30 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2022
  2. Nov 2021
    1. Recent research suggests that globally, the wealthiest 10% have been responsible for as much as half of the cumulative emissions since 1990 and the richest 1% for more than twice the emissions of the poorest 50% (2).

      Even more recent research adds to this:

      See the annotated Oxfam report: Linked In from the author: https://hyp.is/RGd61D_IEeyaWyPmSL8tXw/www.linkedin.com/posts/timgore_inequality-parisagreement-emissionsgap-activity-6862352517032943616-OHL- Annotations on full report: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Foxfamilibrary.openrepository.com%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10546%2F621305%2Fbn-carbon-inequality-2030-051121-en.pdf&group=__world__

      and the annotated Hot or Cool report: https://hyp.is/KKhrLj_bEeywAIuGCjROAg/hotorcool.org/hc-posts/release-governments-in-g20-countries-must-enable-1-5-aligned-lifestyles/ https://hyp.is/zo0VbD_bEeydJf_xcudslg/hotorcool.org/hc-posts/release-governments-in-g20-countries-must-enable-1-5-aligned-lifestyles/

      This suggests that perhaps the failure of the COP meetings may be partially due to focusing at the wrong level and demographics. the top 1 and 10 % live in every country. A focus on the wealthy class is not a focus area of COP negotiations perse. The COP meetings are focused on nation states. Interventions targeting this demographic may be better suited at the scale of individuals or civil society.

      Many studies show there are no extra gains in happiness beyond a certain point of material wealth, and point to the harmful impacts of wealth accumulation, known as affluenza, and show many health effects: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950124/, https://theswaddle.com/how-money-affects-rich-people/, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dark-reasons-so-many-rich-people-are-miserable-human-beings-2018-02-22, https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/why-wealthy-people-may-be-less-successful-love-ncna837306, https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/affluence,

      A Human Inner Transformation approach based on an open source praxis called Deep Humanity is one example of helping to transform affluenza and leveraging it to accelerate transition.

      Anderson has contextualized the scale of such an impact in his other presentations but not here. A recent example is the temporary emission decreases due to covid 19. A 6.6% global decrease was determined from this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3#:~:text=After%20rising%20steadily%20for%20decades,on%20daily%20fossil%20fuel%20emissions. with the US contributing 13% due to lockdown impacts on vehicular travel (both air and ground). After the pandemic ends, experts expect a strong rebound effect.

    2. A final cluster gathers lenses that explore phenomena that are arguably more elastic and with the potential to both indirectly maintain and explicitly reject and reshape existing norms. Many of the topics addressed here can be appropriately characterized as bottom-up, with strong and highly diverse cultural foundations. Although they are influenced by global and regional social norms, the expert framing of institutions, and the constraints of physical infrastructure (from housing to transport networks), they are also domains of experimentation, new norms, and cultural change. Building on this potential for either resisting or catalyzing change, the caricature chosen here is one of avian metaphor and myth: the Ostrich and Phoenix cluster. Ostrich-like behavior—keeping heads comfortably hidden in the sand—is evident in different ways across the lenses of inequity (Section 5.1), high-carbon lifestyles (Section 5.2), and social imaginaries (Section 5.3), which make up this cluster. Yet, these lenses also point to the power of ideas, to how people can thrive beyond dominant norms, and to the possibility of rapid cultural change in societies—all forms of transformation reminiscent of the mythological phoenix born from the ashes of its predecessor. It is conceivable that this cluster could begin to redefine the boundaries of analysis that inform the Enabler cluster, which in turn has the potential to erode the legitimacy of the Davos cluster. The very early signs of such disruption are evident in some of the following sections and are subsequently elaborated upon in the latter part of the discussion.

      The bottom-up nature of this cluster makes it the focus area for civil society movements, human inner transformation (HIT) approaches and cultural methodologies.

      Changing the mindset or paradigm from which the system arises is the most powerful place to intervene in a system as Donella Meadows pointed out decades ago in her research on system leverage points: https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

      The sleeping giant of billions of potential change actors remains dormant. How do we awaken them and mobilize them. If we can do this, it can constitute the emergence of a third unidentified actor in system change.

