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

Fluoxetine is one of two medicines listed in WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for the treatment of depression since 2007 (use of other SSRIs are also allowed)[1]. The listing means it has proven to be safe and effective enough that WHO believes it should be readily available in every healthcare system. You will need much more than a Wikipedia article listing side effects for the entire drug class, without incidence rate, to convince people these drugs aren't what they seem.

Also relevant to this article, WHO since 2023 does not recommend Fluoxetine (or any antidepressants) for children younger than 12 years[2].

[1]: https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/17642505-ecd...

[2]: https://list.essentialmeds.org/recommendations/313


The WHO hardly is a reliable, neutral source. It's a political organization that's subject to all sorts of outside influences.


GrapheneOS lost me on PR. For every updates they post on their social media there's guaranteed to be a rant about how other projects are doing things Wrong. They talk down on any and every security- and privacy-related projects (or open-source projects in general) if they align even slightly out of line according to their idea of security and privacy, regardless of their own merit. Dig even deeper they also like throwing around the word "slander" and "attack" without backing it up. In fact I am certain I will be greeted with a friendly wall of text by somebody from GOS in this very thread sooner rather than later.

GrapheneOS is the most secure, arguably most private, hell the most feature-complete, user-friendly custom ROM (but they also hate the word "custom ROM") out there. I've imported a Pixel, because it wasn't available in my country, just to use GOS. So it is deeply frustrating that they are doing things the way they do. Hubris is their longest-standing, "wontfix"-labelled vulnerability.


FWIW I think its good to elaborate on how other projects are doing things incorrectly (though I agree the GOS people could use some diplomacy and decorum). For example, with the fairphones for the longest time the only answer you could get on why grapheneos doesn't support it is that the phone is not secure. That answer doesn't leave me informed, all it leaves me with is "someone on the internet told me it wasn't secure". For the newest fairphone 6 they actually elaborated and covered things like the lack of a secure element. That leaves me informed, so now I can look up what a secure element is, why I want it, and then make an informed decision for my next cellphone purchase.


I looked it up (as in spent a last few weeks going through the forum and PRs) and when they say "slander", it's backed up.

When they say other projects are insecure, this is for example because of the claims /e/OS based on the utterly insecure hardware and two major versions of AOSP, unpatched, is touting itself as a leading project in the privacy landscape.

I don't think they talk down any security - related project and I've never seen the generalised "they talk down on (...) open-source projects in general" - this is what I would myself call slander, because tbh it's dogs bollocks.

"Slander" or "attack" is said when there are baseless accusations (like above about attacking, quote, "any and every security-- and privacy-related project") because they don't have outlets or big money behind them which would simply state the facts and call out the accusations.

If you have examples of theese words "thrown" without basis (ie without sustained prior attacks on GOS), I'm sure every interested person would like to see it. If you wanted to show the examples of the innumerable privacy- or security-related projects that are _attacked_ by GOS, please share examples.

There are multiple so-called privacy and security related projects which are known for the sustained and baseless bad messages, and these don't get a pass, because it's clear it's intentional and in the bad faith.

Valuable projects and services are promoted and recommended based on merit and not favours (eg: they can argue based on facts why installing apps from accrescent or Google play store is generally safer than from the F-droid).

They don't hate the "custom ROM", they explain why it's a misnomer - and you using it here after saying they hate it (and either not knowing or not caring why it's wrong) is clearly an act in the bad faith :)

I struggle to see an attempt in the factual reporting in your post. The only thing I could connect over is their attitude in certain situations, but..... the rest of your post is just.... incorrect?


I don't need PR from my free mobile OS developer. I just need regular secure updates, which they seem to do a good job providing.


I'm a happy CalyxOS user for precisely this reason.


"I would use a thing but they were mean" doesnt seem like the amazing argument you might have thought it was.


The image indeed gives me a strong AI vibe, in particular the "Ghibli update." It's getting really hard to uncloak it by the day but those drab colours instantly throw me off.

(For the "real artists also can draw like that" crowd I don't think the OP is an artist and it has no credits.)


It assumes that you have a DE running and depends on features like D-Bus. So it's not designed to run headless except for building flatpak packages.


> it's already free software

I'd just like to interject here for a moment. The word Free Software has a specific meaning that AOSP does not meet. The only component of AOSF that is Free Software is the Kernel, due to GPL, and aside from low-level Android-specific modules such as binder there's no secret sauce in Android kernels; even the vendor modifications are mostly gutted out in favour of Project Treble and GKI. Everything else is only Open Source and not Free Software, and even then developed privately and only published upon release. Because nobody releases a pure AOSP phone (Google Play Services alone changes the OS behaviour dramatically, punching through all the usual app sandboxes) and the source code for the modification, it's effectively proprietary with open source components.


Which one of the four freedoms is not met by AOSP?

Don‘t Linux phones also rely on binary blobs?


My bad - I forgot that Free Software need not be copyleft. The point on Android still stands tho, and the freedoms on AOSP are decresing by the day as well.


You can either use: separate user accounts (needs context switching) or a new private space feature. Private space was introduced with Android 15 and can hide its existence (from the launcher).


There's somehow this belief that "newer models will disprove <insert LLM criticism here>" despite the "newer" models being... just a scaled-up version of a previous model, or some anciliary features tacked on. An LLM is an LLM is an LLM: I'll believe it when I see otherwise.


> The source is open. It can be seen, edited, run yourself.

I can also take and eat food from the supermarket without paying. I just have to pay later in multiples, get jailed, or both. Or not.


i am still able to see it; perhaps you're not a paying subscriber, which i (regrettably) am.

edit: yes you do need a phoronix premium or have been a forum member for 3+ years to view the thread.


Not sure about the forum member part, I've been onboard since 2019 and it shows the same error message on my end


Can you upload screenshots for archival purposes? Thanks


Unfortunately I have just cancelled my subscription, which has terminated my membership immediately. I don't want to reread the atrocious waste (or expose them to others) anyway.


Sounds like a good opportunity to save yourself some money.


Why?


Paying money that seemingly goes entirely to supporting a comments section dominated by trolls seems like a bad idea to me. YMMV I guess.


I do not get it. Money pays the creator of the website. That he does not have resources nor the desire to moderate the comments is a small detail.

I find nothing offensive in the comments I do not read, BTW.


it's unique, and it's not even that bad. you shouldn't compare this to the apple watches of the world when the screen itself could display 64 colours at best (monochrome at worst). the design language should line in perfectly with those from the pebble os. it's supposed to be quirky, not liking the looks of it just means you're not the target audience.


It's not the worst but the original Pebble Time Steel looks better IMO. I understand why they used a simpler case design (They don't have the resources to make anything like the PTS) but I still like the PTS design more. Maybe someone will come out with a custom case or something idk


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

Search: