Nice fire safety and grounding. Wood is ideal for both. They should build data centers like this.

How exactly do you envision this going wrong?

The rack itself won't hold electrostatic charge, and if the devices themselves want to be grounded they can be grounded through their power supply

And wood isn't that easy to get to burn unless you turn it into small particles first

I once worked in a hardware lab that used wire shelving for holding arrays of running machines, and a bad ground running through one chassis caused anyone who touched the shelf to get shocked by something very close to line voltage.

I’m more worried about heat dissipation though.

That shelf is more glue and fire retardant than it is wood. Its also really bad as a book shelf so it might still be superior in this role than the intended one.

As a current user of the said item of furniture I'm curious what makes it really bad as a book shelf.

It's a shelf and in the past few years it has not yet failed at holding my books.

It depends on the loading. If you've got it 9-12" high apart and are putting paperbacks on there... that shouldn't be a problem.

However, when the shelf becomes multiples of that, then people start putting hardcover volumes or laying the book flat and stacking them high within the shelf.

It won't necessarily fail, but it can substantially sag with heavier loads.

This is an issue for boardgammers who are after larger and heavier shelf spaces which is why the Kallax shelving is much preferred. I'll also note that Ivar shelving is solid wood rather than particleboard.

The shelves will start to sag substantially if you fill them.

Can't say I can observe this with a few years old ones. Even with shelves having reasonable amount of magazines or bigger books.

Certainly they know about it. There is no way they don't.

Not just cyber security.

I bought a hammer 2 decades ago and it still works flawlessly without me performing any maintenance. One day, the idiots in software engineering will realize that this is how tools are supposed to behave.

Huh, why? Minecraft is Java. It works perfectly fine on Linux, both the server and the client.

Since MS bought it, aren't there two versions, a legacy one called "Java" and the newer one from MS, probably not in Java and with all the cool kids (multiplayer mode) on it?

There is Java and bedrock. Everyone I know has Java. There are other differences, but multiplayer is available in both.

The difference it's that bedrock allows you to play with the people that use Minecraft on consoles or mobile and Java doesn't

Another key difference is that Java has mods and shaders, bedrock doesn't.

Mojang is trying to fix this with resource and data packs, but even still, those are not full powered mods.

You're right, my bad!

I remembered some friends complaining about the fact the since MS, they couldn't play as they did before because of two versions co-existing

Next up: Fight the political class and the bureaucrats. Enlightenment step by step.

> Trust is a key component of vaccine demand, yet there is a lack of consensus on how to define trust alongside a lack of actionable, contextually grounded measurement tools validated in low-income and middle-income countries.

How about you make it safe and effective. Psychological manipulations and games won't get you anywhere. Spend the R&D budget on the actual product.

Without wading into the debate over the content of the mantra-like-claim, "safe and effective", I hope we can all acknowledge how much we are marketed to in our everyday lives. There's also a distinct lack of trust in media, especially institutional, "legacy" media. From that point it shouldn't be difficult to empathize with the skeptics. The outcome is predetermined when sources you naturally distrust are intent on making you believe the "safe and effective" narrative, or any other narrative.

Think of how many times you've heard a sales or marketing term and thought, "If that were true, they wouldn't be so desperate to convince me". Marketing is the realm of private actors selling products. When the state is desperate to make you believe their truths, that is propaganda. Doubling down on try-hard marketing or state propaganda will likely backfire.

Even acknowledging the trust deficit is a difficult position. "Yes, the public distrusted us previously, but that was all a misunderstanding. This time is different. We're much more trustworthy now." It is a bit like going to a restaurant that proudly proclaims how they have remedied their rat and cockroach issues.

Except... vaccines are safe and effective. It is difficult to empathize with the skeptics in this case because they are objectively wrong.

If you hear the phrase "safe and effective" and assume by default that you're being lied to or that some kind of NLP is being practiced on you simply because the phrase is common, then you aren't practicing reasonable skepticism, you're just being a knee-jerk contrarian and paranoiac.

> vaccines are safe and effective.

Obviously there are more critical arguments, but as I said at the top, this isn't the place for a reasonable discussion on that front. Even if it were, there's nothing novel to say. Anyone interested in going deep into the issue has had about 5 years to form their own opinions.

>>From that point it shouldn't be difficult to empathize with the skeptics.

Fail.

Which vaccines are not safe?

Bitcoin is a better store of value than USD. Change my mind.

Bitcoin's high volatility means that it's impossible to predict exactly how much value one Bitcoin will have tomorrow, next month, next year, or next decade. USD has comparatively low volatility. It's possible, but very unlikely, for USD to go to zero tomorrow, and while the uncertainty around exactly how likely USD is to collapse increases as you look further towards the future, most people would consider it less likely for USD to collapse than Bitcoin. Since markets are made up of "most people", most people are more willing to accept USD to exchange value than they are Bitcoin. Therefore, USD is a better store of value than Bitcoin

Prediction that has been right 100% of the time (so far): Bitcoin's value will be more in the future.

Now that stonk people are in to BTC and it's worth is much higher, it's volatility is far less. It's still a speculative asset and with plenty of risk, but it's definitely a store of value for at least some % of one's savings.

HN always cuts off these fluff words in the beginning, like "Why" and "How". Often, it completely butchers the title. I think it's a stupid policy, but here we are.