      The Stop Reset Go (SRG) initiative is focused on this thematic lens, bottom-up, rapid whole system change, with Deep Humanity (DH) as the open-source praxis to address the needed shift in worldview advocated by Meadows. One of the Deep Humanity programs is based on addressing the psychological deficits of the wealthy, and transforming them into heroes for the transition, by redirecting their WEALTH-to-WELLth.

      There are a number of strategic demographics that can be targeted in methodical evidence-based ways. Each of these is a leverage point and can bring about social tipping points.

      A number of 2021 reports characterize the outsized impact of the top 1% and top 10% of humanity. Unless their luxury, high ecological footprint behavior is reeled in, humanity won't stand a chance. Annotation of Oxfam report: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Foxfamilibrary.openrepository.com%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10546%2F621305%2Fbn-carbon-inequality-2030-051121-en.pdf&group=__world__ Annotation of Hot or Cool report: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotorcool.org%2Fhc-posts%2Frelease-governments-in-g20-countries-must-enable-1-5-aligned-lifestyles%2F&group=__world__

  3. Aug 2021
    1. I like the differentiation that Jared has made here on his homepage with categories for "fast" and "slow".

      It's reminiscent of the system 1 (fast) and system2 (slow) ideas behind Kahneman and Tversky's work in behavioral economics. (See Thinking, Fast and Slow)

      It's also interesting in light of this tweet which came up recently:

      I very much miss the back and forth with blog posts responding to blog posts, a slow moving argument where we had time to think.

      — Rachel Andrew (@rachelandrew) August 22, 2017
      <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

      Because the Tweet was shared out of context several years later, someone (accidentally?) replied to it as if it were contemporaneous. When called out for not watching the date of the post, their reply was "you do slow web your way…" #

      This gets one thinking. Perhaps it would help more people's contextual thinking if more sites specifically labeled their posts as fast and slow (or gave a 1-10 rating?). Sometimes the length of a response is an indicator of the thought put into it, thought not always as there's also the oft-quoted aphorism: "If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter".

      The ease of use of the UI on Twitter seems to broadly make it a platform for "fast" posting which can often cause ruffled feathers, sour feelings, anger, and poor communication.

      What if there were posting UIs (or micropub clients) that would hold onto your responses for a few hours, days, or even a week and then remind you about them after that time had past to see if they were still worth posting? This is a feature based on Abraham Lincoln's idea of a "hot letter" or angry letter, which he advised people to write often, but never send.

      Where is the social media service for hot posts that save all your vituperation, but don't show them to anyone? Or which maybe posts them anonymously?

      The opposite of some of this are the partially baked or even fully thought out posts that one hears about anecdotally, but which the authors say they felt weren't finish and thus didn't publish them. Wouldn't it be better to hit publish on these than those nasty quick replies? How can we create UI for this?

      I saw a sitcom a few years ago where a girl admonished her friend (an oblivious boy) for liking really old Instagram posts of a girl he was interested in. She said that deep-liking old photos was an obvious and overt sign of flirting.

      If this is the case then there's obviously a social standard of sorts for this, so why not hold your tongue in the meanwhile, and come up with something more thought out to send your digital love to someone instead of providing a (knee-)jerk reaction?

      Of course now I can't help but think of the annotations I've been making in my copy of Lucretius' On the Nature of Things. Do you suppose that Lucretius knows I'm in love?

  4. May 2021
    1. Well, since you're reading this, let me tell you a little more about HMR. Magic is actually not such a good think in software development, so if we can demystify HMR a bit, it will probably benefits you when it comes to answer setup questions or, generally, get the most out of your HMR experience.
  5. Feb 2021
  6. Jan 2021
    1. Being first may have benefits in the race for traffic and clicks. But I'm not so sure it really adds value to society. As we've seen over and over again, the quick take -- or the "hot take" -- often gets key things wrong.
  7. Dec 2020
    1. The official definition of a “close contact” — 15 minutes, within six feet — isn’t foolproof.

