MPSimmons

I am eternally grateful to media people who care a lot about this stuff. I know that it has an impact on my life that I’m not aware of, but I can’t bring myself to dive into this. I am glad that there are people who are into it, though.

sorry, fixed!

At what point do we start to re-evaluate and re-test old assumptions about how much weight/caloric restriction impacts things? It seems unlikely that a molecule that slots into receptors in the pancreas also does something(?) to cardiac muscle [1], addiction [2], and now osteoarthritis(!).

This feels like a stretch to say that this happens independent of weight loss, and much more like we may have underestimated the impacts of weight loss on all of these other facets of life.

[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12431743/

[2] - https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/04/ozempic-addic...

The buffer exists to be used. Allowing people to merge into it makes the lane that they came from safer. Build a new buffer.

I played GTA after I played Carmageddon and I thought the graphics on GTA were kind of retro at the time, but in reflection, it does have some charm, I think.

The software can drive the web browser if you install the plugin. My knowledge is 1.5 weeks old, so it might be able to drive the whole UI now, I don't know.

My sweet spot of choice between power and price is the ESP32 S3 (2x core @ 240mhz) at ~$6 per board, but yeah, the power to dollar ratio is crazy these days, across the board. And they are absolutely tiny and sip power if you write the code well.

The contagious nature of yawning is so weird. It has to be evolutionarily advantageous because it's so wide spread, but it's also non-obvious.

I was going to say, "finally something that ivermectin can help with!" except https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7974686/

> the most ambitious thing possible

really?

Datacenter capacity (and thus heat) grows by the cube law, but the ability to radiate heat grows by the square law, so it seems like it would be advantageous to have a bunch of smaller satellites, if you were concerned about cooling them.

They re-enter and burn up entirely. Old starlinks don't stay in space.

Balloons work by displacing the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen with some oxygen) with something lighter (helium or hydrogen). This causes buoyancy, and makes the balloon rise.

This only works so long as the atmosphere being displaced weighs more than the balloon plus the payload. As soon as the air gets thin enough that the weight of the balloon+payload is equal to the weight of the air that would fill the volume of the balloon, then it stops rising. (Or, more likely the balloon rips open because it expanded farther than it could stretch).

Usually, this is really high in the atmosphere, but it's definitely not space.

This is all ignoring that orbit requires going sideways really, really fast (so fast, actually, that it requires falling, but going sideways so fast that the earth curves away and you miss).

yeah, they legitimately used to be but the rest of the world has definitely improved and Teslas weirdly haven't that much. They're cruising on name brand and a really decent charging network, but even that moat is being breached.

How many on the government side, I wonder. There are wars that haven't killed so many people. This seems like another revolution.

Cloud providers in general haven't gone very far toward providing hooks for validation.

It seems easier for the cloud provider to implement the equivalent of a dry-run flag in API calls that validate that the call would succeed (even if it's best effort determination) which could be used by tools like Terraform during the planning and dependency tree generation.

Instead, you have platform providers like AzureRM that squint at the supplied objects and make a guess as to whether that looks valid, which causes a ton of failures upon actual application. For instance, if you try to create storage with a redundancy level not supported by the region you're adding it to, Terraform will pass a plan stage, but the actual application of the resource will fail because the region doesn't support that level of redundancy.

There are unlimited other examples in a similar vein, all of which could be resolved if API providers had a dryrun flag.

>The whole premise of IPv6 is that every device should have a globally routable IP

I would agree with the small adjustment of, 'every device should be able to have a globally routable IP'.

There are a lot of devices, like the ones we're talking about, that should not be accessible to the internet at large. You're not preventing them from getting a public IP because you don't have enough, you're preventing them from having a public IP as part of the belt-and-suspenders approach because there's no need to have one.

I don't need that, I already have a Twitter account

>This difference in theory versus practice is precisely why we see people objecting that IPv4 is more secure as far as default configurations go when it comes to home use.

I mean, I agree with them. I think people who say 'NAT is not security' are only correct in the absolute most pendantic way and that the way NAT is commonly configured is literally the only reason the internet doesn't consist mostly of botnets.

But I also suspect that if IPv6 were more common, we as a society would be better at it, and not do dumb things like hand out globally routable IPs via DHCP6

I agree with the majority of your point, but hopefully your printer hasn't been assigned IPv6 IPs that are global in nature and is instead limited to site-local.

For anyone who is reading this but hasn't use IPv6, IPv6 addresses are a large flat 128-bit contiguous address space, but they are not universally routable. The prefix of any specific address determines what group of other IPs can get to it.

We often think of a computer as having an IP address, but with IPv6, computers will have several addresses, all with different prefixes to handle different types of traffic.

This site does a decent job of explaining - https://networklessons.com/ipv6/ipv6-address-types

That's an amazing book, and I highly recommend it, for anyone who isn't familiar.

I love this so much! Thank you!

This is an awesome effort. I stared and played with the rotating graphics at the top for a while before reading the rest of the article, trying to figure out why it was so much better than a lot of the efforts I'd seen before, and I kind of figured out what you must be doing, but I'll admit, I wouldn't have ever done it as well or put in as much work as you had - really excellent techniques for determining character!

I am actually really curious how performant this is and whether something like this would be able to contribute beyond just demo displays. It's obviously beautiful and a marvel of work, but it seems like there should be a way to use it for more.

Also, I did find myself wondering about the inevitable Doom engine

Really nice job!

I disliked Adams, but this is a good eulogy.

>For Adams, God took a more creative and – dare I say, crueler – route. He created him only-slightly-above-average at everything except for a world-historical, Mozart-tier, absolutely Leonardo-level skill at making silly comics about hating work.

A+, no notes

That's really cool! I've never seen those before.

Has anyone ever set up the parrot equivalent of Chatroulette so parrots can interact with each other remotely?

Damn, I really enjoyed reading this. Great writeup!

All humans get a certain amount of respect, Scott Adams included.

What level of respect do you think dying earns you, above and beyond that? And why would being dead earn you more respect than you had in life?

>He also just passed away, show some respect.

It takes more than dying to earn respect.

Ope! Sorry, I missed it!

> scale and degree matter

I agree, but I don't know where that line is.

So, back in the 90s and 2000s, you could get The Gimp image editor, and you could use the equivalent of Word Art to take a word or phase and make it look cool, with effects like lava or glowing stone, or whatever. The Gimp used ImageMagick to do this, and it legit looked cool at the time.

If you weren't good at The Gimp, which required a lot of knowledge, you could generate a cool website logo by going to a web server that someone built, giving them a word or phrase, and then selecting the pre-built options that did the same thing - you were somewhat limited in customization, but on the backend, it was using ImageMagick just like The Gimp was.

If someone used The Gimp or ImageMagick to make copyrighted material, nobody would blame the authors of The Gimp, right? The software were very nonspecific tools created for broad purposes, that of making images. Just because some bozo used them to create a protected image of Mickey Mouse doesn't mean that the software authors should be held accountable.

But if someone made the equivalent of one of those websites, and the website said, "click here to generate a random picture of Mickey Mouse", then it feels like the person running the website should at least be held partially responsible, right? Here is a thing that was created for the specific purpose of breaking the law upon request. But what is the culpability of the person initiating the request?

Anyway, the scale of AI is staggering, and I agree with you, and I think that common decency dictates that the actions of the product should be limited when possible to fall within the ethics of the organization providing the service, but the responsibility for making this tool do heinous things should be borne by the person giving the order.