skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You host only data that can be e2e encrypted. Then you don't need to monitor anything because you physically can't.
Couldn't this be solved by getting doctors' opinions? If docs says "This person's only chance of survival at the moment is chemotherapy, and it has a good chance of saving their life.", then, refuse the experimental treatment.

But if the docs say "With our current medical knowledge, this person is destined to die within $TIMEFRAME.", then, if the patient consents to try anything, even if it kills them earlier, why not?
Too true. I’ve come to particularly dislike the way we design computing devices and interfaces. They ruin our bodies and require exceptions to accommodate people with different capabilities. And to afford those accommodations is a privilege many do not have access to.

The best thing we can do is spend less time in front of them.
To sibling commenters: immunotherapies aren't the only problem. There are a ton of truly evil companies out there pushing therapies that do not work, have never worked, and will never work, because they literally have no possible mechanism to ever do anything. This is a crime, but it's very very hard to prove.

And these companies get very good at gaming the system, because that is their product. They are mechanisms to commit fraud, stealing all their patients' money and all their families' hope. This is a very bad thing. And, no, I am not making any of this up, but I dare not name names here. These companies also tend to be litigious!

The impact of this is extremely severe. First, people die because they choose a truly worthless treatment that can never work, over bad ones that at least had a snowball's chance. Second, people lose faith in The System, because they think that the fraudulent treatments should have worked, so they lose faith in the good ones too. And third, R&D efforts can get redirected away: rare condition X already has a treatment, so let's put our efforts elsewhere (oh wait, no it doesn't, that was fraud, now there will never be a treatment).

We will not untangle the experimental treatments issue until we confront this problem. Just do not think that it is all in "good faith" here, or even "best effort": there is real fraud going on, committed by monsters that know exactly what they are doing to take their profit.
House on Loon Lake (2001)
Pulling on this thread a bit, when I get a new set top box, most of the apps have a url or a QR code you can use to copy your session to a new machine. You could just do that for all machines and have no cookies at all. iOS even has some ways to make that a bit easier.

For some apps this would suffice. But for apps we use to live our lives, what do you do when someone has no access to their devices and they need to log in to a fresh device? Some apps will need passwords, or some other mechanism to prove you are who you say you are. But then you can leverage those apps to get back into your other apps in the case of, say, a fire.
Ah, I hadn't heard of that. It looks like one of my 2 servers is back up again, but the other continues to have issues. I think it's probably unrelated because the errors have been changing over the past day, and they usually come back immediately.
Would these be cocaine experts or shark experts? I always wondered what the journalistic bar is when calling someone an expert.
Not having some level of “right to try” is abhorrent.

Having said that there are two elements that I’m not quite sure how to adjudicate 1) where does one draw the line with regards to how sick someone needs to be to qualify for right to try, and 2) how do ensure that patients are actually getting a treatment with some resonance likelihood of success as opposed to some snake oil?
I voted this post down because it reads like an incoherent LLM creation.
Aren't most video games still following this rule?
> There's not really a good reason for a user to be able to set their own password unless they want to set their password to something lower in entropy to make it memorable, or reuse it between sites, both of which are deviations from the “best practice” password safe usage model.

Yeah, but at the same time if you keep loosing access to your accounts because you can’t remember your password, you are just 1FA with your email or phone number. Might as well then skip passwords entirely and use sign in via phone or email.
Want to try again without a straw man?
linear ui has better performance imo
> Why do we get to decide what is and isn't worth the risk?

It's not their risk to take. Getting a drug to market is a complex process that can be derailed by any number of mistakes ranging from the mundane like improper blood draw during clinical trials to the tragic like accidental deaths that puts public pressure on the FDA to shut it down or spook away investors. Any hiccup in this process can kill it and once a patent expires, the chances of someone bringing that drug to market is almost zero, regardless of its efficacy.

The vast majority of drugs and therapies are developed via private investment and many companies go public before they make even a cent of revenue to fund the clinical trials. Public sentiment is the driving force behind their stock prices because they're literally forbidden from making money until the FDA approves their drug. Lots of them go bankrupt every year before finishing clinical trials or releasing a product and rushing the process is quick ticket there.

Patients don't get to put at risk the decades of good a drug can do because they're desperate and afraid of dying.
Important to emphasize that passkeys are phishing resistant. Unlike passwords that allow you to copy and paste them to a website (hmm, auto complete isn’t working on this broken website, I can just go find it and paste it in — boom phished).
https://archive.li/LayID
The Jacob Schwartz mentioned at the end is he of SETL fame.

Edit: > Knowing fully the possibilities which the machine affords, [the honest programmer] will nevertheless not allow himself to indulge in ... laziness implying reckless expenditure of computational resources. This essentially aesthetic relationship of the programmer to his work constitutes a most effective safeguard against the mindless accumulation of software inefficiencies, which ... would cheat the consumer and lose for us the full power of machines.

sadly, this aesthetic of parsimony is no longer as prominent as it may have been 50 years ago!
What do you even mean by that?

