He's very affable, good voice and cadence, and it's enjoyable even in an audio-only format. He's also very prolific, producing three episodes a week with several years in his back catalog.
Many of The HN clients that I use have their own bookmark system that doesn't actually trigger the bookmark feature on the website. It makes bookmarking a totally local client feature.
Thank you for your input.
I was also thinking about implementing bookmarking feature locally. But seeing HN has its own 'favorite' feature, I decided to skip it.
This can be doable. Since HN doesn't provide an API for it, I have to parse the webpage and collect the ids for the favorited stories from there. If I get more users, I will certainly implement more features like this.
My end goal is to have maximum feature parity with the website. :)
This seems disingenuous to me, but my personal experience with Coinbase colors my opinion.
I had my Coinbase accounts canceled more than 5 years ago. Despite my merchant account with them processing over 1MM USD a year in BTC, they refused to tell me why they terminated my merchant and personal account.
At the time, I was buying physical giftcards in bulk from official wholesale distributors for 90c on the dollar, scanning and OCR'ing the redemption codes, and was selling those for the BTC equivalent of $1.05 on the dollar.
At the time, some of those merchants had their own plans for digital giftcard distribution and said they didn't want to be associated with cryptocurrencies. I ignored their pressure because I was staying true to the law in regards to various resale doctrines.
I suspect some of the larger merchants pressured their financial partners to represent them and put pressure on Coinbase.
I didn't mind writing my own bespoke payment processing system to replace them, but the loss of an easy USD <-> BTC gateway did make life quite a bit harder. Since my move to NY, it's been even more difficult because there are few companies that are allowed to operate here.
> At the time, I was buying physical giftcards in bulk from official wholesale distributors for 90c on the dollar, scanning and OCR'ing the redemption codes, and was selling those for the BTC equivalent of $1.05 on the dollar.
Isn’t this kind of thing usually associated with criminal behaviour? Why would somebody buy $1 of gift cards for $1.05 worth of Bitcoin instead of using an exchange? Seems like the main appeal is avoiding KYC laws that the exchanges follow isn’t it?
I really can't tell if the comment you are responding to is satire. "I don't know why Coinbase would ban me all I did was use their platform to launder money"
The sources are rarely stolen. I used to work in this area for a large e-commerce company and generally what happened is a retail partner would have a sale on gift cards (15% off or something like this), and organized people who did this for a living would buy up multiple thousands in discounted gift cards, often chaining other discounts to get up to 20-25% off.
In our case, the arbitrage operators would try to extract the money themselves by using gift cards to buy goods that retain value well (Apple products, gaming consoles etc) to resell. The company is taking a hit, but it's often not outright theft. Technically, they're just savvy customers.
As for this case, it sounds like he's buying from genuine wholesale distributors who get gift cards from below face value anyway.
Retail outlets would never agree to sell gift cards without clipping the ticket, therefore they aren't paying $100 for the $100 gift card they sell you.
This is a perfect example of the old adage, we lose on every gift card sold but we make it up in the long run.
Imagine,
Customer buys $100 gift card
Customer gifts gift card.
Recipient buys $89.99 worth of stuff
Recipient never returns to reclaim $10.01
Gift card expires
Company writes value of unused gift card off their books as profit.
There is a reason gift cards are popular, it’s a money making machine. There’s probably a stat out there but from memory 30% of the value of gift cards goes unclaimed.
I don't recall paying more than they're worth, I was using a service called Steam Loader and it allowed me to spend my "magical internet money" on Steam which does not accept bitcoin.
Even if it was a few percent more, it's cool to be an early adopter of technology. I got all my bitcoins back then for free from mining anyway, so who cares? free games!
I live in Ithaca, and Cornell is about to start drilling a test borehole in the coming year. Once the borehole is completed and some tests made, they'll drill a pair of production boreholes about 10,000ft deep.
The goal is to pump water down one, and extract it from the other borehole and then use a heat exchanger to pull the anticipated 160F to 180F temperature to provide heat to the entirety of the campus.
It's similar to the University's Lake Source Cooling system, which they use the naturally cold water temperature of the local Cayuga lake. At the 250' depth they draw the water in, it's a constant 39F year-round. The cooling system is used to provide chilled water to all the buildings, and a few thousand homes, removing the need for standard air conditioners.
The Lake Source Cooling system has saved the university 20 million Kwh a year, an 85% reduction in power usage, since it was made in 2000. It's hoped that the Earth Source Heat project will have the same kind of impact on the energy necessary for heating.
There are a lot of unknowns. Nobody has drilled a borehole so deep in this area before because there hasn't been a reason to do it before.
It looks like a group at the University of Exeter is working on that exact plan.
