skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The FDA is not bad. The world has never had a shortage of liars, scammers, or snake oil salesmen. The term snake oil itself hearkens back to salesmen who would promise "medicines" to desperate people to con them out of their money.

Allowing trials to be bypassed and allowing people to pay for early access to unproven drugs would bring a flood of such be vendors and be bad for society, bad for medicine, and bad for ethics.
I just noticed they want to siphon as much as they could from the majority - The ones with less richer thank them
I really sympathize with the author and feel his position has great moral clarity.

Wish there was some country or state where you could try more freely.
Any time the government combines two alphabet groups rather than creating a new one is a win in my book.
But there is a whole spectrum between the densities of super low-density rural Tennessee and hyperdense NYC-like places and I find the ideas for something in-between are largely unexplored in practise because of various reasons.

The argument of closeness of amenities prioritizes a consumption-based lifestyle over building good nests for humans (and little humans) to actually live in. Let's take your example, where you said people don't like to walk 1 km to a small convenience store -- is the assumption somehow that walking 1 km to reach the tiniest park is something people would like?

As for jobs, I'd say very, very few people live in a city next to their jobs. They have to commute in one way or another. This seems to fall mostly between 10 minutes to 60 minutes when discussing with people. Time-wise I'd say this range is aligned with a smaller town/city (either a job in the town/city, or in another town/city).

And speaking of enjoyment, to be honest I'm not convinced many people in big cities really enjoy it. I'd wager to say that most people generally would enjoy a less noisy and overall cleaner environment where nature is nearer than concrete. Not everyone, but most.

My childhood town (in Northern Europe) is 31 people/km2. It's overall about 80 k people (lots of empty space). Density-wise it's probably something like your rural Georgia but everything one needs is there, plenty of shops and businesses of all kinds and even some variety in restaurants (believe it or not). Quite many people could actually do with a bicycle or a bus, but in practise people have a car because of winters and four seasons and because buses don't run all the time and reach everywhere. So then, for example, most people do groceries once a week and drive that 3-10 km to the grocery store or mall concentrations. But based on my experience, they would likely do exactly the same thing in a bigger city too, since the inner-city core grocery stores are more expensive with less variety.

Also, there's a spectrum between bare grass or wild forest... For example, where I live now one might have a "wild" forest designated as a "park", and someone from the municipality just cuts away the hanging branches, windsnaps and such and ensures the paths don't grow shut. It's very low effort and cost. Once in like 5-15 years they might cut some more growth of trees so there's more sunlight everywhere. This type of "park" does not have manicured golf course like grass areas and fountains and so the per year per area cost are much smaller.

So it's not about the cake and eating it, it's about having a different kind of cake.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the link!

Edit: PS. I followed your link now; the concept of Neighbourhood Park is a neat one. That is kind of what I mean, more of that, not necessarily with golf course lawn. Also, the "John F. Collins Park in Philadelphia" looks great!
It's an electron app, so I guess at least 1GB of RAM.
> So we'll consider the possibility of changing the serialization format after researching this more.

I asked Brendan Eich if JavaScript will ever change the way it represents floating point numbers (from 64-bit IEEE 754 values), and he said no ("don't break the Web"). And to represent larger bit values in JSON you're supposed to use a JSON string and schema to specify the type. I'm not sure exactly what he means by that, but I assume it means something like using JSON keys like "<BigInt>mykey" and string values instead of number values. Then manually parsing the string into whatever native 128-bit type or whatever representation you have.

So - JSON still seems to be the favorite here, but I totally get the anxiety around it because of how under-specified it is. If you avoid re-serialization nothing should break.
Yes that's exactly the problem here. Not only was it canceled with out remedy, he was only given a cryptic reason.
AWS copilot has been very useful for me. It's their cli that tries to simplify integration (and give useful defaults) when you are setting up these services.

I recommend it for anyone who is starting getting into AWS.
I'm so glad that as an individual I didn't use a number that was important when registering .us. To everyone else, take this as a warning!

Given that .us doesn't allow privacy, there's apparently a huge market for web designers and the like to watch registrations and use this as a 'lead generator'.

I have never received as much spam as I did after registering two .us domains. Thankfully, I used a number I can safely ignore
Win95's ActiveDesktop was pretty cool. But only for a while. Same here I'd bet.
This could change if there was enough political pressure. Easier said then done, but it should be done.
I remember at least three instances in my country where the authorities were forced to allow people to use experimental treatments due to media clamor.

In all three instances, the result was that the treatments were snake oil and people died that might have lived otherwise.

It's easy to say "people who have no other options should get access to experimental treatments" but the problem is that people who have other options want those too, because nobody wants to go through chemotherapy or whatever.