Their ideas are perfectly coherent and consistent within their own framing. Just because you look at the world through a different frame, doesn't mean that these people are saying things that are unreasonable
>How often do these drugs, etc turn out to effective?

This is a big point a lot of people ignore. I feel terrible for the author, but if there hasn't been a single drug invented so far that has any real chance of curing him, it's extremely unlikely that this one out of reach drug is going to be the drug that can save his life. I don't really know much about medicine, but I'm pretty sure that progress is usually incremental as well, so you start out with drugs that cure some patients and work from there instead of having some massive breakthrough.
Maybe shared local storage should be a browser standard. Let me keep track of my own data, but also share it with my tablet and phone by clicking a bunch of buttons.
If you cannot trust your belief system then maybe you should change it, instead of calling yourself an NPC.

It's clear circumstance and your memory will impact your present - that doesn't mean you did not choose to reply to my comment with your thoughts.

The whole point of a belief system is for it to correlate with reality and truth, and if there's an obvious contradiction in it, it clearly doesn't.
The reality of cancer is a bit paralysing to anyone who has had direct exposure to it and there is nothing really overstated about it in the common sense of culture. Everyone’s fight is different, because there are so many paths to take and they keep changing as research advances, but the time available is limited. Besides being restricted, cancer drugs are also notoriously expensive, but for the more self-determined individual there is the option of off-shore pharmacies (many based out of India) and perhaps even Chinese chemical labs (anything on AliBaba must be assumed to be completely unreliable; however, some of the labs which are referenced by scientific papers as suppliers are actually happy to do business after only a little bit of social engineering). Unfortunately this approach is limited to relatively simple pharmacological interventions; anything that requires complex medical procedures (including palliative care) and has to happen in a hospital will require normal legal compliance and the cooperation of a doctor. There are stories of people who have gone far and beyond to enrol into cutting edge clinical trials [1] – usually with the energetic support of a loved one. In those cases, even with the consent of a doctor, the logistics and expenses aren’t trivial. There is much to say in general about the questionable role of institutions who gate-keep access to medical procedures under the pretext of protecting reckless consumers – but it wouldn’t feel right to steer the conversation too much away from cancer.

> This makes it nearly impossible for patients to find an appropriate clinical trial, discouraging all but the most stubborn–people like Mike Hindt, and people like Stephanie Florence. By her own admission, Florence, 44, a photographer living in Lewiston, Idaho, had to “bulldoze” her way into a trial by being persistent to the point of obnoxiousness.

> When she found out she was a candidate for a new trial, she also learned another hard truth: trials don’t come to patients. Patients have to go to the trials.

> In August, she and her husband drove from Raleigh to Boston, despite having no place to stay. After a week in a hotel room paid for by their daughter, they wrote about their circumstances on a community blog. Several people in the area offered the couple rent-free housing during Price’s treatment. In order to pay for food and other expenses, the couple are trying to sell their home, and Price’s husband, laid off from his job at IBM, took a couple of part-time shifts a week at the outdoor-apparel store REI.

[1] https://time.com/4270345/immunotherapy-pembro-clinical-trial...
If you cannot convince people to buy v2, then clearly the updates aren't worth the cost of making them.

Except for security upgrades, I feel like most software rapidly hits a point where the upgrades aren't worth it.
Is this similar to Novamin ingredient in Sensodyne toothpaste? The product also contains fluoride though.
Would you recommend Miro Samek's Practical UML Statecharts in C/C++ a good book to learn this technique from ?
Do you have the citations for the three instances where "people died that might have lived otherwise."?

In this person's case, he will not live otherwise, so he has nothing to lose by trying an experimental therapy, although it appears to be too late anyway. Very sad.
> Even if you want the experimental treatment, you cannot get it.

Says who? In terminal truly no-option diseases (e.g. glioblastoma multiforme) it’s pretty easy to get access to experimental therapies on compassionate grounds.

The challenge in this particular case brings us to:

> Killing someone in an attempt to help is deeply unethical, while merely letting them die is not your fault.

This is a false dichotomy. What’s unethical is offering experimental therapy with ?? effect when there are evidence based palliative treatments (e.g. conventional chemotherapy) with proven overall survival benefit.

In cases where an experimental therapy has at least some limited evidence (i.e. suggestion it might work) it’s quickly approved and pushed into clinical pipelines, osimertinib/Tagrisso for lung cancer is a recent example of such a treatment.

No one is advocating or suggesting we just let people die.
Can you explain why it is not the case everything happens at random? Why these particles seem to follow physical laws?

