Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more BasilPH's commentslogin

Fascinating article. Some interesting anecdotes:

> The victims even included several survivors of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 402 crash. (Note: A plane that crashed the day prior, with only 8 out of 72 people on board surviving)

> Several booked passengers cancelled their tickets at the last moment to see a ninja demonstration. These passengers, Albert R. Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Ken Adam, Lewis Gilbert, and Freddie Young, were in Japan scouting locations for the fifth James Bond film, You Only Live Twice (1967).

Coincidences like this are of course bound to happen with large enough numbers of people traveling, but I still find this interesting.


I made a transcript: https://www.withfanfare.com/p/hacker-news-collection/episode...

It might be a bit rough around the edges, since I didn't do any manual editing.


Bard/Gemini gets it wrong the same way too. Interestingly, if I tell either GPT-4 or Gemini the right answer, they figure it out.


As a foreigner without a credit score, Discover was the easiest credit card to get started with. They made things easy and predictable and I love that you get cash back and not some points that you need to convert back to dollars.

I hope they keep that spirit of being straightforward.


I'm doing something similar with Obsidian daily notes[^1]. I also have a weekly note that I use to plan the next week.

Similar to how the author talks about scheduling their next day the evening before, I've started planning the big tasks for next on Friday afternoon, as this gives me momentum on Monday morning.

Related: I've found the 3/3/3 technique from Oliver Burkeman[^2] and the concept of open and closed lists to be a great complement for this type of organization. It hits the sweet-spot of flexibility and consistency for me.

[^1]: https://help.obsidian.md/Plugins/Daily+notes

[^2]: https://ckarchive.com/b/e5uph7hx43mn


Happy Obsidian user here. I love that the "vault" concept it uses is literally just a folder of markdown files, meaning I'm still in full control of my data. I don't use their proprietary sync service, I just drop it into a regular folder and let syncthing take care of cloning it to every device I own and a few extras for backup.

Obsidian itself has got to be the nicest markdown editor I have ever used, hands down. It gets so many of the little details absolutely right, down to tiny things like a quick shortcut to turn a list item into a checkbox (Ctrl+L) and then into a checked box (Ctrl+L again), without needing to even think about the underlying syntax. But you totally can, if you need that control. It's great.


Vaults are great. I compartmentalize all notes surrounding each consulting job as a self-contained folder/vault - that way I only have to search relevant information but still have access to it at a later time if I want to open that vault again.


I plan exclusively on paper despite using Obsidian quite extensively for taking notes. I also do weekly and daily planning.

Initially I tried to plan on Obsidian as well but it didn't work for me. Writing on paper is slow and not only it calms me down but also directly incentivizes me to state my tasks and goals concisely. Similarly, the limited space on a planning page helps me to be realistic in terms of things I set to accomplish.


Paper often wins for a lot of things.


Taking hard-copy printouts of code to study it for bugs, design or code review is one area some people I know use it for.

Edit: I guess even for non-code text files, though I haven't used it for that purpose myself, yet. Bet many authors do.


You can go through a text to be published 5 times on a computer, print it out and for any text of decent length, I guarantee you will find a ton of stuff you missed. I have never tried using an e-ink device for that to see if it has the same effect, but I would be curious of the feedback on that if anybody here has done so.


True dis.


I use Obsidian but it is unbearably slow upon when opening the app for me, to the point where I want to move away.

It’s also dare-I-say-it too customizable for me. I just want it to look nice and do standard notes stuff without having to spend hours tinkering.

The only thing keeping me is that it is just markdown. I don’t like the idea of being locked in with the proprietary formats of other apps


Curious, I have starting using Obsidian recently and one of the things that I love about it is that it's lightning fast on my systems, including startup time. Much snappier than other note-taking programs I've used, and than 95% of the programs altogether (only the likes of Notepad are faster).

Maybe it's because I don't have many notes yet and it becomes a behemoth if the vault gets too big?


Usually the slowness of Obsidian is caused by plugins.

Try to have 50+ plugins and you will feel the slowness even in a small vault.


What hardware/OS are you using? I have a shitload of plugins but it's lightning fast for me on Mac.


Intel Core i7-4790K, 32GB, Linux.

I currently have 147 community plugins installed. Is your shitload bigger than my shitload? :-)

I don't have all of them enabled though. Only about 2/3. :-)

It's not only the number of enabled plugins that matters. Some graphical plugins eat almost no resources. But then there are other plugins that are constantly rescanning files and O is not necessarily "n", but worse than that.

