Are you in your own house with some distance between you and your neighbors? In most apartment complexes you'll have about 30 overlapping wifi networks visible from your computer, so wifi reliability is very much not what you get in a less dense area.
I keep what devices I can on wired, but it's really not feasible for everyone or for all devices. I sometimes have to switch my phone over to LTE because the wireless sucks too much. There's obviously no ethernet port on that.
Right, but I suspect the parent implied that this could be a feature that many would seek out - basically the chemical equivalent of a vasectomy that can't be undone.
Some people, like me, really don't want kids. Taking control of it so that you're not relying on your partner is important as trust (that they haven't forgotten to use contraception or worse - deliberately not take it) isn't a rock-solid security policy. It's also not fair on females to be the only ones in charge of contraception for bare-skin sex.
Another thing I've learned is that far too many parents take the statement "I don't want kids" as a personal challenge to moralize and condescend to people without children.
Na, I think it has more to do with either projecting ones own wishes onto somebody else or maybe even talk somebody down so that you can feel better if you don't are completely happy with the current situation.
I find it much more interesting to ask why somebody wants no kids. That gives much more insight into the person's mind than when you try to persuade them with your own experiences and produces much better followup talk opportunities.
Anyway, I'm curious what you think it might be evolutionary advantageous. On the face of it, if others have less kids, that would seem advantageous to your own kids.
What, aside from never making any decisions (which is a itself a kind of decision), can you do other than trying to make the best decision you can right now?
The honest to goodness answer here is that you can let other people make decisions for you, and it is the desire to make decisions for other people that prompts this argument.
Why? Having the means to do so is very very different from forcing it upon someone. Means to kill someone else are readily available to everyone -- kitchen knives, over the counter drugs -- but simply their availability isn't that scary.
What were they giving to the patients? Was the existence of what they were giving to those patients a scary thing just for existing - coz that's the question here.
You haven't responded to any of my points, just ignored them.
What you're really trying to do is make out that somehow sterilisation is a special case of something with a potential negative use case, where if they can easily be used, they will be, without arguing why it's different from all the other things that meet that criteria.
Not at all. It's similar to Google and the "right to be forgotten". In the old days something might be public knowledge but would say require visiting a records office to uncover. People could move on from things they regretted. Now it's just a search away. Aha, people say, but the knowledge was ALWAYS public. In practice the ease of doing it makes it completely different.
Which, again, is an argument about it being very easy to do.
That does not address jamesrcole's argument. He's not saying "it was always possible, therefore being easier is no different".
He's pointing out that there are worse bad things that are just as easy to do, yet they aren't considered scary.
You can't make an argument that the ease matters, because he's asking about things that are equally easy if not easier. Why is easy availability of such a drug different from easy availability of the knife/car/etc.?
It's a value judgement of course. As a society we accept that n deaths/year are worth it for the benefits that cars and butter knives bring to the wider population. In very recent history, sterilisation techniques have been massively abused by governments in an organised way. There was never a large-scale, systematic programme of running people over as policy. Forced sterilisation is still a thing in India...
Not really, tens of millions would line up for it; it'd be vastly better than surgery and plenty of pills can kill people now but we deal with that just fine and death is much scarier than sterilization. What you're doing there... it's called fear mongering. If you're really scared of something like that, you probably have some issues you need to resolve because that's a silly thing to be afraid of.
The issue is similar to the black swan phenomenon. Publishers are deciding what will sell based on what sold in the past, but the next great surprise success almost definitively has to be different than those in the past. You need some ability to inject books into the system which don't fit the historical mold.
The best way to do it is probably For publishers to also publish books they think are good, even if they're prospects aren't great. Most will fail, but a few will win big. In a way, it's just like venture capital.
> For publishers to also publish books they think are good, even if they're prospects aren't great. Most will fail, but a few will win big. In a way, it's just like venture capital. Maybe we need a venture publishing industry.
They already do and we already have that. In fact, that is the reason why so many authors are dissatisfied with publishers. Publishers publish a large number of titles on the hope that one of them will take off, and spend little to nothing on promoting the majority of them. So in the majority of cases, titles are neglected and may not earn back the advance - unless the author has a significant existing audience. Then they get a better deal, too.
I've spoken with professional authors and editors, and I get the impression that the typical mid-range fiction publishing house pretty much _is_ a "venture publishing" operation. They buy books from lots of authors, many of whom disappear without a trace. The bulk of their profits comes from a handful of well-known authors.
You're wrong because we all get the joke, and are over it. It's a very conscious branding choice to label themselves as counterculture and edgy. It won't appeal to everyone, but it clearly is a conscious marketing choice, and you'd have a hard time saying their marketing isn't going well.
I think your time would be better spent telling MetRx or Ensure to change their names, considering they are brands which are not very successful at capturing the market Soylent is dominating (the bottled-nutrition-by-choice market).