"SeaCURE harnesses two natural properties of the ocean that can circumvent this problem. (1) The amount of carbon dissolved in a seawater is approximately 150 times higher than its concentration in air, making extraction significantly easier and quicker, (2) we can utilise the ocean’s vast surface area to remove CO2 from the enormous volume of air sitting above it, rather than having to push all of that air through air-based CO2 capture facilities."
"SeaCURE will combine and refine existing approaches to develop a new system that removes CO2 from seawater and releases the CO2-depleted water back to the ocean, where it will naturally re-absorb an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Specifically, at the University of Exeter and Plymouth Marine Laboratory we will benchmark established approaches to prepare seawater for CO2 extraction, strip that CO2 from the seawater, and collaborating with Brunel University concentrate the CO2 to high purity. TP Group, a UK based technology and engineering firm with world leading expertise in gas extraction from seawater, will then develop and upscale the most cost effective approach from this toolkit. The SeaCURE team will design a portable pilot plant to remove at least 100 tonnes of CO2 a year. Future testing using the pilot plant would generate the data required to develop commercially viable CO2 removal at the megaton scale, aimed at public and private sector offsetting and the carbon trading market."
Well, there also incidents about 5 years of people making vape juice with Diacetyl, a food additive that gives a creamy buttery taste. Turned out that while it was food safe, bringing it to the temperature necessary for vaping did bad things to it and it also caused "popcorn lung"
You do make a good point. It makes me think of the occasional video of a registered nurse standing in front of a City Council saying things like vaccines cause Autism, or the COVID-19 vaccine has tracking chips in it.
Seeing that makes me think that they should lose their license, which goes against the feeling I feel in this engineers case.
That makes me worry that I'm making my decision based on if I think what they're saying is correct or not, not if they should have the right to say it.
I think the key is what you get to say while claiming "I am an X, therefore (implicitly) trust what I say"
Whether it's a medical professional, architect, engineer, etc., I don't have a problem with the speech and actions of a person being regulated by a professional organization while they are claiming to be of that profession. i.e. legally protecting the term doctor/nurse/engineer/lawyer/etc. is just fine.
If you are not, you need to make it clear that you are indeed not a licensed professional.
The difference is that one of those is not like the others. There really is no such thing as an unlicensed (medical) doctor, nurse, or lawyer. While most engineers are not licensed as such--and PEs don't even exist for many branches of engineering. Of course, they can't say they're PEs if they're not but there really isn't a default assumption, aside from perhaps in civil engineering, that an engineer asserting expertise in something is licensed.
Fair enough. I was talking US where PEs are fairly rare outside of civil engineering and other subsets of engineering that deal with regulatory bodies a lot.
Generally in the US engineer is used pretty loosely. Some states are stricter. But even those who are, like apparently Texas, my first-hand experience is that most people don't pay much attention.
Should the nurses lose their license if there is an element of truth to what they are saying? For example, vaccines probably don't cause autism, but it's possible they could be an aggravating factor. Further research necessary.
The autism link to vaccines isn't at the "further research necessary" stage, it is at the "not absolutely impossible but much evidence against" stage.
The only reason the link exists at all is that vaccines and first signs of autism can happen at similar times and often a vaccine will make a person/small child briefly feel unwell which gets pointed to as a "first sign" because humans find patterns where there aren't any and want something, anything to blame instead of not knowing.
Until it's absolutely impossible, further research is necessary. Who knows? It could be a combination of things. Perhaps vaccines are not aggravating factors by themselves; maybe you also need to combine them with, I don't know, Tylenol or another pain killer.
Saying the equivalent of "the science is settled" is always not true because how could we possibly know all of the variables that matter. And in science, all factors matter.
>Until it's absolutely impossible, further research is necessary.
There is no such thing, you can study something until the heat death of the Universe and still have a nonzero uncertainty.
>Saying the equivalent of "the science is settled" is always not true because how could we possibly know all of the variables that matter. And in science, all factors matter.
There is a wide gap between "further research is necessary" and "the science is settled" and you seem to be arguing on both sides depending on if that argument is in favor of the autism link. The link stopped being an interesting or pressing scientific question, the necessity or urgency of continuing to research it is quite low and anyone making funding decisions would be wise to allocate mostly elsewhere. There's no problem with continuing to search if a research group wants, researching unpopular questions is important, but let's not misrepresent the state of the research and the reasonable conclusions which can be drawn from the data.
"further research necessary" is a phrase that evokes a sense that there is little evidence on which to base conclusions, there may be a hint of an effect, perhaps with contradictory evidence. This is not the case for the autism link, there is indeed a large statistically sound corpus of evidence pointing in the "no link" direction.
There is no gap between "the science is settled" and "further research is necessary". Either it is settled, or research is necessary.
