Ate only 1000kcal in food. Added in 1400kcal in sugary drinks and 2000kcal in small bites of this and that (that don't need to be counted, because it's just one spoonful of peanut butter!)
If there really was a gene that allowed you to survive on substantially less food than your peers, pretty much all humans would have said gene. The history of humanity is rife with famine, and that gene would be a game-changer for survival
It's all about tradeoffs. In this case, I wonder if there's an "efficient metabolism" gene that makes your body put a higher percentage of incoming nutrients into long-term storage (mostly in fat tissue). Carriers of this gene would be more likely to survive a famine, but less likely to outrun a predator or defend against an attack by another leaner human, who's genes allocate incoming nutrients to be utilized more effectively in the short-term.
Look into Polynesian peoples. They survived long sea voyages, and are known to be generally large people in modern day. Like the guy at my high school whose nickname was "Big Tonga"
I think it’s quite the opposite because it would not be a gene that allows you to survive on less food - it would be a gene that favors replacing glycogen stores over lipid stores. That kind of mechanism would be pretty negative to survival until the modern era of sedentary civilization.
Samoan have a high degree of a particular variant of gene CREBRF that's highly associated with high BMI (see https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3620). Pop-Sci says it's an adaptation to the life in an island (might also be a founder effect?)
...don't we? According to [0], the amount of food (by energy intake) people get is very diverse worldwide. People can survive famine situations for a long time, and people' problems with obesity is linked to exactly those survival genes.
Granted, some animals are much better at it, crocodiles and bears and stuff can go without food for months.
The mystery is what happened between that phone call and the $100M ARR. The customer says "Can I get a PoC" but you don't actually have any code yet. You just hope your tech team is able to conjure whatever you were able to sell?
Enterprise software rollouts can take months to actually get started from the point of procurement.
This happened at one startup where the sales team bid on a RFP, won, and then had to build it while finalizing the deal.
(First cut ended up being trash and crashed as soon as the customer took it global. It was replacing a paper process and had worked fine in a small scale pilot with one sub org. Customer ended up going back to paper and it took 4 years to rectify and try again)
I'm still not entirely sure what exactly they were selling during the first year to get to that $100M ARR. Most customers expect to get quite a bit of functionality for $millions.
The use case is slightly different. I prefer to send read receipts, but I also like to peek at messages without sending them and removing unread counts because I want to add the message to my mental queue, but don't want the false impression that I didn't bother to answer the said message.
Ah, you want to read messages without letting the recipient know you've read the message, while still having read receipts enabled. I'm not surprised WhatsApp does not support this one, I think they want their users to be able to trust the read receipt indicators
Actually it supports that, via notifications and peek. The intent is not nefarious, as I said before. I don't want the person who sent me the message think that I read their message and just tossed to a virtual bin.
I just did it yesterday. Somebody sent me a message, and I read it via notification, but they don't have the receipt yet. I'll write their answer with a fresh mind, and send the answer they deserve.
I don't think valuing the person on the other end of the line is a bad thing.
"Maximum severity RCE" no longer means "unauthenticated RCE by any actor", it now means "the vulnerability can only be exploited if a malicious file is imported"
I like the idea of CVSS, but it's definitely less precise than I'd like as-is. e.g. I've found that most issues which I would normally think of as low-severity get bumped up to medium by CVSS just for being network-based attack vectors, even if the actual issue is extremely edge case, extremely complex and/or computationally expensive to exploit, or not clearly exploitable at all.
Probably because there are services (AKA web services, software listening on a network port, etc.) out there which accept arbitrary Parquet files. This seems like a safe assumption given lots of organizations use micro-services or cloud venders use the same software on the same machine to process requests from different customers. This is a bad bug and if you use the affected code, you should update immediately.
There's no such thing as CVE inflation because CVEs don't have scores. You're grumbling about CVSS inflation. But: CVSS has always been flawed, and never should have been taken seriously.
That doesn’t mean it’s actually the fastest tool for the real job. Programming is not text editing
reply