Medical authorities have a shitty job.
The text you're replying to is part of a long quote from the linked article, not a statement by the person you replied to.
Hydroxyapatite Toothpaste can prevent cavities as effectively as fluoride
“Existing superhuman Go AIs have hidden weakness–they don’t understand circles”
Nice diagram putting it all together. The proliferation of networking features in VPC over the years has been significant and at times confusing, and I work on VPC ;-)
It sounds like you might have a permissions issue. You can route issues created from Jira Service Desk to any board you want.
>- we lose contact with people because they get locked out of their email

I've been locked out of my email because Google insists that "we don't recognize your device", and locked out of my other accounts because my phone was stolen, not because I didn't remember my password.

People forgetting passwords isn't a problem that's solved with other schemes. It's a problem that's exacerbated by them.

>- we pay more in bank account fees to subsidise fraud compensation

Bank account fees, seriously? I can't remember the last time I've paid any.

In any case, worrying about saving the banks a few bucks is dead last on my list of worries.

>- we have our personal information stolen because others chose weak passwords

If our info can be stolen because someone else chose a weak password, the weak password isn't the problem. It's the system that was badly designed in the first place.

>Given how much we suffer from other peoples' poor choices,..

We don't.

>By analogy, we all benefit from fences by cliffs

The analogy doesn't hold because you have to first show that alternatives to passwords are better for the users, even those in the category you mention.
> There is no online payment method I've seen that seems easier to me than just writing a check.

Autopay. I only pay one bill manually, twice a year, because they don't allow autopay (property taxes). Otherwise I just don't think about it.

Sure, you may not like autopay for whatever reason, but that's a choice. The option is there.
I wonder - both in this specific case, and in general - if anyone here on HN has enough media/political reach to spread this message.

This case reminds me a lot of the FAA realizing that safety restrictions for toddlers would increase deaths as more people would drive. (https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/child_safety-Clau..., https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2003/10/97119/airline-infant-safet...)
If we block someones ability to try novel procedures, how is that any different from blocking their right to assisted suicide?
You completely missed my point.

An accountant may be dealing with finances but they are a very different role from that of a CFO.

In general you also don’t put an accountant “in charge”, period, just as you don’t put a sysadmin “in charge”. It doesn’t make sense.

It’s also untrue that financial people “inevitably” optimise for short term gains. Of all people they’re often the ones best placed to optimise for long term. But they don’t necessarily understand the heart of the business, so they shouldn’t be in charge either if it’s the case.
I <3 Eli‘s articles.
Non-tech people can use it with no issues, my whole company uses it. People just need to pay attention to what they are doing, and be organized. At the beginning it can be kinda painfull, but it's all worth it.
> USA rubber stamps probably safe food items. Europe goes WTF how dare they think its safe.

> USA refuses to accept rubber stamp European experimental medication. Europe pikachu face
> Learning this stuff isn't technical knowledge, it's product knowledge.

Not really, and mostly I think you're looking at it through the lens of a different field. TCP/IP is going to be the knowledge useful to your network programmer. One of my college courses was networking: we covered networks, subnets, route tables, routing protocols (such as RIP, OSPF, BGP), NAT, etc. We did all this on actual hardware, and the course was heavily sponsored by Cisco (so much that by the end of the semester, you were CCNA certified). In that vein, yes, I picked up a lot of "product knowledge" on how Cisco products behave, 95% of which I've probably forgotten. But that was to give us hands on experience, and the underlying concepts translate well into Azure, AWS, or GCP. These cloud VPCs are mostly virtual analogs to the real deal, much like how VMs are analogs to a real machine. If you understand a real machine, a VM (and associated resources like cloud disks or NICs) aren't going to be that mysterious.

In particular, NAT confuses the living daylights out of people. But, that's almost to be expected. More down to earth, many eng struggle with CIDR notation, or even — but this gets back to your stuff — TCP (e.g., they think that a send() will send the passed buffer as a unit, or that a recv() will always receive a full "message" of some sort; most eng struggle to understand the difference between connection timeouts and peer resets, and when one can happen and the other cannot).

The dark side of this coin is that I really wish I didn't need a lot of this knowledge; it is a lot of junk. IPv6 makes networks so big that a lot of network planning and subnet sizing and "will it have enough room to grow but also not exhaust the range?" just goes away. NAT can die in a cold icy hell. If I could never see another VPN in my life, that'd be cool. (Just use TLS, for the love of everything dear.) I could also do away with cloud firewalls using IP addresses as a form of auth, and delivering misleading errors when triggered. (Azure is horrid at this.)

(I do hope that most products are technically simple enough to not need much of this knowledge. If you do TLS, you shouldn't need to be doing VPCs, non-default route tables, network peering, etc. I'm in a field where we integrate with a lot of people who have no desire for technical simplicity.)
It would be an extraordinary disaster to kick that regulation back to the states.

