ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,553

Joined

2 yr. ago

I actually wouldn't be shocked if it was possible with modern smartphones. A significant amount of money is available to be made from federal security work, and meeting the NSA criteria has benefits that extend to companies that work in the federal security space as well.

How'd that work out for Poland?

It's unfortunate, but an aggressive shitty neighbor is your problem, even if you don't want to deal with them.

Thank you for being uncertain. :) I mean that sincerely. Some people are too quick to dismiss doctors expertise, and some people are too eager to try to use medication to solve "boredom". Trying to make sure you're actually doing the right thing is great.

Just remember: one of the effected things is executive function , or the ability to act deliberately and stay on task. You unfortunately see a trend of people who think "they don't need medication, we just need to teach the better study skills/to focus/etc", which is the one bit you can't teach.
And get them a bowl to put whatever that thing they keep misplacing in. They might not be able to remember where they put it, but they can learn to always put it in the bowl.

I got medicated as an adult, so I can't directly share my experiences relating to your question.

I wish I had been medicated at a younger age, since I can see so many problems I had in my life that were ultimately related to entirely unmanaged ADHD.
I also turned out fine without it, things were just more difficult.

Make sure you trust your pediatrician and that you're on the same page as them. That'll make it easier to feel confident that their advice is in line with your goals. They all have your kids best interest at heart, but there are different emphasis they can focus on which might not mesh with yours.

Talk with your kid and see how they feel. They might not be old enough to fully articulate things, but you can try to get a feel for if they're feeling volatile, struggling or things like that. Look at how they play alone and with others, and at how they engage with homework.

Start slow, and work your way up.

It's most likely gasoline. It's very difficult to engineer upholstery and rubber to be resistant to prolonged exposure to an open gas fire. Usually the best you can do is get to a minimum safe time for certain temperatures.

The highest standards you'll run into day to day are baby clothing, bedding, and residential wall insulation.
The reasons for those being specifically regulated should be relatively obvious, and are respectively heartbreaking, scary, and sensible.

Cars tend to be going fast when they encounter issues, and there's a lot less ability to make a lot of assurances. As a result, cars tend to be designed for controlled failure rather than resilience. This allows to car to fail around the passengers, hopefully resulting in the car, which is totaled anyway, absorbing the damage the passengers would have otherwise gotten.
We can make a car that can take a 45mph collision with an oak tree. We just don't know upfront that that's how it's going to crash, and the squishy people inside can't be made to tolerate a 45mph collision with the dashboard. So instead of making a perfect fuel tank, we just make sure that if it breaks it tries to rupture the fuel away from the passenger compartment. Instead of making the upholstery incapable of burning (which comes with downsides like "expensive", "uncomfortable", "ugly", "smelly", or "even more toxic than current flame retardants") we make it able to resist burning for as long as it would take for the air inside the vehicle to become deadly hot. It doesn't matter if the seat fabric is unscathed if the fire is hot enough to warp the metal.

Beyond all that, Tesla's are notoriously poorly engineered, and in that category the cyber truck is best in class. I do not know, but would not be surprised, if accelerant was simply able to seep into the more flammable parts of the car from the outside.

As for surveillance catching the people, covering your face, obscuring identifying marks, and simply being far away by the time anyone notices the fire is a good bet. The police might try a bit harder because it's an expensive property crime, but it's ultimately a property crime where no one is going to be building their career on it, so there won't be real incentive to go above and beyond.

Wow, way to bury the lede article.
"Which should we emphasize: protestors with signs, or supporters of the thing trying to kill them?".

Clearly the existence of protestors is the most important thing about this story.

There was a time when I was a student that I spent a lot of time near a particular coffee shop, and more than you would typically expect for just studying and the like, since it turned into the place where my friend group basically hung out most of the time.
In any case, it was a decently high traffic area and since I was there a lot I found two wallets and a cellphone over the time I was there a lot.

