CuriousCosmic

> it's described as a wall, not a force that gradually grows stronger as you get closer. Forces don't work at distance like that.

It's described as a wall because it's not just running a straight line. The PP line creates an archway where the "wall" is located. That's where the field is most intense. It's noticeable elsewhere but that's the point where as indicated in the paper they can no longer push through it.

> You also have to suspend disbelief and imagine this force field didn't impact the equipment itself. We're supposed to believe that a grown man can't push up against the field at a distance away from the source, but the plastic film and machinery inside of the field are continuing to operate as usual?

This is also addressed in the paper. The lines can run 50-100% faster than it normally does but the faster they run it the more problematic the interference is. So during normal operation they limited it to 750-1000fpm.

Not just one thread.

ANTEC '97 Conference Proceedings, CRC Press, pages 1310-1313.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/SPE_ANTEC_1997_Proceedi...

The thread is based on a conference talk and journal publication that preceded it.

The reason this particular case hasn't been reproduced is just because it has no practical application, requires a lot of equipment, requires the equipment to be intentionally improperly operated risking damage or injury, and it's extremely expensive to test.

Nobody is going to willingly tool up an environment capable of running a mile of 20 foot wide PP film at a thousand feet per minute, then purposely ungrounding the equipment, and run it at 100+ F and 95+ % humidity for hours, days, or weeks. Just setting it up would cost millions of dollars and running it may cost millions more.

At least in lldb (the LLVM equivalent of GCC's gdb however gdb should also do this), types should be shown as their declared type rather than the fully expanded resolved type. At least as long as you are running with debug information attached.

This means if you are declaring types with `using` declarations they should be showing up as that type in the debugger.

In the source code? That's a skill issue not an IDE issue. If you have ugly types, you fix that in source code with `using` declarations.

This is the main repo for did:plc. The important section of the README is "Key Rotation and Account Recovery": https://github.com/did-method-plc/did-method-plc

This is a tool that allows you to create new recovery keys: https://github.com/renahlee/manual

Post about said tool: https://bsky.app/profile/renahlee.com/post/3lcbnab6rl22h

An article on how to do this manually: https://whtwnd.com/fei.chicory.blue/entries/How%20to%20get%2...

It's generally pretty sparse docs because everything is fairly "beta" still and because it is cryptography if you fuck it up you permanently lose control over your account forever. This is one of the reasons they don't advertise non-custodial recovery keys super aggressively.

And the protocol that is used for maintaining a ledger of key changes isn't exactly ideal or to my knowledge final but rather is in a "it's good enough until we douse the other fires" state.

Strictly speaking:

1. This is true for did:web but less true for did:plc identities.

2. For did:plc identities to survive a full "bluesky PBC" death, you'd need to to transfer master authority for your PLC identity to a set of keys you control. If you don't then ultimately bluesky PBC would still have final authority over your identity. But if you transfer control to your own keys ahead of time then you can use those keys to make changes long after bluesky PBC's death.

That's not actually true. If you host your data yourself with a PDS then everything continues to work. And your data is all stored in a big merkle tree so you can actually just back it up from the network and if bluesky shits itself you can upload it to your own PDS and continue as if nothing happened.

Same goes for identity (albeit in a different way)

Here's a link to the Massachusetts Dept of Transportation's guide on designing/building roundabouts:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-guidelines-for-the-planning...

It provides solid guidance on how roundabouts should approach crossings to minimize risk of accidents or collisions without impeding traffic.

Probably the best graphic is on page 45, figure 5-13

> No, he's a man who calls himself a woman. Anyone with eyes can see that, he is very clearly male.

That's just not true. What even makes you think that? Facial hair is not uncommon in women, deep voices are not uncommon in women, and sharper facial features are not uncommon in women. I'm not sure what you think is so "clearly male" about her but those were the only traditionally masculine features I could think of.

> What do you mean? Is your view of women really so shallow and sexist that you when you see a man wearing a skirt, you truly believe that he's a woman?

There's no reason to be impolite. Wearing feminine clothing is not a requirement to be a woman. Nothing about being a woman requires wearing feminine clothing. Even if she was wearing purely masculine clothing she'd still be a woman.