Realism/Anti-Realism has no bearing to the matter. I personally think mathematics is a priori and non-causal, and not necessarily correspondent to the real world. This would imply I'm technically an anti-realist. Certain mathematics correlates to the real world, others do not and are simply (interesting) mathematical structures.

Neither viewpoints can explain why certain mathematical statements actually correlate to reality. Mathematical entities are not causal - they do not have any causal connection to the real world since they are (obviously) abstract.

Maybe a good place to start thinking about this problem would be to read Wigner's work "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".
Hey we are building a similar tool at HoneyHive AI, I would love to chat with you to hear how you have built it at your company.
It’s unfair to call treatments untested. Medications are tested extensively. The FDA could work with sponsors to come up with a range of risk profiles and expand access.
I kinda wish we could migrate completely off Jira and just start using GitLab issues instead. Unfortunately that's probably a fat chance when GitLab wants to charge us $99/month/user if we want to grant non-developers access to our GitLab. Jira is like $15/month/user.
On my Phillips MSX2, I had MSX-DOS, with an office suite called E.A.S.E. , also made by Philips

It had all the apps, wordprocessor, spreadsheet, database, charts.

I think there was also a DTP application, dynamic publisher
Retaliation against H-1B employees who report violations or cooperate with investigations can result in debarment from the H-1B program. Is that what you mean by snitching? Or are you confused about who gets reported and investigated?
I know a couple people who are tenure track professors at R1 universities. The amount of work they put in is absurd, and they would probably be directors at most big companies. 80 hour weeks is a norm for them
In some ways it's worse. Most academia jobs are more like internships then they are actual jobs because of tenure etc.
> First, people die because they choose a truly worthless treatment that can never work, over bad ones that at least had a snowball's chance.

Like Steve Jobs.

Fruit juice kills people.
Holy christ how did AI make it even in this conversation!?!
If the mathematics is not a priori, one must explain why it is the case particles follow particular mathematical laws instead of moving about randomly without any particular logic to them.
How do these elementary particles know what to do and have always known?
At first I thought this would be about technical habits, but I’m glad it’s actually about longevity.
The idea that email isn’t secure but is a key link in the registration and password reset flow always strikes me as odd.

Passkeys can’t come soon enough, and email providers better make sure they are never compromised.
I find there are generally two reasons people pick apart argument structure rather than deal with an argument's content. The first is to point out fallacies or rhetorical devices which are invalid or illogical. The second is because they realize their position is too weak to confront it directly.
I used to get debilitating monthly headaches, they faded and stop happening over a few years with no change in diet or lifestyle. The brain is very strange
Top Tractor Companies in 2023
We will take the list from bottom to top sequence ( from 8th position to 1st position), to make it more interesting.
8) New Holland Tractor.
7) John Deere Tractor.
6) Eicher Tractor.
5) Escorts ( Kubota) Tractor.
4) Sonalika Tractor.
3) Swaraj Tractor.
2) Massey Ferguson Tractor.
1) Mahindra Tractor
First of all, Twitter does not support IPv6.

Secondly, if they would, they could simply rate limit by the first x chars of the address.
Strongly agree.

Design Workflow:

- spend little time making a couple design decisions -- lots of handwaving and "we'll figure it out"

- bind these decisions, then write a tiny app to see what it looks like. What are the technical consequences? What are the business consequences (including risks)? How does this affect development?

- repeat 2-4x. The goal is to maximize speed of feedback, at the cost of minimal scope and low quality. That's fine.

- iterate more, expanding the scope and quality as needed

- you're done!

Use high-level diagrams to help focus the effort. This dramatically helps discussions with stakeholders and developers.

Source: writing a book on feedback loops
Who on earth would you be beholden to people who trained against a 0.9 release? That's on THEM.
Let us say that there is nothing beyond death, does that really mean that life is ultimately pointless? I'd argue that the idea that there is nothing beyond death is what makes life all the more meaningful. We are only going to get one shot at all of this, we better make it count.

From this I derive the motivation to work hard at what I do and ultimately try to contribute to the problems we face as a species before I pass. It also makes me appreciate the raw human connection that we can all experience: love, passion, friendship.

I may not be the one to light the altar of discovery that allows us to say, cure cancer or become a spacefaring species, but I will proudly carry the torch and pass it on.
Some games are zero sum and some aren't. Everyone is more secure if a large bank replaces 2FA over unencrypted SMS, even though some may be inconvenienced.

Leveling down on everyone's security in exchange for usability for a segment of the population is not a realistic long-term strategy.
It was really quite the let down of an article. All that build up, then basically nothing about how adaptive rate limiting would be implemented in practice, how expensive it would be, what it requires, the challenges it involves, etc.
Is Ada really as good as its touted to be? How good is the cross compilation, metaprogramming and FFI story?
So your solution is to just make it a walled garden. What about the scraping bots who simply log-in?
>I think the solution is to invest more into medical research now,

The author is arguing that terminally ill people (with a few months left to live) -- like him -- would be willing participants in trials to help medical research. They already know that mRNA drug or whatever likely won't cure them. It's possible some new scientific knowledge of the drugs' effects can still be gained even when it doesn't cure them.