I am not arguing that vaccines could cause autism. What I am arguing is that we don't know what causes autism and that we don't know if vaccines are an aggravating factor. That seems like an important question to me.
By the way, there can be a "large statistically sound corpus of evidence" for "no link" and still be wrong. Most importantly, all of that evidence could have missed important factors.
But beyond that point, as the medical field has lied to us more and more this past year, I no longer take what they say at face value. I dig in myself. And while they have convinced me that there is no direct link, they haven't convinced me that vaccines are definitely not an aggravating factor.
Why should they lose their license? They don't need to understand the mechanics of vaccines or immunity to be a proficient nurse, as long as the standard of care they provide follows recommendations and they listen to the doctors around them regarding patient care.
What benefit is there? One fewer person in a critical role due to an incredibly punitive decision is obvious downside. It's like sending someone to jail for a speeding ticket. Absolute fucking madness.
The nurse was using their profession as a credential in order to give dubious healthcare advice, this is a strong signal that they may be giving other equally questionable advice in their professional setting which is a risk to the patients they are supposed to be serving and a liability to their employer.
The benefit would be if the downside of having one fewer person doing that work is less than the downside of multiple people hearing wrong advice from someone whose license implies they won't talk nonsense about healthcare.
I've no clue myself where the line should be drawn, but there's at least a debate to be had (by people who understand the scenarios a lot better than me). For example, would you say the same about a nurse who tells every patient they see that smoking cigarettes is the best way to prevent cancer, even if apart from constantly saying that they were doing a fine job in other areas?
Ok, edit my hypothetical person to not advising their patients, but standing at the hospital entrance after their shift telling all other patients that cigarettes are good for you.
But that's not what's happening either. Why don't we represent the reality with itself. She's expressing an idea publicly that she thinks is important for public safety. She is not hurting her patients by doing this. Idiots are dangerous, but the cure is worse than the disease, if the cure is to destroy people for non-violently expressing their concerns genuinely doing what they believe is in the best interest of the community.
I'm not going to pretend to have an answer for what we should do about people like her, but I do know that destroying their lives (squashing genuine, well meaning dissent) is not the answer.
Right, as I said in my first comment I don't consider myself able to judge where the line should be drawn regarding this real person, so I created a hypothetical person to see if you still believed it would be ridiculous to fire any nurse for anything they say outside work hours.
Yes, if she's giving her patients bad medical advice that goes contrary to accepted best practices then she should be asked to stop or find work elsewhere. And if she's standing in the hallway doing the same with people who aren't her patients she could probably be safely fired for being a nuisance. There are appropriate public forums for disagreement and in the hallway of your hospital is probably not it.
You are using quite an uncharitable interpretation of what I actually said. Elsewhere being not necessarily a hospital, in this case, but at best a hospital that agrees with her medical advice.
Or are you proposing that she be thrown on the streets, jailed, exhiled, or executed? What do you propose? I too can be uncharitable but that probably doesn't lead to productive conversation.
You are leaving zero space between “cannot work as a nurse” (or “cannot submit testimony as an expert witness in engineering”) to to “life is ruined.”
Furthermore you do seem to be consistently saying a nurse, at a hospital, giving medical advice that doesn’t meet standards of care should not face normal malpractice charges not even face a suspension of license. (Just go to a quack hospital!)
I mean yeah that is position, but like I said elsewhere in this thread, I can’t distinguish it from libertarian “license to toast” bullshit.
I didn't know that was a Kodi feature. It's actually enough for me to consider migrating away from my Plex setup, or at least running them in parallel.
It might be a feature by accident. All documentation about this is about it's use for local media but it works for Youtube. You need the Youtube addon, and the .strm file contents should refer to the plugin with the video id.
I disagree. The truck going through the crowd model requires a sacrificial group member. In our country, the lack of terrorist group members makes their individual value higher. that makes an attack that has a higher capex cost more appealing, such as sacrificial drones.
A swarm of two dozen drones costing less than $50k could foul all of a passenger airplane's engines within a few thousand feet of takeoff. The evidence would be pretty junked up and there is no easy way to trace it back to the controller while it's happening. No sacrificial terrorist cell member needed.
One of the other issues that your comment shines a light on is that police often book someone under multiple charges. A safe one that the person is likely to be able to be convicted on, and multiple charges that probably don't apply to the situation.
This is common because it gives prosecutors the power to "offer" to drop the higher charges in exchange for accepting a plea bargain to the lower, and likely more appropriate, charges.
The result of this is that booking information, with the photos, from a drunken bar fight might show the person was charged with assault with a deadly weapon when the final charge will end up being something like disorderly conduct.
He's very affable, good voice and cadence, and it's enjoyable even in an audio-only format. He's also very prolific, producing three episodes a week with several years in his back catalog.