> Well he can't possibly be a mother, due to being a man

She could absolutely be a mother, she just may not be the birthing parent. In the exact same way a cis woman can be a mother to a child even if they weren't the one to give birth to them. And likewise a father can be the birthing parent. You see this commonly with trans men for example.

> and if you said that to women who complained about his presence they'd assume you were taking the piss.

People can complain about a person's presence all they want. It doesn't make them any less of a mother and it doesn't make it any less acceptable for them to be present. If they have a valid complaint then there can be a discussion but "they look wrong" or "I don't believe they are who they say they are" aren't valid complaints.

And I'm not sure how you think these types of discriminatory complaints are acceptable? Discrimination being acceptable against trans women doesn't just hurt them, it hurts cis women as well. Especially gender non-conforming women.

How do you think a new mother feels when people try to falsely accuse her of being a man when she's just trying to discuss her experiences and learn how to be a new parent? Who does that benefit?

My stance here is not complicated. You treat people with respect, you limit your assumptions, and if something isn't clear you politely ask. And for the love of god you don't needlessly exclude people. If the fear is that a group or minority will commit some crime or transgression, then you punish people for committing the crime or transgression. You don't punish people for being suspected of being part of a group/minority you are afraid might commit a transgression.

Yep. Hence the appeal of turning the intersection into a roundabout and pulling the stoplights 3-5 cars from the roundabout and only stopping traffic when pedestrians are present (i.e. puffin and pelican crossing style). It gives cars enough time to turn and then halt with a bright red stop light to catch their attention.

Ah yep. I'm mistaken there. I had read somewhere at one point that they were the second largest contributor to Chromium and made assumptions I shouldn't have. My apologies.

Yeah it's definitely marketing and users who win definitely aren't guaranteed to have been paying users anyways however lifetime proton plans historically have auctioned for tens of thousands of dollars and presumably whoever ends up owning those auctioned off plans intend on getting their money's worth out of them. So it's no guarantee of lost revenue but I'd be willing to bet the bulk of those plans get some heavy use.

Oh 100%. It's not a for sure thing but at the same time I know those plans also historically have been auctioned for a lot of money and as a result the people who end up with them tend to use them quite extensively.

And their cost is probably a decent bit lower than the sales price but given Visionary plans aren't sold directly any more to my knowledge, there's a chance the profit margin on those accounts dipped below a feasible amount and they've just kept the plan for existing users out of goodwill.

That all to say, those lifetime plans are definitely super expensive and probably make up a respectable amount of the raffle income but their exact cost to Proton themselves isn't exactly clear.

With soemthing like Neuro-sama I wouldn't doubt that Vedal is doing a lot of liftwork behind the scenes to keep sufficient context available to Neuro-sama's LLM.

Roundabouts aren't perfect but they greatly reduce the speed of traffic at the crossing point (while increasing the overall throughput of the intersection).

Without looking up statistics (and I'd love to be proven wrong here), I'd be willing to guess that roundabouts may result in some marginal increase in minor accidents but massively reduces fatalities or accidents that leave the pedestrian in the ICU.

Additionally with a roundabout the crossing can be moved a few cars down the street away from the roundabout itself so that cars can have line of sight to safely approach the crossing and pedestrians have time to react to incoming vehicles. On top of that proper placement of crossings allows a normal zebra crossing to be upgraded to a pelican, puffin, or toucan crossing without impeding flow of traffic within the roundabout.

To be pedantic they are giving away $150k of their own cash but they also provided 10 lifetime accounts which are visionary accounts that you never have to pay for.

Visionary accounts cost ~30 euro/month (assuming yearly subscription). That's currently more or less 30 USD/month and works out to 360 USD/year. Assuming those accounts get 60 years of use out of them that works out to 21600 USD in value/lost revenue. If you assume inflation of ~4% as a random number pulled out of my ass then that's 85k USD instead.

For 10 of those accounts that's 216k USD assuming no inflation and 850k USD assuming inflation.

So all in all that works out to closer to 360k USD in the naive case but more realistically it comes out to 1M USD flat with the inflation matched increase in service cost over that 60 year estimate.

Given this I don't think it's too terribly unfair to say that they are personally footing the bill. That's not to minimize the community's substantial contribution but the reward for this raffle realistically costs Proton as much to run long term as the raffle itself raises.

> So let's test this approach out. In your view, is this man a woman?

