Thanks! I have built these before I ran into cleanairkits and the school of thought that "lower efficiency with higher throughput is better" - I think per dollar, their CADR is likely quite a bit better! Looking at their Exhalaron line up - we have what is essentially two of my style of filter glued and tension-ed down in a portable package. 

And a similar HEPA filter is used here as well. With two fans that are each nominally figure of 75 CFM. 92cfm / 2 /  75cfm = 61% - instead of the 80% figure I handwaved! (the new numbers should be up soon that is based on a more economical P14 setup instead of the P12.)

I think Thomas's "Instead of using HEPA to 'one-shot' (original design intention) the air filtration task, the 'few-shot' approach with much higher through put with a MERV 13ish lvl of efficency is generally better" is mostly correct. I see that Dynomight's IKEA filter investigations have also made a similar conclusion (although it is more in the case of HEPA vs MORE HEPA).

However, I didn't want to 3D print/jerryrig an enclosure to fit in the recommended filters, and where I am, I couldn't source a nice self-supporting (non-HEPA) filter that I can easily plop a fan onto. But if I had some more spare time, the cleanairkits folks that Zac mentioned built basically a "quieter rectangular box with fans on the small sides, and non-HEPA filters on the big sides" - and that's what I want eventually. 

I did read the original. It was long and I skimmed it. It was better in the coherence-sense that the OOP didn’t post a probability on whether it is true or not. Hell, the OOP hedged it by saying “ Do I believe what I’m saying? Well, yes and no”.

I guess the core of my confusion is the radical mismatch in confidence projection in its explicit form and implicit form (through tone and context setting). [Note: the updated wording definitely tempers the expectations in the right direction, thou still a bit bonkers at first glance.]

50% is extremely high. And lighthearted tones are often used to convey a sense of “I know this is farfetched theory. But I hold this strong claim very/appropriately weakly”.

Though not meant as derision, it is absolutely wild to read “Though I don't know that much about orcas” and “50% that orcas could do superhuman scientific problem solving” in the same paragraph.

My uneasiness with this post is that I am not sure how serious/joking the post is. It has some of the hallmark of a relatively lighthearted post written in a serious way. (The interaction with the IP, for example) And tones of conversation is light at parts. Yet the call to actions are confusing - it is not really motivating and seems to offload responsibility too eagerly for someone that actually believes what they are writing about.

I am very confused about the post and not sure what to think about it.

Stephen puts it elegantly. Though for me who is more of a code monkey, I'd like to think of it as "Runtime Non-Zero cost type safety through some const generics".  

I can see how the article can be convincing. But it is worth it to keep in mind that Hunterbrook is also a hedge fund that trades on their own news - an obvious case of potential alignment failure if there ever was one. Though I am not sure if they are shorting this one.

Perhaps more damningly:

Jiangsu Pacific Quartz Co., Ltd. (SHA: 603688) produces HPQ in China. Earlier this year, state legislators evaluated North Carolina House Bill 385, which could ban ownership of local quartz mines by foreign entities from countries designated as adversarial to the U.S., such as China.

Per the Hunterbrook article.

PS: It is likely critical, but I am more uncertain about it being a single point. Unless we are limiting ourselves to the allegorical West.

A quick sanity check on the Chinese side of the web had revealed a couple of manufacturers for semi-conductor grade quartz, allegedly with manufacturing and processing centres in Jiangsu, CN.

My prior on this product type actually being a critical single point of failure is low.

See below: http://www.quartzpacific.com/api/upload/uploadService/dowloadEx?fileId=1113&tenantId=147391 ^Product spec (one of many semiconductor grade product shape) http://zj.people.com.cn/BIG5/n2/2023/0316/c186327-40338436.html ^investment news on new sites and manufacturing capacity

It doesn’t seem like you are arguing that breastfeeding is universally more convenient than formula. But breast feeding can be very inconvenient:

1. It is often painful
2. Elevated chance of inflammation
3. Public spaces are not setup for mothers to breast feed; some may not value it, but a lot of people value privacy.

Formula’s convenience lays in enabling asynchronous feeding of the baby - by separating the role of the producer and the role of the feeder, the other partner can take care of the baby whilst the mother sleeps.

Another compromise to make is store breast milk and reheating it on demand!

On Lesswrong being a dispersed internet community:

If the ACX survey is informative here, discussing local policy works surprisingly well here! I’d say a significant chunk of people are in the Bay Area at large and Boston/NYC/DC area - it should be enough of a cluster to support discussions of local policy. And policies in California/DC has an oversized effect on things we care about as well.