Florida would probably outlaw all mRNA technology. Their FDA would refuse to approve any mRNA-based therapies, and so on.

We have seen the disaster that approach can cause in healthcare, insurance, abortion (reproductive health broadly), gay rights, etc. It's insane that we have state by state drivers licensing as an example that is merely highly inconvenient.

It's not a good thing that doctors and nurses are regulated at the state level. It's a horrible thing that contributes to the US healthcare system's vast dysfunction.
Botox may also be a helpful tool against seizures: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28475998/#:~:text=After%20bo....
Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context.

I usually avoid analogies of HN as you are often called out on the technicalities of them. And you are right that can often damage an argument.

However, I have argued that changing peoples behaviour, even when their current behaviour is bad for them, is often impossible despite all evidence, from the beginning.
I don't recommend letting a piece of meat reaching so high a temperature!

I'm just saying that if you plunge it directly into oil at 180°C, that's what's going to happen.

Nobody does this for "cooking", but you can try to do it, as an experiment.
Because they might make mistakes? See: thalidomide
I think if you do an encrypted itunes backup to your mac, they should remain signed in
That's a point of view that would change quickly if you were in one of those management positions.

You get to a point where it's impossible to do the work anymore. There's too much of it. You have to develop teams, processes, structure, etc. that delivers the outcomes you're accountable for with full knowledge that you cannot do them yourself. It's very different than doing the work and experience shows that fewer people are capable of doing it, especially with any repeatability. The working world yearns for effective managers.

I encourage you to compare the productivity of the modern multinational corporation to any commune in history. The people working in collectives are not stupid or lazy. It's not an effective structure.
Someone else at the time had posted a let me GPT that response to someone's question which for me provided a very unclear response, I was re-prompting to get a more simplified explanation and it gave something that seemed helpful to me, so also to the question raised, no one else at the time had otherwise answered. I don't generally use GPT responses in comments hence why I noted in this case it was a GPT response and not my own.
in the context of pensions, "tax on companies" generally means "increasing the employer part of social charges" (as apposed to the employee part). The French system requires that the various social systems operate as separate funds, at equilibrium, and does not foresee paying shortcomings from general revenues such as VAT or income tax.

Hence, increasing the employer part of social charges increases the cost of work.

Anyway, the direct tax burden on French companies is already quite high. This means that French companies have difficulties competing with foreign companies. Mutatis mutandis they either raise the price to compensate (and so are more expensive) or keep the same price and lose margin (and have therefore lower capacity to invest).

Countries can fix tax levels as they want (it's one of few policy areas where European countries have full autonomy) but they can't use tariffs or import taxes to protect their market. We have all agreed to free trade, and the WTO will punish those who do. So in reality, you can't just tax any way you want, unless you want to destroy part of your local economy.
This has been a common complaint for decades. We always want to try rush experimental drugs/procedures that “show promise”.

How often do these drugs, etc turn out to effective? 25 years ago we wanted to rush gene therapy and that didn’t turn out well. Someone died. It probably set back gene therapy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81135/

I think the solution is to invest more into medical research now, then when we, or someone we know, eventually ends up with some horrible disease, (cancer(s), Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc) we’ll know that we at least we made significant effort, and gave everyone a better chance, rather than settle for a “Hail Mary” drug near the end.
> Fewer cases or fewer cases that can be discovered? Who's going to verify actual change to a better, less corrupt FBI?

Fewer cases. Congress. https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/who-monitors-or-oversees-the-...

> They have never been reigned in and have never been given a reason to stop these practices

The Church Committee led to the creation of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Believing that the FBI is unstoppable demonstrates both a fundamental misunderstanding of checks and balances and democratic government as well as an unfamiliarity with history.
For various workflows, the only viable solution is to remote desktop into my workstation and run the browser there. SSH isn't enough. And don't get me started on the disaster of trying to do things locally (Cmd+C) and remotely (Ctrl+C) simultaneously or the awful experience of mixing screen DPI when connecting a linux laptop to external monitors...
I think the consideration that an article like this misses is the unintended consequences of speeding a process up / reducing the criteria for review, approval, etc.

I think we can all see incidents of where some oversight process is loosened because of some legitimate desire to help some, but then you learn that the bad / incompetent / exploitative actors come out of the woodwork to test and take advantage of the changing of rules. Not even saying intentionally, but just by sheer numbers, the change you made allowed things that were being held back by (hopefully proper) regulation to now happen.

Anyway, not saying that the FDA and other bodies couldn't move faster -- that is always the case. And there will always be examples of people/cases stuck in the cracks with legitimately sad situations.