      The takeaway: The official definition of a "close contact" for COVID-19 is not foolproof.

      The claim: The official definition of a "close contact" - 15 minutes, within six feet - isn't foolproof.

      The evidence: In Korea, a person sitting in a restaurant 6.5 meters (>20ft) away from the COVID index case for five minutes was infected, most likely because airflow from the air conditioner carried droplets with COVID-19 from the infected person to the person who became infected (1). How common transmission across large distances occurs is still debated (2). As several indoor outbreaks were attributed to airborne transmission, precautions to prevent airborne COVID transmission are needed (3). Examples include better air filtration/UV to kill virus in the system, increased air flow from outside, avoidance of recirculating interior air, and avoiding overcrowding in interior spaces.

      Sources:

      1) https://jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e415

      2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093420302858?via%3Dihub

      3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454469/pdf/ciaa939.pdf

  8. Nov 2020
    1. Gov. Kristi Noem defended her hands-off approach to managing the deadly COVID-19 pandemic while addressing lawmakers earlier this week and called mandatory stay-at home orders "useless" in helping lower the spread.

      Take away: Lower COVID-19 spread occurred after stay-at home orders were issued. Room for debate exists on how restrictive lockdowns should be.

      The claim: Mandatory stay-at home orders are "useless" in helping lower the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

      The evidence: Two publications showed that lower COVID-19 spread occurred after stay-at home orders were issued (1, 2). Hospitalizations were lower than predicted exponential growth rates after implementation of stay-at home orders (3). Some caveats to consider include that it is impossible to tease apart the effects of the stay-at home orders from other measure implemented simultaneously with stay-at home orders such as increased hygiene measures, social distancing guidelines, and school closures. It is also impossible to conclusively state that the effect is from the stay-at home order and not the natural progression of the disease.

      The comparison between Illinois with stay-at home orders and Iowa without stay-at home orders resulted in an estimated 217 additional COVID-19 cases in Iowa over the course of a month (2). This small number raises the question, "are stay-at home orders worth it?" It is important to remember that comparison of Iowa and Illinois is the comparison of two social distancing strategies. Stay-at home orders close everything and then write the exceptions that can remain open. Iowa took the approach of leaving everything open except what the government choose to close (4). Some businesses in Iowa were still closed and many federal guidelines were still followed. A negative control showing disease progression without any mitigation measures does not exist in published literature.

      Sources:

      1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246016/

      2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32413112/

      3 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2020/04/07/iowa-equivalent-stay-at-home-order-coronavirus-kim-reynolds/2961810001/

      4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254451/

    1. Modifying the HTML (template) part of your component will replace and re-render the changes in place. Current local state of the component will also be preserved
  9. Oct 2020
      1. The best projects start with goals and plans.
      2. The subconscious has so much to do with success.
      3. Our subconscious decides whether to accept something into our awareness based on something called "Hot Goals".
      4. From this udemy course, I will learn how to set goals with the MOMA subconscious method, by which I convert what's not working for me into a HOT GOAL.
      5. Achieving hot goals is the means of the subconscious mind to keep you safe even if it isn't necessary.
      6. If your goals have to become hot goals then, your conscious goals must translate to subconscious goals.
    1. 50 percent effective

      Take away: Cloth face masks filter approximately 50% of bacteriophage five times smaller than one SARS-CoV-2 virus. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that masks, including cloth masks, are 50% effective.

      The claim: Masks are assumed to be 50% effective.

      The evidence: Face masks, including home made face masks, were shown to reduce aerosol exposure (1). Masks made from various materials were shown to filter 50-68% of Bacteriophage CS2 which is 20 nm (2). When NaCl aerosols were used instead of a bacteriophage, penetration by NaCl occurred 9-98% of the time depending on the size of the particles (3). Two well written reviews detail the efficacy of facemasks (4, 5). SARS-CoV-2 virus is ~100 nm in size (6).