As far as I can tell their only issue is quality control and customer communication, changing their name wouldn't fix either.
I guess you would have the same opinion about "Schiit audio" (a brand to fleece audiophiles, and which does very well.) their site[1] reads "Yes, that is our name. Shih-tah. It's a proud German name, host to a long line of audio engineers who slaved away in crumbling Teutonic fortresses as lightning lashed the dark lands outside, working to perfect the best amplification devices in the world...
Or, well, no. Yep, Schiit is our name, and it's pronounced, well, like "hey man, that's some really good Schiit!" And now that we have your attention..."
Sorry. I believe "nomen est omen" and I personally believe that until they update their name they have it baked into their DNA to lie to, to mislead, and to create an awful dystopia. It is quite literally on the label.
Compare the origin of the term Ycombinator: [2]
We might disagree on this but I am going to maintain that when your name clearly embodies some ideal, however vaguely, it affects things.
Why are there no restaurants called Makesyapuke Diner? (or anything like it.)
They need to align their name with their positive vision. They've outgrown the joke.
CloudFlare usually just serve you a cached version of the site to increase performances and reduce the bandwidth. It automatically caches CSS, images and scripts but the rules are customizable.
Can someone explain why notifying the device of exercise and eating is necessary? Is it because 5 minutes is too low of an interval, or because the glucose sensor is slow, or because the body relies on other eating and exercise cues to regulate insulin.
Because if you start exercising or eating NOW the insulin administered won't start working for 30 min and won't peak for 90-120 minutes. Because food hits you fast and by the time the system notices you'll have already drifted "out of the lanes."
Diabetes Closed Loops are the same problem as controlling the Mars Rover. You move the joystick and nothing happens for x minutes. Then you wait another x minutes to observe the results.
The sensors aren't perfectly accurate; I don't know about the newer sensors which this closed-loop system uses, but the current generation only fulfills the accuracy requirements by reporting the median of 7 consecutive every-5-minutes measurements and carrying a warning of "don't trust these values if you have reason to think that your blood glucose might be changing rapidly".
My guess is that providing notifications of exercise and food (aka. "I expect my blood glucose to go (down|up) right now") allows the model to be tuned to respond more aggressively to new data at some times and less aggressively at others.
(The "less aggressively" side is probably most important: If the sensor suddenly reports a dramatic change in blood glucose in the middle of the night, the system should probably respond with "HEY WAKE UP THE SENSOR IS BROKEN" rather than "let's kill the patient".)
I've found that the interstitial delay is pretty minimal; maybe 5-10 minutes behind fingerpricks (which themselves lag somewhat behind arterial blood, especially if your hands are cold). The dominating factor is the 15-20 minutes it takes before the median of a window reflects the new data.
Sure, but we agree every minute counts. Also, CGMs in arms differ from belly, etc. 10 min when insulin starts in 30 is a non-trivial amount of time. Point is, we def need faster insulin and faster, more accurate CGMs.
A couple things - the insulin currently on the market works too slowly for a pump right now to fully close the loop – this functionality – notifying the pump of exercise and eating is part of the user control needed in a "hybrid closed loop" such as this. The user's insulin sensitivity given before, during or after exercise are very different than at other times. Different types of exercise affects body differently as well –HIIT for example raises blood glucose for a couple hours during and after – and then will significantly increase the sensitivity to insulin and many type 1's will drop rapidly. Aerobic activity will tend to drop blood glucose rapidly on it's own. Notifying the pump allows you to drop the levels given – something users do on their own now.
Cloudflare has a pretty simple policy. They only censor content when they legally have to, or when it's child porn. That actually opens them up to a lot of heat from people who aren't big fans of the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, or botnets. BUT they don't specifically allow botnets as a weird method of promoting them, it's a widely applied policy.
I would bet things would be a fair bit easier for them if they agreed to take things down which most people don't like, but from my position they are taking a very principaled stand for free speech. Are people on hn actually arguing we want more censorship on more places on the web?
Nobody in here is proposing that Cloudflare censor unpopular speech. We are asking that they stop protecting for-profit DDoS attack sites that are destroying the internet and using violence to censor people's ability to speak. That isn't a freedom of speech debate, it's a debate on the ethics and legality of defending and protecting criminal activity that financially benefits them, a timely topic now that this activity is actively threatening the ability of the internet to function for any kind of speech http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1599694http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0uf9RIu...
I agree that it's an ethics problem, and a non-trivial one at that.
It seems like another problem caused by the fact that code can be data and data can be code. By which I mean, both are information. 'Free speech' implies the intent to be communicated to people, and can be considered 'data'. However a DDoS is a bunch of information with the intent of affecting the behaviour of computer systems, and can be considered 'code'.
