Cycl0ps

>Where do you draw the line to still live but be good?

You draw it at making the image files a bit smaller, if the article's anything to go on. Not every concept needs to be extrapolated out to the point of a suicide pact. Let good enough be, and try for more tomorrow.

The Darknet Diaries podcast just released an episode on a similar attack (via MSP) if you're interested in hearing what this looks like from a remidiation standpoint

All fair points. I do want to point out that "Chamomile Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones" is how this all started. When the cannabinoid system was brought up, it was done in relation to that. I had no prior knowledge of it being a recognized system or it's effects on the body, and assumed it had as much merit as the comment it was in reply to. That was a mistake on my part.

If they're knowledgeable on the topic then I'm sure having someone dismiss it as pseudoscience can be frustrating. I get that, but just saying someone's wrong isn't enough to change opinions. It doesn't need to be a research paper with citations, just a link to Wikipedia showing that it exists on a conceptual Level, or even a "I work in pharmaceuticals, it's legit". I'm at fault for not doing my own research as well, but thank you for settling things, looks like a lot of people learned something new

"A phone with an ultralow SAR value,if you want to minimise your mobile radiation exposure."

bunk.

"Pure’s screen doesn't emit blue light directly into your eyes. Most smartphones dazzle us with a direct frontlight, whereas Mudita Pure has a special layer of reflective foil which guides the light directly onto the display."

No backlit display then?

"Researchers around the world have begun to question the influence that prolonged exposure to an artificial source of radiation has on our health. There are no clear answers yet but there are a lot of indications that electromagnetic fields are not safe for humans. To err on the side of caution, especially in some conditions (e.g. cancer treatment, pregnancy), doctors often advise to avoid cell phone radiation as much as possible."

Emphasis mine, weasel words abound

"Mudita Pure can serve as a data modem for your notebook or desktop computer. We decided to enable tethering via USB C cable so that Pure can be used as an external GSM modem. This was a decision made to further minimize the SAR value of Pure. We consciously chose not to equip Pure with a mobile internet browser as this device supports living an offline life."

All this patented SAR reduction they talk about is a layer of copper foil between the antenna and display. It's not a good shield, .5-2.5db attenuation according to the patent, but I wonder if it could effect connectivity when the phone's laying face up on a table.

I'm bashing them but it doesn't look like a terrible product, they're just selling it as a lifestyle choice that doesn't match how I live. Dual-sim, (presumably) long-life, lightweight and streamlined design focused on doing a few things well. No backlight on the display may be a deal breaker for me but I can see the appeal for this phone.

Thank you

Then you should simply correct them with evidence

See also,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

I can agree with you, but the issue is that this isn't an academic discussion on the merits of thorough vaccine trials. Here's the third verse:

"Let’s go, Brandon, we know he cappin’ Patriots out in the street takin’ action Huntin’ us down for speakin’ the truth (Huh) Beat down the PEDO, let’s save all the youth (Uh huh) Media lyin’, ignore all the cryin’ They buildin’ back better, but only the Taliban (What?) Pilots on strike, but to Joe, it’s irrelevant Open the border, lose all the order Divide us up so they know what we never win But we united, we here in the stadiums (Let’s go) Everyone chantin’ it, CNN slanderin’ (Let’s go) Biden collaspin’ and Democrats stealin’ it (Facts) Ayy, we look at Joe, can we get a refund? (Brandon) How ‘bout some mean tweets? (Facts) Joe is a crook, and he knows how to decieve F.J.B. is the motto in these streets, let’s go, Brandon sing it with me"

I see a lot of claims but no questions. This wasn't written to question, it was written to enforce ideas already held by the listener. I agree that the song shouldn't be censored, but I also think it doesn't have any right to be promoted or distributed by third parties. YouTube has as much of a right to take the song down as Sound Cloud has to leave it up, which is exactly equal to any venue that chooses to let him perform on stage.

They're more than allowed to say it, YouTube is equally allowed to not repeat it.

"Hey man, I've been locked inside my dorm for the past week studying and I'm starting to go stir-crazy. Anything cool going on tonight?"

"No rule is better than bad rule" may be closer to my argument, though it dips further into anarchy than I'd like. People are welcome to try as they like, but governments aren't people. If Facebook wanted to try some system like Parler had I wouldn't protest against it, but the UK government mandating it would have far more reach and requires more consideration as a result.

If someone can figure it out I'd love to see it. Having some way of preventing someone from making more than one account would be a tremendous help in my eyes. Whether you use your name or not, that account is you. If it gets removed, you're off the site.

What I can't figure out is how you would do this while staying anonymous. If the users had some private key they could sign the account in some way to claim ownership without saying who they are, but then who issues and maintains the private keys? You'd need some large body to issue them, and that means storing personal data to know who has and hasn't been issued a key.

I agree with that. My concern, and what I assume is the concern of others, is that those putting these regulations in place would have neither the knowledge or intentions to consider that nuance. Considering that nuance myself, I don't think I could properly implement such laws.

It's an interesting idea. The first image I got had seven tags, including 'handrail' 'bannister' and 'railing'. Similar words seem like they'd be hard to guess, as I'd need to spend additional tries finding possible synonyms. Since I also don't know the categories the AI is looking for I could be hitting on something the AI wouldn't consider. It's interesting, but doesn't hold my attention the same way something like geoguesser would. A change that could work might be to include the AI's confident answers in a bank of about 10 choices. The user checks off their guesses and is scored on correctness after so many images.

An alternate mode I think could be fun would be to show two images and guess which was tagged for a given attribute and confidence level. IE you have a picture of a beehive and a picture of a flower and you need to guess which one was tagged for "Bee:85%"

For me it's becoming less about owning something and more about just finding it. Streaming services have fragmented and they each have some flagship show or series locked to their platform. At this point we're back to premium cable channels all over again. If I want to watch an old episode of something like South Park I don't know which services would have it, but I know of a torrenting site that will.

I like Dang's comments on the idea that the presentation of the information is just as valuable as the information itself. Much like your round Earth example, sometimes stating the objective truth isn't enough to win over an audience. This isn't a flaw in HN so much as it is a flaw in the way people behave. We all operate with partial information and when new information conflicts with what we know (or sometimes what the collective authority seems to know) we reject it.

In general there are two options to this. You can fully commit to your views, and get 10 responses where opponents fully commit to theirs. Or, you can consider the general views of the community your in, and adjust your comments to challenge and question without provoking, usually getting a small number of considered replies in return. The latter tends to be the harder of the two and the less noticable. I think this is why larger discussions with more approachable topics seem to turn toxic faster.

People always disagree. Do you know many people there are? I don't think there's anything people agree on. On your second point, are you interested in my safety or your comfort? Because I feel pretty safe right now.

322 cases in about 50 years. 69 fatal. That's in the US, but compare to UK birthrates which has seen over 25'000'000 births in that time. These deaths aren't prevented by regulation, they're prevented by parenting

They were

I don't really get the image it redirects to, but the website does have information on leaks.

https://sizeof.cat/post/twitch-leaks/

You can skip submitting a phone number. They don't make it obvious but an option to skip is there at sign up. Though from personal experience it may make the moderation system more aggressive towards your account.

Reading through the comments it seems those right two logos are the best solution we have. We need a way to quickly identify speed and power ratings per cable. Users might benefit more from simplifying further down to something like colors to establish baseline requirements ("Requires gold rated power delivery") but setting those baselines doesn't provide room to grow and expand the standard.

I don't think that's as big a problem for white-collar workers as it is for blue-collar. Processing paperwork, managing a team, calculating risk, these are all things that readily translate to new fields, as opposed to something like mining or carpentry. I have zero concerns that someone losing their job in insurance would struggle to find work.

Don't have 20 mins to read through but I get the gist. The main argument I'm seeing is that raising atmospheric carbon levels is still problematic. That's true, but I think the article is neglecting the source of the carbon emissions and why that matters.

Coal is a fossil fuel. Those hydrocarbons are trapped underground and have no realistic way of coming to surface in a human timescale. In essence, burning coal and releasing a ton of CO2 is adding carbon to the cycle that was never there before.

Compare that to biomass. Biomass collects carbon from the atmosphere. This is why planting trees is seen as green, a ton of dry biomass is about a ton of carbon removed from the atmosphere. When that biomass is burned, or decays, it will release CO2 back into the atmosphere, continuing the carbon cycle. Yes, that will raise atmospheric CO2, but it doesn't raise the net amount of carbon in the cycle. That's why it's called carbon neutral. Neutral isn't green, and it doesn't have to be. It just has to reduce the amount of new carbon entering the system

DEA raiding dispensaries has been a thing since CA first legalized marijuana. I'm not local but it looks like it was ruled in federal court that the DEA isn't authorized to raid a business operating within state law. Not sure how this effects things regarding amendments, but thought it was worth sharing

https://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ru...

Where did you even come from? Absolutely nothing to with my comment, the comment above mine, or the one above that. I'm talking about helmets and issues in how Loyola cites their sources, not the effects of the Vietnam war on domestic policing. Go make your own thread if that's relevant to the article but you won't get a good discussion here.

You're right. See my other comment in this thread but it seems like Loyola changed the quote where it initially said 'military-style'. Personally the helmet reminded me of helmets worn in Vietnam but they definitely do not match the design used by Nazi's in WWII.

Well, it's straight from a citation from Loyola Law School. Following the citation takes us to Maya Lau's article titled, "Inked with a skull in a cowboy hat, L.A. County sheriff’s deputy describes exclusive society of lawmen at California station"[0]. This article makes no mention of The Executioners or the tattoo they use. For that you need to look at another LA Times article titled "After decades of problems, new allegations surface of a secret clique within L.A. County Sheriff's Department".[1] If we find the relevant quote in that article here's what we get.

"Aldama described a tattoo on his calf as a skull with a rifle and a military-style helmet with flames surrounding it. On the helmet are the letters “C P T” for Compton."

So at some point "military-style" was switched to nazi. I don't know why, but since there's apparent conflict let's do our own research. Googling Nazi helmet gave me plenty of images, and they generally have a large flare on the back and the brim turns up. The helmets also seem to typically have badges on the side and I didn't see any that had a band on them like in the tattoo. I think these helmets look far more like the type worn by US troops in the Vietnam war.

[0](LA Times) https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-palmdale-sheriff-t...

[1](LA Times via Archive.is) https://archive.is/gNquP

I disagree. If income was paid out Reddit would then be sending out 1090s or W2s to every mod. Analytics and time tracking would be put in place. An entire team would need to be stood up to oversee mod management. Mods from certain regions of the world would be disavowed, and the barrier to enter would naturally be higher for new mods.

I say mods should be either full employees or volunteers, you can't mix between the two.