      Sources: 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/

      2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108646/

      3 https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

      4 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v1

      5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/#ref23

      6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/#:~:text=SARS%2DCoV%2D2%20is%20an,they%20do%20more%20than%20that.

    1. The model predicted that school closures and isolation of younger people would increase the total number of deaths, albeit postponed to a second and subsequent waves. The findings of this study suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long term. This happens because covid-19 related mortality is highly skewed towards older age groups. In the absence of an effective vaccination programme, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths below 200 000.

      Take away: This model excludes the possibility of vaccination. As many vaccines are in stage three clinical trials, the conclusion that more people will die from closing schools, etc. will most likely not be realized.

      The claim: School closures and isolation of younger people will increase total number of deaths from second and subsequent waves of COVID-19 when restrictions are lifted.

      The evidence: This model predicts more deaths from the combination of place closures such as schools, case isolations, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s than for the combination of case isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing for over 70s. The majority of the deaths for the combination of place closures, case isolations, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s occur once the restrictions are lifted. This model excludes the possibility of a vaccine reducing the size of the second wave.

      At least ten companies have a COVID-19 vaccine in the final stage (Phase III) of clinical trials (1). Therefore a model which excludes vaccination will most likely not be accurate to reality once a vaccine is widely administered.

      Source:

      1 https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines

    1. Dr. Anthony Fauci  is lying to himself. In his public statements he says that Covid is “Ten Times Worse than Seasonal Flu”.

      Take away: COVID-19 has a higher case fatality rate than seasonal flu but a lower case fatality rate than SARS and MERS.

      The claim: Dr. Anthony Fauci is lying when he states COVID-19 is ten times worse than the seasonal flu.

      The evidence: From 2010 to 2018, 0.1-0.2% of seasonal flu cases resulted in death (1). To date, the number of coronavirus deaths in the United States is 206,615 deaths per 7,216,828 cases (2, accessed 9/30/2020) which is a death rate of 2.9%. Therefore, the death rate of coronavirus is higher than the death rate of the seasonal flu. Similarities and differences between COVID-19 and seasonal flu are explained by John Hopkins Medicine and CDC (3-4).

      COVID-19 is related to SARS, MERS, and "common cold" coronaviruses. The fatality rate of SARS (9.5%) and MERS (34.4%) is higher than COVID-19 (2.3%) (5).

      Sources:

      1 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html#:~:text=While%20the%20impact%20of%20flu,61%2C000%20deaths%20annually%20since%202010.

      2 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

      3 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu

      4 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm#:~:text=Because%20some%20of%20the%20symptoms,differences%20between%20the%20two.

      5 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234451/

  10. Sep 2020
    1. There are two possible approaches to build widespread SARS-CoV-2 immunity: (1) a mass vaccination campaign, which requires the development of an effective and safe vaccine, or (2) natural immunization of global populations with the virus over time. However, the consequences of the latter are serious and far-reaching—a large fraction of the human population would need to become infected with the virus, and millions would succumb to it.

      Take away: Mass infection without vaccination to achieve herd immunity will result in millions of deaths based on the observed death rate and may not result in herd immunity due to virus mutation. Historically, vaccination results in less deaths than the disease.

      The claim: Herd immunity from widespread disease instead of vaccination will lead to many people dying.

      The evidence: Approximately 50-67% of a given population is estimated to need to be infected for herd immunity to COVID-19 to exist which will result in millions of deaths. This is supported by additional publications (1, 2). This number assumes that the virus will not mutate to the point where re-infection is possible. If mutation occurs, COVID could become established in the general population similar to influenza or the common cold (3). A third publication estimates a needed infected percentage of 29-74% (4). These publications support the statement that millions will die if herd immunity is achieved via infection without vaccination. Historically, vaccination results in fewer deaths/disease on a population level than the disease for which the vaccine is designed to prevent (5-7).