Given the realistic odds, the primary purpose (from society's perspective) of letting of terminal patients participating in unproven drug trials would be medical research rather than "Hail Mary cures". From the patient's perspective, of course they hope it improves their health.
My interpretation of beyond corp is about creating a very small inner parameter where only the prod machines have access - and those “airgapped” super-admin laptops that the article talks about.

99% of dev and admin work then takes place outside that perimeter, outside the VPN, by authenticating machines and encrypting traffic with TLS.
Since you will always expect compromised machines and bad actors in this area outside the inner perimeter, a four-eyes principle for any critical actions, such as code changes and configuration changes, is necessary.
huh thats exactly what google says.

you’re right though, I think this is still limiting as it gets to currently obscure things, liability concerns for the physician if something goes wrong, or what insurance will cover. so its still hit or miss for the patient
Just looked them up and found some on Amazon from $17-40ish depending on brand, length, and probably other factors.

I had no idea these were a thing!
Except you literally can't do random distribution AND be compliant with UUIDv7 if you use any sort of normal lexical sorting/indexing, as they use the start of the key as the most significant bits. UUIDv7 is literally designed to have stable lexical sorting orders, have the time as the most significant bits, and have the most significant bits of the time as the most significant bits of the key! It's their primary design criteria!

You can't 'prioritize' random parts of a key for sorting without writing a bunch of custom sorting (and key parsing) logic, which is generally undesirable for a number of reasons - and frankly completely unnecessary in these cases. You just wouldn't use UUIDv7 (or probably a UUID in general), and the benefits would pay for themselves very quickly anyway.

To quote the UUIDv7 RFC:

"This document presents new time-based UUID formats which are suited for use as a database key." (as the first line of the abstract)

"Due to the shortcomings of UUIDv1 and UUIDv4 details so far, many widely distributed database applications and large application vendors have sought to solve the problem of creating a better time-based, sortable unique identifier for use as a database key."

"- Timestamps MUST be k-sortable. That is, values within or close to the same timestamp are ordered properly by sorting algorithms.

- Timestamps SHOULD be big-endian with the most-significant bits of the time embedded as-is without reordering.

- Timestamps SHOULD utilize millisecond precision and Unix Epoch as timestamp source. Although, there is some variation to this among implementations depending on the application requirements.

- The ID format SHOULD be Lexicographically sortable while in the textual representation.

- IDs MUST ensure proper embedded sequencing to facilitate sorting when multiple UUIDs are created during a given timestamp.

- IDs MUST NOT require unique network identifiers as part of achieving uniqueness.

- Distributed nodes MUST be able to create collision resistant Unique IDs without a consulting a centralized resource."

[https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peabody-dispatch-new-u...]

I'm pointing out that for some systems, that makes UUIDv7 unsuitable because you WANT the keys to be randomly distributed to avoid hotspots. Using UUIDv7 in these situations will result in a single node receiving all writes (and all reads for a given time range), which in the dataset sizes I'm referring to is usually impossible to handle. No single node can handle that kind of load, regardless of how efficient it may be.

For other types of systems (such as single machine databases or 'tight' clusters of databases without extreme write loads), UUIDv7 and similar is great, as it allows easy/cheap write combining when that is actually possible for a machine to handle the load.
Wish I had a source but I've read Mr and Mrs Boole were both involved in the study of Indian mathematics, and that "Bool" as a datatype might be more true to its namesake if it included "maybe" or "null"
We all know that S in IoT stands for security.
UwU is a cute looking face which also sounds funny when pronounced

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwu
But posix_spawn is still implemented with fork/exec (or maybe vfork/exec) and as noted in the blog, has an unnecessarily complicated interface.
What would be a good, more academic overview of computing history? Do you have any specific book recommendations? I'd love to read a more "citation-based" version.
Extras are ordinary looking people, too. The director probably doesn't want them to outshine the stars.
Many websites and apps can do this, but explicitly do not in the interest of 'security' and 'anti-fraud'. Discord is a pretty bad offender of this.
I agree with you but I also understand the argument that being given the choice between certain death and uncertain death is a form of coercion
I thought that stuff just worked to strengthen authoritarian government's ?
The first was about having difficulty, the second about not liking it. Again, the (fuzzy, approximate) implication goes only one way: having difficulty breeds dislike, but dislike does not imply difficulty.

EDIT: you are correct I didn't word my original message correctly. Perhaps you have a point.
I knew him from the song, "Because I Got High..."
You graduate, get an external, preferably foreign post-doc, and return to interview for the next available position. Problem solved.