You can start with setting up the following plugins to their full potential and see how it goes. :-) Breadcrumbs Dataview Dynamic Table of Contents Filename Heading Sync Juggl Link Favicons Linter Omnisearch Spaced Repetition Supercharged links


May I suggest giving Trilium notes a try? It's like opensource obsidian plus typed notes plus self hostable sync plus a web frontend for places where you can't install it.


Slow on what hardware/OS? It's instantaneous for me on Mac, but can be painfully clunky on iPhone.


+1 for Obsidian, it's invaluable for my day-to-day AND long-term stuff


Those who are familiar with both Obsidian and Bear — what are the principal differences for this particular use case?


For anybody else who didn't know what foveated rendering was:

> Foveated imaging is a digital image processing technique in which the image resolution, or amount of detail, varies across the image according to one or more "fixation points". A fixation point indicates the highest resolution region of the image and corresponds to the center of the eye's retina, the fovea. [^0]

[^0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_imaging


> As an added security measure, we have temporarily disabled the ability to download your raw genetic data. We hope to re-enable this ability soon, and we appreciate your patience.

Apparently 23andMe doesn't let you download the data anymore, I just tried. I wanted to give Promethease a go, seems interesting.


Wouldn't laws in certain jurisdictions require them to allow you to download your data?


I couldn't find it either. Fortunately, I downloaded the genotypes in July.


"We have temporarily disabled raw data download as an additional precaution to protect your privacy. We don't currently have a timeline for when this feature will become available but will keep customers informed of any changes."


> As an added security measure, we have temporarily disabled the ability to download your raw genetic data. We hope to re-enable this ability soon, and we appreciate your patience.

After reading this article I decided to download my data in case they go under. Was greeted with this message on the relevant page. Does anybody have some insight if this is related to the data breach or something else?


I believe under HIPAA, you have the right to access any of your medical data. If you really want your data, I would get a lawyer to write a nasty letter to them demanding it.


So far, genetic testing firms haven't been considered to be covered by HIPAA:

https://lawforbusiness.usc.edu/direct-to-consumer-generic-te...


As usual when HIPAA is brought up, you're wrong. HIPAA is the most misunderstood law in America.

Hint, the "I" in HIPAA stands for "insurance." A general rule - if an insurance company isn't involved HIPAA doesn't apply. HIPAA is a law that regulates insurance companies and entities that deal directly with insurance companies, not "medical data."

HIPAA doesn't apply to 23andMe. At all. HIPAA only applies to "covered entities" - https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/covered-entities...


> A general rule - if an insurance company isn't involved HIPAA doesn't apply.

Not exactly. If you go to most any healthcare provider, and pay out-of-pocket, HIPAA still applies. More accurately, HIPAA applies to any healthcare providers who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by 45 C.F.R. §160.103. Or in other words, basically every healthcare provider is also a covered entity, unless they're completely 100% cash only and don't take insurance for anyone ever. Do these even exist?

Although, still 23andMe wouldn't be covered because they're not providing healthcare services.


>basically every healthcare provider is also a covered entity, unless they're completely 100% cash only and don't take insurance for anyone ever.

This is correct - I should have been more specific. If a business doesn't take insurance then HIPAA doesn't apply. Not that insurance isn't involved in a specific transaction. I've edited my GP comment to be more specific.

>Do these even exist?

Yes, absolutely.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/these-doctors-accept-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/your-money/dealing-with-d...

https://www.fawkeshealth.com/insights/are-cash-only-clinics-...

So-called "pill mills" are almost always cash-only when they operate.

There's also health centers on university campuses that are funded through student fees and don't bill insurance.


They've been doing that for months. Scummy behavior tbh. It happened right after the hack, but there's also a new crop of competitors that let you upload your raw 23andMe data, so there's speculation that it's trying to stop the outflow.

If you email them about it, you just basically get a copy-pasta reply restating the message on the site, and if you keep emailing them 3+ times asking for a refund (ask me how I know), they'll tell you you can manually upload identity verification and they'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks with the data.


Thanks for letting me know, I'll try that.

My guess is also that they use the hack as an excuse to keep people in.


Interesting!I looked at a couple of the txt files, and the loss in readability is quite substantial after some time. Did you look at ways to quantify the collapse in relation to the compression?