      Sources:

      1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314002/

      2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262166/pdf/JMV-9999-na.pdf

      3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7164482/

      4 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A1480DAE803D4CD4A3E9F79B82309584/S1935789320001913a.pdf/covid19_reflections.pdf

      5 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28708957/

      6 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29668817/

      7 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12531323/

    1. Take away: People are infectious for only part of the time they test positive. The tests for COVID-19 were granted emergency status by the FDA so some debate concerning the most ideal number of cycles is to be expected. It is worth noting that the FDA has the disclaimer "Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information (2)."

      The claim: Up to 90 percent of people diagnosed with coronavirus may not be carrying enough of it to infect anyone else

      The evidence: Per Walsh et al. (1), SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) is most likely infectious if the number of PCR cycles is <24 and the symptom onset to test is <8 days. RT-PCR detects the RNA, not the infectious virus. Therefore, setting the cycle threshold at 37-40 cycles will most likely result in detecting some samples with virus which is not infectious. As the PCR tests were granted emergency use by the FDA (samples include 2-9), it is not surprising that some debate exists currently about where the cycle threshold should be. Thresholds need to be set and validated for dozens of PCR tests currently in use. If identifying only infectious individuals is the goal, a lower cycle number may be justified. If detection of as many cases as possible to get closer to the most accurate death rate is the goal, setting the cycle threshold at 37-40 makes sense. A lower threshold will result in fewer COVID-19 positive samples being identified. It is worth noting that the emergency use approval granted by the FDA includes the disclaimer that a negative test does not guarantee that a person is not infected with COVID-19. RNA degrades easily. If samples are not kept cold or properly processed, the virus can degrade and result in a false negative result.

      Source: 1 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa638/5842165

      2 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

      3 https://www.fda.gov/media/138150/download

      4 https://www.fda.gov/media/137120/download

      5 https://www.fda.gov/media/136231/download

      6 https://www.fda.gov/media/136472/download

      7 https://www.fda.gov/media/139279/download

      8 https://www.fda.gov/media/136314/download

      9 https://www.fda.gov/media/140776/download

    1. Take away: Though many articles are referenced, additional context is needed because the conclusions of the publications do not always agree with the conclusion of the author of this article. Additionally, publications which conflict with the claims in this article are not presented.

      The claim: Masks are neither effective nor safe.

      The evidence: The data in the articles referenced here is inconclusive regarding whether masks are or are not effective. Though several studies referenced here did not see a statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and controls, several facts need to be considered. The sample size of people who became sick in the individual studies was small (often <10 people). Compliance in the mask group was not enforced. A number of the articles referenced are pre-prints lacking peer-review and validation. Some of the articles compare N95 masks to surgical masks but do not have a control no mask group. Additionally, the claim of the author of this article sometimes differs from the conclusions written by the authors of the publications cited. Publications which contradict the conclusions of the author are not presented (1, 2).

      Sources:

      1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/

      2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27632416/

  11. Aug 2019
  12. Mar 2019
    1. The New Small Business ideas, yes this is the main reason, before starting to work out on your best small business idea, you need to make sure that it is powerful and unique enough.

      The New Small Business ideas, yes this is the main reason, before starting to work out on your best small business idea, you need to make sure that it is powerful and unique enough.

  13. Feb 2019
  14. Jun 2017
    1. HMR allows patching the browser state without a full refresh making it particularly handy with libraries like React where a refresh blows away the application state. The Hot Module Replacement appendix covers the feature in detail.

      Why you should prefer hot module replacement in a React development context: a full refresh, the kind your standard webpack-dev-server defaults to, will obliterate application state in React!

  15. Jan 2017
  16. Dec 2016
  17. Oct 2016
  18. Apr 2016
    1. Would love, but doesn't seem possible

      Quote for Ember hot reloading talk? From the livereload repo

  19. Jan 2016
    1. The flip side of this is that I’m always being painfully aware that React Hot Loader is a great hack. It’s not how hot reloading should work
    1. Some docs on a prototype Hot Reloader for Angular. It relies on new component instances being able to pull data from singleton services, unlike the Redux solution where the store is passed down via context and most components just get the data via props.