The problem lies in discriminating between the two, given that "bits don't have colour", as explained here: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
I'm not at all sure what the right answer is, here. I'm also not 100% convinced that Cloudflare has the right approach, but I'm leaning to "yes", considering the alternative.
(by the way, you'd probably be interested in watching the youtube clip jgrahamc posted elsewhere ITT, with someone from Cloudflare saying some words about their perspective on this dilemma: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12564876)
I mostly agree with you but let's not take it too far.
> We are asking that they stop protecting for-profit DDoS attack sites that are destroying the internet and using violence to censor people's ability to speak.
A DoS is not a violent act. I am mostly ignorant of these things but I think attacks if this kind are a service that test our capabilities. My fear is that there might be calls for legislative actions against "DoS attacks" which would then apply to people sitting at home pressing F5.
>would then apply to people sitting at home pressing F5.
How would such a law be different from the current laws? If you sit at home pressing f5 with malicious intent and succeed at bringing a site down, you're committing a crime.
I don't know about you, but criminalizing the act of pressing F5 with any intent seems firmly on the way to Aaron Swartz-like cases to me.
What if you are just fed up of waiting for a site to reload and press F5 a number of times? And what about the (probably majority of) instances where the "attacker" is simply a person who unknowingly downloaded malware onto their computer to get free smileys or whatever?
>I don't know about you, but criminalizing the act of pressing F5 with any intent seems firmly on the way to Aaron Swartz-like cases to me.
What? Why is F5 a special case here and what on earth does any of this have to do with Aaron Swartz.
>What if you are just fed up of waiting for a site to reload and press F5 a number of times?
Did you intend to bring it down? Was it obvious that your activity would bring the site down? If answer to both is "No" then you're fine, this is how most laws work.
>And what about the (probably majority of) instances where the "attacker" is simply a person who unknowingly downloaded malware onto their computer to get free smileys or whatever?
Why are you even asking? If someone else commits a crime you're obviously not at fault...
Also, what was even supposedly wrong with the Swartz case? It was on solid ground both legally and morally, shame he never gave the courts a chance.[1]
[1]: Might as well expand on this a little so I don't get hidden by downvotes. I don't think Swartz deserved to go to prison, but given that he intentionally violated the law it's hard to argue that he shouldn't have been charged.
F5 is a special case here because it is the exact same action that a law-abiding person does. The reason I'm stressing the F5 case is because saying "Hey you pressed F5 with this motive, so you go to jail" is equivalent to thoughtcrime – you're being punished for your thoughts rather than your actions.
Now if someone is using tools specially built for DoS I don't have a a problem with them being prosecuted.
That is also a problematic definition. I recall similar arguments being made against "nmap"; should we ban nmap, or criminalize its use? I also remember when Dan Farmer was fired for simply writing a security scanner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Administrator_Tool_fo...), using the same reasoning.
If you figure out how to build a 600Gbps DDoS attack with Firefox, you are correct, that still qualifies as a DDoS and you can go to jail for it already. People have been tried in court for using Low Orbit Ion Cannon before, in a few extremely isolated instances. A DDoS is a DDoS, but intent is obviously important, and you do need to actually cause a problem for there to be a crime. I think clicking reload a couple times would be a stretch here for enforcement, perhaps it's possible but AFAICT it's not yet happened.
But we aren't talking about protest with a reload macro here, these are for-profit criminal botnets. And one if them just took down the largest DDoS mitigation network in the world. Which means there aren't many sites on earth left they can't take down. Much smaller attacks have nuked Github for days. Who's next to get "freedom of speeched"?
I think a better solution is to have ISP s work together to warn and cut off access to botnet infected computers. They have the technical ability because they have strikes for copyright. Perhaps it could be a soft ban like an hour long ban or something.
But if two billion people decide to stay at home and continuously press F5, you should get freedom of speeched. I think that's the equivalent of a picket line. Not talking about automated tools other than "refresh page every second".
"I will send DDOS for $xxx, send paypal to ###@example.com"
That's the the extremely unpopular speech that you're proposing to censor. The instant you say "oh but that's different" because of the contents of the speech, you're interjecting your own opinion about that speech.
Which, actually, is fine, but don't play that off as not being speech.
At the level where Cloudflare's network isn't actually being used to send the DDOS attack itself, it's also still speech.
Cloudflare will close accounts when asked, backed by court order. The problem is on today's Internet, that's nigh impossible, which realistically means it falls to Cloudflare to interject an opinion on what's good and bad, but so far they've avoided that as effectively as an ostrich burying it's head in the sand, and so are effectively supporting many bad actors.
While I understand your position, the particular line you quote is not protected as 'free speech' because it's advertising to sell a criminal act for money ... I could be wrong.
Protecting unpopular organizations is taking a principled stand for free speech. Protecting people who profit from breaking people's web services is not.
"We don't take it down unless it's illegal" is a simple policy, but to be a good policy it needs judgment as well.