She is a trans woman. She is a woman. Within the context of medical access, from what I can gather she has a penis, she has testes, and she doesn't take hormones currently (she might but a comment she made suggests she doesn't). That gender-non-conformance doesn't make her any less of a woman.

I'm not sure what your hangup is with respect to her? She very clearly present herself as a woman. And women with beards, sharper facial features, or deep voices aren't terribly uncommon nor do those aspects make them any less of a woman. Women like Harnaam Kaur exist and they are just as woman as any other woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB85apiZgFg

> Should he be allowed to whip his dick out in women's bathrooms?

Should she.

Should she be allowed to use a woman's bathroom as intended? Yes. No questions asked.

Now if someone was doing something problematic in the bathroom (flashing/exposing genitalia or breasts) and/or harassing other women in the women's bathroom then they'd need to be removed. Not because of their gender or because of their features but for the behavior. It's a very simple and straightforward concept.

> If actual women complained about his presence in, say, a support group for mothers, what would you say to them?

Her presence.

If she is a mother she should be permitted. If she isn't a mother/doesn't have children then there is an argument to be made for denying her presence there. If she has children but it was a support group exclusive to birthing parents then again there may be an argument. But more often than not those support groups aren't exclusive to birthing parents and they aren't even exclusive to women.

> Should he be allowed to join a women's boxing club and punch women in the face?

Should she.

And the answer is that it depends.

If it's at a competitive or professional level then she is subject to the rules of the club and if they require certain hormone levels to participate then that's the nature of the beast. I personally don't see it as necessary but if it's the requirements for participation then that's what they are and the best you can do is fight to change them.

Now if the club is a hobbyist or non-varsity/school club then absolutely they should be permitted to participate.

Either way whether they are technically permitted, I think they should be allowed to participate regardless of testosterone levels or anything else. Boxing is divided into weight class anyways so there's little flexibility for testosterone influencing being "bigger".

> And so on. I'm sure you get the idea.

I understand what you are saying but I just outright disagree. Trans women are women. Intersex women are women. Non-gender-conforming women (regardless of whether they are cis or not) are women.

Google has a habit of intentionally delivering degraded versions of their services to not Chromium based browsers, particularly non-Chrome versions of their browsers (determined by User Agent).

There's a pretty famous example of Google deploying a specific variations of Youtube to Microsoft Edge browsers (back when Edge had it's own engine) and that specific variation would cause Edge's hardware acceleration to break. If you overrode the user agent to present as google chrome, the problematic invisible parts of the page disappeared and everything worked as intended. And what the specific problem HTML was would change just as fast as the MS team could roll out fixes. In effect they were playing a game of "break the browser" against their competitors to force them to apply temporary fixes that would then later have to be removed resulting in unnecessary code churn in their competitors' code bases.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824

It's not too terribly unreasonable. It's largely the Linux Foundation trying to wrest control over chromium from Google before the FTC antitrusts them or before Google does more manipulative market controlling BS.

In more polite terms they are framing themselves as an ideal long term steward for the chromium project given that courts have already ruled that Google isn't a suitable steward anymore. Chromium wouldn't be so problematic if it wasn't run by such an anticompetitive organisation. If the Linux Foundation ran chromium and orgs like Igalia (who already do a near majority of the dev work for chromiumm) took over the brunt of senior development and leadership control then it'd be a pretty solid technology stack (albeit with some weaknesses).

I personally prefer Firefox and it's associated technologies but I also acknowledge the appeal of Chromium distributions like Vanadium.

> We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs

Uh insurance actually does cover them, particularly for reconstructive surgeries. It should be noted that the conditions under which insurance would cover a trans person's gender affirming surgery is going to be essentially under the same conditions they would for a cis person. Now it's worth noting that Medicaid does generally cover gender affirming surgeries in certain states however Medicaid is required to be primarily paid for by the state rather than the federal government. Medicare only covers them under specific circumstances with a large pile of supporting documentation attached. And then with private insurance providers it is highly dependent on the company and policy whether they cover them or not.

> We're also not labeling it as "life-saving."

Gender affirming surgeries are almost always the very last step for trans people and it's far quicker, easier, and more common to get them as a cis person than it is as a trans person.

Gender affirming care however is generally what is referred to as life-saving more than anything else. This is primarily access to medication in the form of Hormone Replacement Therapy and additionally in the form of access to counseling and therapy to support the transition and to mitigate gender dysphoria among other issues.

And the thing I think most people don't really understand is how disgustingly cheap the primary form of care, Hormone Replacement Therapy, is.

For trans women the main medication is estradiol. This medication is extremely cheap and most pharmacies won't take insurance for it due to how cheap it is. A month's dose in the cheapest form at one of the higher doses is going to be at most 15-20 USD per month. More expensive forms of estradiol that don't have to be taken as rigorously and/or have less risk of side effects cost around 1.5-3x that depending on the form. For the first few months to a year they'll also generally take a testosterone suppressor until the estradiol suppresses testosterone by itself and those medications only cost around 10 USD per month or less.

For trans men the main medication is testosterone. It's controlled so it's more annoying to get due to it's abuse as a "performance enhancing drug" but even at the higher doses it costs more or less the same amount or less than the equivalent doses of HRT for trans women (coming in at well under 20 USD/month, more often less than 5 USD/month).

This puts the cost of the bulk of treatment for transgender people at well under the cost of most other medications.

The prevalence of being intersex/having a disorder of sex development is just as high as the prevalence of being trans. Both of them sit at around 1-2% of the population. That number may be surprising but in the majority of cases these people "pass" without the average person being able to identity them on the street.

And my point isn't to try and claim that just because intersex people exist that the terms are useless. My point is that the definitions people try to ascribe to those terms are statistically more likely to exclude other groups of people (who the definitions are not intended to exclude) than they are to exclude trans people.

Definitions that don't work:

- Defined by "passing"/looking like what society expects a given sex to look iike: Refuted extremely commonly by queer people of all kinds. Also just wildly subjective and impractical.

- Defined by chromosomes/karyotype: Rule broken by prevalence of intersex people. Additionally from a biological perspective so much more goes into sex determination during gestation and afterwards than just the karyotype.

- Defined by presence of breasts: Indistinguishable at birth and defined by hormone levels. Rule broken by numerous medical conditions. A woman is not less of a woman for getting a masectomy or double masectomy. A man is not less of a man because medication or hormone levels cause them to grow breasts.

- Defined by the presence of primary sex organs (testes/ovaries): Rule broken by numerous medical conditions. A woman is not less of a woman for getting an oophorectomy and a man is not less of a man for getting an orchirectomy. Likewise a woman who has lived her entire life as a woman who finds out that her ovaries differentiated as testes is not any less of a woman nor the reverse for a man. And both of the aforementioned surgeries are very common.

- Defined by presence of secondary sex organs: Rule broken by numerous medical conditions. Bottom surgeries for trans people arguably make up less of the share of genitoplasties performed than the numerous other reasons (recovery from trauma or disfigurement, recovery from cancer, etc). And surgeries like hysterectomies occur in up to 20% of women depending on the region. Having or not having one or more secondary sex organs isn't a reliable differentiating factor and unless you are storing photographs of genitalia from birth and sharing them with every person or organisation that want's to know your sex then this isn't a reliable method either. It's unnecessarily complex and/or it's unnecessary exclusive.

- Defined by hormone levels: Rule broken commonly by intersex people. Commonly broken by people with various medical conditions and/or medical interventions. A woman with low estrogen levels isn't less of a woman. A woman with high testosterone (such as due to PCOS which occurs in as high as 20% of women) doesn't make a woman any less of a woman. The reverse goes for men (such as men taking testosterone suppressors or blockers for diseases like prostate cancer which occurs in around 12% of men).

----

At the end of the day you only really have one appraoch and that's to just be more precise, use better terminology, and use the necessary information where it's needed.

- Government and social documents (drivers licenses, passports, ID cards, etc) should just use gender. There's no reason to use anything else and it doesn't actually benefit anyone otherwise.

- Medical records should indicate known presence/absence of organs and hormone levels. Awareness of which organs are or aren't present is only important due to care relevant to those organs and their interaction with the rest of the body. And hormone levels should be documented because the majority of medical distinctions for healthcare purposes (risks, dosage changes, interactions, effects on the body, etc) are tied to hormone levels. If someone is manually controlling or augmenting/manipulating their hormone levels that's relevant for care and it serves the patient better to be explicit about these types of things than to attempt to tie them to a single binary differentiator and make assumptions.

- Access to bathrooms, changing rooms, etc: Just let people use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable with? It's not hard, it's not complicated. If a lady or a lad is being a creep then someone can do something about it but that has nothing to do with any indicators other than "they are being a creep".

- Sports, etc: Either just divide it by gender or drop gender/sex based division entirely and divide it by skill. This is such an exceptionally small non-issue and protections against this perceived incursion have only contributed to discrimination. There is no reason why women's sports restricts competitors on their natural and/or nominal testosterone levels but men's sports do not. In competitive women's sports abnormally high natural testosterone is disqualifying but in men's sports it's a permitted competitive advantage. Additionally with regards to sports records, gendered performance differences have been rapidly closing in on a pace where they may disappear entirely within a century or less. And in particular, with non-professional sports there is absolutely zero reason for exclusionary restrictions. In those environments this is a complete and total non-issue.

Just because a street is one way does not mean it is so narrow that only one vehicle can fit through.

Streets may be one way because it discourages unnecessary automotive traffic and it allows the rest of the space to be dedicated to bicyclist or use for residential and commercial purposes (outdoor seating, space for games, etc).

So even if the streets are one way, there will often be space for the ambulance to maneuver around blocked vehicles. And if there's not, the ambulance can take another street or road. If it's the only route that can access that location, then with any sane amount of urban planning then the ambulance will be within a short walking distance to the location (and more often than not within eyesight).

Not really? The title is a reference to the article's topic of systematically manipulating time standards (which results in the time for the entire company getting slowly sent "into the past") for the purpose of avoiding complexities like leap seconds, etc.

> there is no way you would be censored (banned) for calling a woman a woman or a man a man. Now, speaking biological and factual truths can get you censored

You can claim this and reach to the transphobic dog whistle but these "biological truths" aren't actually true and the only world in which they are is a grossly oversimplified version of reality that ignores all of the messy complexity of how biology actually works.

This isn't a matter of "truths being insulting or discriminating". It's a matter of stopping people from using their complete misunderstanding of biology as an excuse to try and harass, other, or discriminate against groups out of prejudice.

It's not though? It's a music video for a 100% safe for work video game where small sprites of witches and yokai (supernatural entities/spirits) play what is in effect a much more complicated version of space invaders.

There is nothing even remotely close to sexual or NSFW in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY7QEEnSGVU

I'm not sure if that's necessarily a fair assessment as Ford's laid out plan to get from the current 40% loss to 8% profit is pretty reasonable.

Of that 40 percentage points, 20 of them are directly attributable to economies of scale. As they sell additional units those costs will amortize out. i.e. the more they sell the less they lose.

They expect to pick up another 15 points via engineering changes that will unify a lot of parts between the different product lines. They apparently initially just focused on shipping the vehicles so each model has a lot of bespoke parts that could semi-trivially be reworked to de-duplicate them between product lines.

That gets you down to 5% losses. The bulk of the remaining 13 points they expect to pick up via battery design improvements and cost reductions in their supply chain.

And their stated deadline for this is the end of 2026 so it's not exactly like they intend this to take ages. Rather they expect to achieve this within a handful of model revisions.

IDK how this applies to Bluesky. The underlying infrastructure is only loosely tethered to Bluesky the company. If you want to pull all your shit and run it separate from the bluesky stuff you can and there's really nothing they can do to try and stop you or ban you.

They can limit your reach on their stuff but if you don't want to use their stuff it doesn't actually matter and you can continue to exist completely independent of them if you want.

> The highest density countries like Korea and Japan have some of the lowest fertility rates.

I'm going to doubt that's because of density. That's entirely because of toxic aspects of the cultures (especially work and education culture) that make it near impossible to have and raise a child for the first few years of their life.

You are kind of missing the point. You can have a small rural town where the people in the town generally all live in/around the town but between that town and the next town over might be 1-2 hours.

In that type of small town you still have quick access to your necessities and you can walk to your neighbors' houses but once you get out of the bounds of your small town it might be 30 minutes before you see the next building, an hour to the next small town, and 4-6 hours to the nearest city or large town.

So that's a fun one. C# the language people know first released in y2k and the 1.0 release was 2002.

So it definitely is old enough to fit and it certainly has it's warts from age that show up in long lived projects.