One wallet had an emergency contact I was able to call, think it was their mother, and that I'd be at the coffee shop for a bit. They brought me cookies, and I was thrilled.
Next person just had their phone number, and they acted like I was a creep for saying I had their wallet and would like to give it back to them, so I told them I was leaving it with the cashier and left it at that and was a bit sad, since being told off for trying to be nice is a bummer.
Cellphone was the worst. I called their most recent number and told them what was up (this was clearly before ubiquitous lock screens). Owner called me back in the same number and threatened to call the cops on me so I hung up, powered off the phone and put it back where I found it. Felt sad.

Given how it seems like everyone has lost their minds now, I'm not sure I would risk letting someone know I found their stuff. I'd still try to return it because that's the right thing to do, but I'm not sure if I'd be willing to use my own phone number or anything.
If people will shoot you for using their driveway to turn around I can only imagine what they'd do for a bus pass, student ID and a loyalty punch card for a bakery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pancakes

Seems very relevant. Found it while trying to find the etymology of "flapjack", since I thought about it and that's not a normal word.

I also found out that some countries have a pancake day, where they eat pancakes. Seems to be a different method of celebrating what we call Mardi gras or Fat Tuesday, depending on your proximity to France/Louisiana. We often have something like a donut.
Seems the intent is the same: eat all your animal fat before lent so it doesn't go to waste.

Your cooking looks delicious! I would call it a crepe, but whatever it's called I would eat it. :)

... What?

Your screenshot has the founder saying it's reparable. It also has him telling someone with unreasonable expectations that they would be disappointed.

If you literally take his comment out of context you can construe it as him saying they didn't consider repairability or lifetime. But why wouldn't you look at the context that's right there?

In the context of him saying the device is repairable, the top comment talking about repairing it, and the comment in question replying to that thread, it seems a bit weird to say "he didn't say it in this comment, so the comments where he says it's repairable don't count".

Sure have!

He told someone not to buy it if they expect more than five years without repairs. That person seemed to think spending more than $100 should get them a product that lasts a lifetime, and was irritated the founder said he thought it was pretty good that a piece of low cost consumer electronics made it five years before needing repairs.

What part of that says to you that it's not reparable or won't last five years?

How does that read to you like him saying it's not replaceable?

You missed the point and heard one that wasn't being made.
No one said cryptography was bad, or that cryptocurrencies were bad because they were used for drugs and criminals.
I said that the cryptographic underpinnings of things like Bitcoin are irrelevant, and that what matters is the behavior of the system. It's history as a vessel for laundering drug money speaks to it being a tool for money laundering, as opposed to some populist tool for freedom taken over by fintech bros. The fintech bros where there before any populist usage even started to take root.

The underlying technology of the thing doesn't matter. Pointing out the properties of things you care about doesn't contradict that. You care about privacy, reliability, security and all that good stuff. You care that your car is electric because it has lower emissions and lower environmental impact than gas, not just "because it's electric".
The means are not the ends.

You went on a rant about how there's too much in the world that confuses people, but I think it might be you who's a bit confused.

Epaper and eink are different. Eink consumes no power when idle, and epaper consumes almost no power.

It reads to me like he's saying that if you expect 5+ years without maintenance if it's more than $100, you should look at a different product.
The top comments are someone saying that after five years they needed to repair it due to battery failure, and the founder saying the repair process is the same.

Five years is longer than the average lifespan of a liIon battery. Expecting to be able to skip repairs that long is unreasonable for a $150 product.

It reads like the founder actually giving realistic expectations. A $150 product will likely need repairs to last longer than five years, and you'll be disappointed if you expect otherwise.

Can you point to a similar product that costs about as much that fits your criteria?

They do need to protect their branding, but only if it's likely to be viewed as "similar". there's no reasonable risk of people thinking that a watch and an old processor are the same.
There's a lot of products with similar names that haven't had issues.

No, no one is forgetting they're built on cryptography. It just doesn't matter. The underlying technology of a thing doesn't have much bearing on the properties of the thing as far as practical usage goes.
You don't care what your car is made of as long as it has good fuel efficiency and crash rating. Steel ceramic and aluminum are just tools to that end.

Research into cryptocurrency started long before 2008. Academics and odd crypto enthusiasts have been working on it since the 80s.
The intent from the beginning has been a mix of curiosity, paranoia, and buying drugs.
Bitcoin was hardly a "for the people" project. It was initially used almost entirely for black market purchases, largely via silk road. "The people" did not give a fuck about perfect anonymous digital cash. It solved a problem that most people didn't and still don't have.
The adoption order was: Math nerds > drug lords > finance > small investors. It's still not actually adopted as currency by people.
When you create a thing for the purpose of making monetary transactions untraceable, and your first major users are all using it to hide where their money came from from the government, it's really fair to say that you created a money laundering tool.

Bitcoin wasn't taken over by finance people, they're the reason it didn't taper out like previous cryptocurrencies, which either fizzled or were shutdown for being nuggets of financial crime.

The big one there is food and housing subsidies. The way way we have it set-up can create a situation where a raise can cost you benefits that are worth more than the raise. With disability benefits there can actually be limits on the amount of money you're allowed to have in general, which means that disabled people can find themselves in places where not only do they need to avoid trying to find work that they might be able to do, since trying and failing can still make them need to restart the benefits application process or even pay back historical benefits, but they also need to reject gifts above a certain value and can't prepare for any type of emergency, like a car breakdown.

It's annoying because it creates a disincentive to do the things that would help people on assistance actually get off of it, when the people who push for those limits purport to want them for exactly that reason.
Tapering off benefits as income grows, but at a slower rate than the income growth creates a continuous incentive for a person on benefits to increase their earned income. (If you lose $500 in benefits for every $1000 in income, your $1000 raise still puts $500 extra in your pocket, instead of potentially costing you your entire $8000 food subsidy)

Can't do that though, because it doesn't punish people for the audacity of needing help.

I have never been invited to burn peanuts with a bunsen burner. Showing the relationship between chemical energy and thermal energy and the sometimes surprising differences between foods?

I think we had too much separation between diet classes and physical science. I think I recall doing something like a puzzle, with physical pieces, where you tried to make a days food using different foods. The point was that it's easier and you get more if you pick the healthier foods. Instead everyone knew what the point was and then fucked around making the dumbest possible meal that fit the defined criteria.
I seem to recall the teacher not being amused with my solution that only has one food group per meal. (What's for breakfast? 9 eggs. Lunch? 3 unseasoned grilled chicken breasts. Dinner? Six baked potatos, plain)

He inserted a naturally occuring genetic variation.
Off the top of my head and not an expert: screen a very large number of people for having that variation, and monitor those that do for HIV infection. That phase will take a while.
Identify a collection of people interested in in vitro fertilization, ideally with some coming from your previous sample group. Since the process produces more embryos than can be used, perform your procedure on a random selection of discards. Inspection and sequencing of the modified segment should be indistinguishable from unmodified embryos bearing then variation naturally.
Now that you have confidence that the variation provides protection, and that you can make the change, identify people where the intervention offers a better chance than not having it, even though it's experimental. This would likely be HIV positive women desiring IVF who would not be able to tolerate standard HIV treatment during the pregnancy. Engineering the embryo to be resistant therefore becomes the best available way to prevent infection.
You can then look back and compare infection rates with children born to untreated parents and parents who underwent treatment.

You also do a better job ensuring the parents know about the risks and what they entail. Informed consent and all that.

If this is really hard to do because you can't find people that fit the criteria, maybe your research isn't actually that critical. If HIV medication is essentially universally tolerated in pregnancy and is nearly 100% effective at preventing transmission to the infant without long-term side effects, then it might just be the case that while gene editing would work, it doesn't provide enough of an advantage to be worth exploring for that disease.

Medical research is still medicine. You're still obligated to do what's best for the patient, even if it's difficult or you're curious about what would happen.