But I would hope that people reading such stories think about why there is a process. It's not like the FDA's purpose in life is to stop people from benefitting from new treatments. It's to prevent the flood of bad effects of companies/individuals from being able to say they offer some drug that doesn't work in the way it says it does.
The Fireball
Do you get one of those m2 coral to click in there?
I largely agree with you but imo this is a bad example

> their own show creators having zero royalties — look at the squid game financials

The economics of Kdramas (which is what Squid Games is) are different from that of American productions [0]. Netflix for example doesn't give residuals but is able to pay the entire production team way more than what Korean studios like Lotte, Myung, etc are able to with residuals.

A similar story happened with the rise of KDramas btw. In the early 2000s, JDramas became expensive when production houses like Sony started upping their pricing, which lead networks across Asia to start selecting cheaper dramas, which back then was Korean.

A similar shift is starting to happen again with the rising popularity of Chinese and Thai dramas (at least in ASEAN) which I feel is largely due to how their rights are now significantly cheaper than KDramas.

Imo, a similar shift also happened in OTT content in the US. Look at the "popular" (ie. Social media buzz) shows recently. It's either back catalogue shows like Community (#sixseasonsandamovie) or much cheaper produced European or Canadian shows like Kim's Convenience, Schitt's Creek, Downton Abbey, Peaky Blinder, Outlander, etc.

[0] - https://factsanddetails.com/korea/South_Korea/K-Dramas_Telev...
I appreciated the approach in https://sabrinajewson.org/blog/errors
I think it's a boiling frog scenario. AWS's goal is marketshare, not simplicity. Like many professional software products, it started simple by necessity and then grew more complex over time. In AWS's case it ballooned pretty quickly due to the compelling nature of fully-managed on-demand infra services and the huge amount of resources Amazon poured into it.

The value add for not having to directly interact with hardware is still pretty high, but you definitely pay a price (in addition to the sticker price) for it in terms non-transferable vendor-specific knowledge.
I was very happy to see a recap of all the basics. Sometimes, with new crates coming and going, I worry/imagine I may be falling behind on the latest "rustic" ways to handle certain things like this.
That sounds like plain envy to me, and it's not bizarre (although it might well be unhealthy) to be envious of those with better opportunities than you. As for whether that is associated with being a problematic employee, well, problematic can also mean profitable when envy is a powerful motivator.
I suspect it is mostly who supports build machines desktop support or network support.
No one is advocating for "pay for access" or a means of bypassing trials that facilitate a "flood of [scammers]", so this is a straw man. You'd have to show why any design for relaxing regulation of trials is necessarily bad in aggregate.

The article even cites a case where the bureaucrats are confident in the safety of a trail drug but unable to approve for political reasons.

Not to mention the FDA allows plenty of snake oil supplements, etc. to be sold, so it's not particularly good at the goal you claim it's optimizing for.
Somewhat famously the US not doing this stopped Thalidomide being such a large issue in the US, but of course one example of it failing doesn't mean it is inherently bad policy.
Most written history is "bunk" in that it's a long-after interpretation of events in the context of what we know today. That's why Turing features heavily -- because he's a colorful character about which many books have been written and movies made that people watch today. But Tommy Flowers is never mentioned.

The computer wasn't really invented at all. It evolved from earlier things in a step-wise manner. There were computing machines for decades prior. E.g. before WW1 there were sophisticated gunnery computers that could fire shells taking account the vector velocity of a ship, wind, distance measured optically, movement of the attacking ship. Boolean logic was used in telephone switching systems. Boolean circuits already existed both in electromechanical form (relays) and electronics (vacuum tubes|valves). So when Turing decided he needed a machine to do so and so calculations on some kind of data, Flowers didn't need to invent Boolean logic nor design Boolean circuits -- those already existed off the shelf. Teleprinters existed. Paper tape existed.
> Why are medicines regulated federally? As I understand it (and IANAL) doctors, pharmacists and nurses are regulated on a state by state basis.

Dr's typically practice in ~1 state while drugs are available in all states simultaneously.

Fifty states - of varying ability - trying to independently qualify all available drugs would be a nightmare of redundancy.
Thalidomide was widely approved, and I'm glad the FDA didn't rubber stamp it.
The FDA could create a standard consent form for nonapproved treatment that patients and doctors would sign, which would indemnify the physician from legal repercussions, but they don't, and they bear full blame for that. The AMA would still have its own regulations about the limits of ethical experimentation, with the revocation of a medical license as punishment to serious offenders, and malpractice safeguards could still be there. State laws about gross medical negligence are also an option.
The author seems to forget that entering a trial doesn't necessarily give you access to the treatment. You have as many chances to be in the control group receiving a placebo.

And as bad, sad and frustrating as it sounds to someone in a desperate situation, it is for the greater good of many more human beings, protecting us from snake oil.
Because it then becomes a kind of race to the bottom, where all manufacturers will approve medecine in the easiest country, a bit like flag on convenience for ships