not necessarily the best choices. I've known lots of people who had issues with granite (and my contractor agreed) and my hardwood was pretty beaten up even before the fire though I still have plenty of very old hardwood flooring in other less-trafficked areas of the house.
Like car colors, new house design decisions tend to be driven a lot by various current fashions because they're the low risk for purchasing reasons whether by developers or perceived resale by buyers.
Personally, I didn't care. My new color schemes are muted but not neutral. And my kitchen/dining room choices were, I think, practical for the most part.
>It is the same reason why crank windows are gone from cars. They aren't really status symbols.
That has more to do with automotive engineering being tightly coupled to academic engineering and the latter having gone through a "people are idiots, rob them of the ability to put force on anything at every opportunity" phase.
The first Teslas were poorly built expensive semi-luxury cars.
The current Model 3 and Model Y are properly built competitively priced cars with many luxury features (such as huge trunks, rear climate control, all wheel drive, etc) and gadgets (Netflix on huge touchscreen, self-driving, etc).
Both are absurd and entirely unnecessary for vehicles not on a race track. Tesla's great trick was replacing BMW as the car your neighborhood prick who wants to look upscale buys by default.
Right, there's no form of racing that is a straight line, is there.
Regardless, optimizing a pick up for 0-60 time is a strange goal, unless you have some express desire to launch 2x4s a great distance in a complicated way.
I was sad to see it discontinued. I hope the slate truck is gonna be good when it's released, cause I dig their emphasis on customization and repairability.
Me too, it's such a fantastic truck. Built like a tank, huge battery and insanely fast charging for a 400V architecture. The only thing that sucks about it is it's a bit bouncy, and the software can be stupid. But I love it.
We bought it mostly because we wanted an EV for power backup for the house. We get ice storms in the winter and it can knock out power for days, and we need to be able to keep almost 1,000 gallons of aquariums running during them. The F150 extended range has that in spades and was cheaper than the equivalent power wall system.
It's basically a whole house backup generator that we can happen to drive around.
The frunk on the F150-Lightning has not been praised enough. It's a really great truck, but having that giant storage space that locks makes it so much better than anything else out there if that's what you need.
The fascinating thing for me was that they actually had trouble selling it ( and thus the production stop and fairly aggressive incentives to sell the remaining ones off ). I really do enjoy mine and I swear I was not a truck person.
You know how I know you're not an F150 lightning owner?
It's as capable, if not more so, than your standard F150 at truck duties in everything except towing. And it's a bit of a mixed bag there, it can tow way more than a standard f150, but it cuts the range to 1/3 so you have to charge pretty often. Still, 100 miles towing 10,000 pounds is nothing to sneeze at.
I owned one, and I'd say it's as capable in truck duties as a crew-cab short-bed F-150, which is to say, not very much. Can't fit a full sheet of drywall in the bed, etc. The short-bed crew-cab F-150 is by day a carpool vehicle with room for everyone's toolboxes and by night a family minivan that can hold everyone's sports bags. That was perfect for me, I knew what I was getting, but even the gasser short-beds are pretty useless as trucks.
I mean, there is a part of me that is kinda ok lightning being one of those 'if you know, you know' kinda cars. It is still kinda weird reading this, because it does not seem to be an isolated opinion. My extended family member voiced something similar.
Yeah I didn’t get one to do “truck stuff”. I pay people to do truck stuff for me, and use my “not a truck” truck for shuttling my family around. Never saw any R1T or F150 lightning or god forbid, Hummer EV truck owners do truck stuff either.
>A Tesla will out accelerate all but the most niche cars now.
Claims presented without evidence. My slightly modified Subaru Wagon from '05 "out-accelerated" base Teslas - dead even in 1st gear, started pulling once the shift to 2nd happened. (Most) EVs cannot shift gears to get torque multiplication, so they start fast, but fall off as speeds get higher. My Kia gas car will outrun all but the model 3 performance - which the average person is NOT driving. Neither of those cars are "niche".
> My slightly modified Subaru Wagon from '05 "out-accelerated" base Teslas - dead even in 1st gear, started pulling once the shift to 2nd happened.
Slightly modified is doing some heavy lifting there. No 2005 Subaru wagon in stock config is anywhere close to beating a Model 3.
> (Most) EVs cannot shift gears to get torque multiplication, so they start fast, but fall off as speeds get higher.
Pretty much irrelevant, because they’re still blisteringly fast up to 60 which is where most of the acceleration happens in day to day. Nobody really cares about 60-80 or 60-100.
> My Kia gas car will outrun all but the model 3 performance - which the average person is NOT driving.
What Kia is that? Even the stinger GT (which is definitely a niche car) is slower than a regular dual motor model 3.
'05 Legacy GT - turbo motor from the STI. With a tune, it was 300+ HP. MULTIPLE runs against Tesla model 3s from a stop - I won most of them.
'19 Stinger GT AWD. jb4 (piggyback) - dual model 3 couldn't pass me on track (he had more experience than I did) - he cornered a little better due to low center-of-mass, I pulled on him in the straights. Repeatedly.
> '05 Legacy GT - turbo motor from the STI. With a tune, it was 300+ HP. MULTIPLE runs against Tesla model 3s from a stop - I won most of them.
I'd believe it. I wouldn't call adding 20%+ horsepower to a car 'slightly' modifying it though. The original point still stands that your niche car (a performance version of the Subaru Legacy, with a tune on top of it) still barely manages to go toe-to-toe with a stock Model 3. If you left it stock, it would definitely be slower.
> '19 Stinger GT AWD. jb4 (piggyback) - dual model 3 couldn't pass me on track (he had more experience than I did) - he cornered a little better due to low center-of-mass, I pulled on him in the straights. Repeatedly.
So, you're proving my point? Stinger GT is already a niche car. You then threw a tune on it, which is even more niche. Compare it to a performance model 3 if you want to be fair in that case. I guarantee there's more performance model 3 owners than there are Stinger GT owners.
Another reason it's irrelevant is you just don't need the accel. Flooring a Tesla is fun once or twice, but if you floor it every chance you get I don't want to be your passenger. It's neither comfortable nor safe.
EV motors can rev insanely high, so they don't need to shift gears, while most gas engines are limited to 6-7k RPM from factory. Thus the gassers need gears that essentially torque divide to reduce RPMs. You are very confused.
I’m guessing your ‘slightly modified Subaru’ is an ‘05 Impreza STi (276 HP stock) with a chip and higher boost? That is a niche car.
It’s not particularly noteworthy that the road version a vehicle used by Subaru’s WRC team can keep up with a Tesla if you modify the ECU and add more boost.
But, and I'm not sure how much of this they knew back then, we do get bombarded by high-energy cosmic rays, so chances are one of these hypothetical N or O reactions should've already randomly occurred at least in isolated events over the last few billion years if possible.
reply