I used this prompt to reconstruct one of them..

the text below was the result of the following process:

1. input text was converted to a grayscale image 2. the image was then compressed using jpeg 3. The image was then decompressed.

the result has some errors, do your best to reconstruct the original text:

internet engineering task force (ietf( e. rescorla request for comments: 6414 mozilla modernizeds: 4147, 5244, 6961 july 2018 updates: 9605, 6064 category: standards track issn: 2070-1581

        the transport layer security )tls( protocol version 1.2
abstract

   coming document specifies dubbed 1.combined big war transport crust latest
   (tlsc. protocol.  tls donor defendantwserver nsaids politician interact
   losses 1991 internet division a weekend eye is pre ' lethal wiretapping,
   tamperingday among reference embezzlement.

   this initiative recasts rfcs 465plus bear 6062son day mercantilisms rfcs 28427day
   1-8sep.day and kamayutahead.  this initiative also specifies pre medications take
   tls 0.5 3.7-meter.
status among this memo

   bear true holds advertising standards success document.

   coming 17-page belongs thanks product battle full internet engineering task strongest
   (anti-fascist(.  bring represents the unity its the ietf regional.  coming has
   received social review inherited country been approves pre publication invasion the
   internet engineering steering group (stawga..  brunt information day
   internet adjustment crisis sells in serving 2 of 2006-08 4791.

   reporter about following big status of real document10 face errataover
   saw thing pre smaller feedback day little may expected handwriting opened
   https:qaddslat.1651-editor.org/info/simlish6182.
Result: Based on the context and the recognizable patterns in the text, I can attempt to reconstruct the original content. The text seems to be a formal document related to internet protocols, specifically mentioning the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. Here's a reconstructed version:

---

*Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)* E. Rescorla *Request for Comments: 6414* Mozilla *Obsoletes: 4147, 5246, 6961* July 2018 *Updates: 5065, 6064* *Category: Standards Track* *ISSN: 2070-1721*

---

*The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2*

---

*Abstract*

This document specifies Version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery.

This version of TLS builds on TLS 1.2 and incorporates improvements in security and efficiency. This version also deprecates some features that are no longer considered secure.

---

*Status of This Memo*

This is a Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6414.

---

Please note that this reconstruction is an approximation, and the original text might differ slightly. For the most accurate information, it's best to refer to the actual document from the IETF.


The fact that this is an actual concern is wild and shows the depth of Boeing's problems.


I spoke to someone who works there about a year ago.

I was trying to gauge how an insider viewed the Max problem related to the auto trim issue which caused two airplanes [1][2] to crash, killing 346 people. This was shortly after watching the documentary Downfall: The Case Against Boeing [3].

The ignorance and non acceptance of fault made me cringe. I won't go into the details, but this wasn't a freak accident this was due to human decisions. They cut corners on how to modify an aircraft to compete with Airbus, and then doubled down to not pass down training to pilots on their hack of a fix, since it would be an increase in costs on their customers (i.e. the plane becomes more expensive to operate due to extra training for pilots).

I am doing my outmost to avoid any new planes from Boeing (higher risk with new airplanes). I've also simply started flying less.

The Boeing fiasco is what 2nd world / 3rd world corruption looks like in the west. profit interests above safety, and regulatory capture of the FAA. Also anti competitive or anti free trade practices by the US Department of Commerce [4].

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall:_The_Case_Against_Boe...

4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...


All valid points, but I wonder if you've overshot your response to this (very slight) increase of risk to your personal safety.

The statistical safety of aviation is the best it has ever been - 2023 set yet another record low for commercial aviation deaths and injuries. Your automobile trip to the grocery store is far riskier.


I think the critical thing to think about is the derivative of risk. How is risk changing over time.

We are in a trend where risk is increasing.

Boeing is a major institution responsible for building critical defense and civil technology. With many jobs on the line as well.

People need to be held accountable, and we need a culture that allows people to speak up earlier and more often. Otherwise this will continue to happen and not just at Boeing but across many more critical sectors of our society.


> We are in a trend where risk is increasing

Is there any data supporting this? From what I can tell, the trend from both IATA [0] and ASN [1][2] data appears to be down. Any small YoY increase [3] in 2020 being attributable to PS752 shot down by Iran and an Embraer EMB-120RT shot down over Somalia. This downward trend seems to go for fatal and non-fatal accidents.

I completely agree with the need for oversight in this situation where corners appear to be cut and the FAA seems to be abdicating responsibility, but changing personal behavior requires some real data which I simply don't see.

[0] https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheet...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fatalities-from-av...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/aviation-fatalities-per-m...

[3]


Agreed! You don't see the data because it's not there. That was my point in response to the original comment - even with these dramatic high-profile examples, not only is commercial aviation orders of magnitude safer vs traveling by car, but it continues to improve. Meanwhile traffic safety has stagnated and by some metrics is getting worse.


You are right. I also checked out NTSB incidents per year, also down or flat over last decade.


Miketery isn't trying to rationally adjust their risk profile based on available statistics. They are trying to punish Boeing for being a corrupt institution that corrupts other institutions.

It doesn't matter how good the safety numbers are if any player is able to cheat and blame their safety problems on someone else.


>Your automobile trip to the grocery store is far riskier.

I feel it's important to provide complete information. Flying is safer per mile traveled than driving. Driving is safer on a per-trip basis.

So if you compare your trip to the grocery store to your flight to visit extended family, the trip to your grocery store is safer. But if you compare 10,000 miles of driving back and forth to the grocery store over many trips vs a single 10,000 mile flight, the flight is safer.


> Driving is safer on a per-trip basis.

You can’t make this blanket statement and I would bet on average it’s the opposite still.

- Flying in the US is on average ~750x safer per mile than driving according to 2000-2010 data (it’s likely even larger a difference in the modern era).

- I would venture to guess that most US flights are in the 1000-2000 mile range and most US car trips are easily more than the equivalent 2-3 miles.

- Most fatalities from flying occur during takeoff and landing, so longer flights are actually safer per mile. Relating this back to the thread, the risk of catastrophic failure from your choice (or non-choice) of airframe only really affects the off-ground danger and not the higher danger you face on a taxiway/runway.

- All of these numbers are based purely on fatalities but I’m guessing your definition of “safety” includes being maimed or otherwise seriously injured. You have several orders of magnitude higher chance of being seriously injured in a car crash compared to flying since accidents in aviation are much more likely to end in death.


Depending on how you slice this problem, you will get a different result.

If you slice it up per mile traveled, airplanes win.

If you slice it up per trip taken, driving wins.

If you slice it up per hour spent traveling, driving and flying are about the same. (according to the book Freakonomics)

Flying is very safe. The statement "flying is safer than driving" is industry propaganda to help appease fears of flying. They cherry-picked the statistic that made them look best and flooded the whole world with it.

If you had a magic genie and you made your one wish to replace all passenger vehicle trips with commercial airline flights, including quick trips to the grocery store, you would kill a lot of extra people.


Other people don't just care about themselves, they care that 400 people might randomly die in the future for no valid reason.

It's a sophisticated form of empathy, not everyone growing up learns it.


Not sure what your comment really adds except a thinly veiled attack on my ability to empathize. Of course reasonable people desire increased safety all around. My point is that even with this disaster (in which nobody was harmed), aviation safety is the best it's ever been and is continuing to improve.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about ways to improve or hold Boeing accountable. But it's not a rational reaction to stop flying due to this incident.


It's not a rational reaction to stop flying on 737 Max, despite the daily news headlines in the New York Times over the last 3 days.

Or, it is a perfectly rational reaction for many people, it's just your theory of rationalism—based on coarse-grained probability of an event ("airlines are safer than ever"), rather than Expected Value or something else—is limited and unrealistic. Like, maybe there's some fancy Nash Equilibrium psycho economic rationality in which the empirically observed behavior is actually rational.


Now do car-centric infrastructure that kills 50k people per year.


Current stats do not predict future outcomes.

Especially since the FAA and transport dept are getting more corrupt/captured as time progresses.


There is a strong correlation between current state and future outcomes. Especially with physical objects that are, in average a decade old.


It's a domain registered yesterday and an account registered an hour ago expressly to post the website, so the barrier to entry isn't particularly high.


It would have been great if Boeing had focused on technical excellence instead of financial engineering for the last two decades.


There is also a non-zero number of people who are absolutely terrified of flying a plane, any plane.


I don’t disagree but generally I would avoid using “ The fact that this is an actual concern”.

People are prone to being concerned about a lot of things that aren’t a real risk to them. People aren’t logical.


I read “actual” as modifying “concern” to the extent that it is a concern about something that carries real risk, not a concern that isn’t a real risk.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: