bgentry

The most disturbing part about this is that their support team has been misleading people on Twitter all morning, not truthfully answering straightforward questions about whether the app is Electron:

https://twitter.com/1Password/status/1425429965747720200

https://twitter.com/1Password/status/1425470169133031435

https://twitter.com/1Password/status/1425476888072495111

FYI, "depreciate" != "deprecate" — I also used to think it was the former once upon a time :)

> Potential failures of Substack are elsewhere - no local coverage

Interestingly, one of the top performing Substacks is a local publication, the Charlotte Ledger: https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/local-news-subst...

I didn’t say they were comparable to the Sierra Nevada or coastal ranges, was merely trying to understand your “trapped in a flat plane of existence” line.

If we want to go for some real good skiing, Utah or Colorado are short flights and will likely have much better & more consistent snow than CA has for the past decade :)

Did you spend any time in the hill country on the south/west parts of town? They have a very different feel than the flat parts.

I moved to Austin in November after 10 years in the Bay Area and a lifetime in different parts of California. Not a chance we will move back, certainly not for decades.

The most refreshing part of the change is that people are genuinely nicer and more friendly around here than anywhere I lived in California (OC, SD, SF, Berkeley, Stockton for college). I really didn’t expect that, which I think was probably due to crude stereotypes Californians like to spread about Texas. Ultimately I think the grind of just trying to live a decent life in the crowded/expensive parts of CA takes its toll on the populace.

The weather takes some adjusting, but not more than it took to adjust to the Bay Area fogginess for this SoCal native. Most of the year it’s beautiful out here.

There was some prior discussion on this submission from yesterday, though it fell just short of the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27598222

The source paper (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1) or Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1407445604029009923) are probably better sources than the New York Times article based on them.

Have you tried taking a cell phone photo of a moving object far in the distance and with less than ideal lighting? You won’t get a good result if you can even capture it.

Photographing something like this would probably require a DSLR type camera with a great zoom/telephoto lens. I would expect they have that equipment on military ships, but I don’t think the ubiquity of cell phone cameras has significantly changed the ability to photograph this kind of phenomenon.

I think there’s some nuance here. The virus could have a perfectly natural origin in bats, but not be able to infect humans in its original form. There are many ways the virus could have come to infect humans, such as by manipulating it directly, via gain of function research, or even just by a random mutation that managed to infect a lab worker (seems unlikely since it’s alleged there may have needed to be an intermediate species). Whether you could consider the virus “lab created” or “man-made” at that point is maybe a matter of debate. Even the Guardian article on Facebook’s policy changes seemed to conflate these scenarios, so I’m not entirely sure what the changes were.

But they’re all a far cry from the more extreme narrative of “this was deliberately engineered to infect humans and/or as a bioweapon”, which is not what is being suggested here (nor, it seems, was that ever what Tom Cotton suggested).

Sure thing! Most of the good stuff I’ve learned from Aaron Franklin one way or another. He’s got his PBS series, along with the extended segments available on YouTube, his Masterclass, book, etc. Really great resources :)

I’ll also add that I was originally doing a cook all night type of schedule. It was fun to do a couple of times, but the sleep loss isn’t great. The cook all day / rest all night schedule is a lot more fun and gets a better result too!

Of course you’re not supposed to wrap for the whole cook, I never suggested anything of the sort.

Generally you wrap around the time of the stall or when the meat has developed enough bark. For a brisket, this tends to be in the ~170° range.

Humidity is a major factor in shortening the stall, because the stall comes from evaporative cooling as the meat loses moisture. If you keep a large water pan at the hottest spot of your cooker, this makes the stall dramatically shorter because there will be less evaporation in a humid chamber.

I will reiterate that for a brisket, the flavor you’ll get from wrapping in butcher paper is far superior to that of a foil wrap. I live in Austin and have tried all of the best brisket around here. Anything wrapped in foil (i.e. Snow’s) is in a tier far below the best places (Franklin, La Barbecue, Micklethwait), every one of which wraps in butcher paper. There’s a reason for that! The aluminum foil really does inflict a distinctive pot roast flavor from the steaming of the brisket, a flavor that does not occur with butcher paper wrapping.

Beyond that, the other most important advice (noted elsewhere in this thread) is to allow a very long rest period after the cook, ideally 12+ hours at around 140-145°. This is what causes the brisket to really relax and the rest of its collagen to melt without drying out. My brisket cooks these days use a schedule similar to Franklin: cook all day, aim to finish just before bedtime, and then rest in a low warmer all night for lunchtime bbq the next day.

Pork butts are a very different beast and none of the above advice is applicable there, except the importance of a water pan.

If you wrap brisket with foil, your final product will taste like metallic pot roast. The butcher paper wrap allows some transfer of moisture out and smoke flavor in, and is the best combination.

Most of the “moisture” you notice in the final product is from rendered fat, not water content. Though of course you don’t want the meat to dry out, which is why all long cooks should be accompanied by a water pan.

Brisket bark is not at all the same as the pork rib char you’re referring to; it’s the product of hours of reaction between smoke, salt, pepper, and fat on the surface of the meat. I agree on ribs though, I think the steamed + grill finished rib style outshines most smoked ribs!

It's unfortunate that you've been downvoted as this is a worthwhile discussion to have.

I think the short answer is that we simply don't know yet which one is "better", especially since there are so many dimensions for what can make one vaccine better than the others:

- dosing schedule

- logistical constraints like refrigeration, shelf life

- rate of severe side effects (like allergic reactions)

- rate of mild side effects (like the severe cold symptoms I got from the J&J shot)

- duration of immunity

- effectiveness against emerging variants

- effectiveness at preventing hospitalization vs severe disease vs transmission vs infection altogether

We just don't have data to fairly compare the vaccines on all these dimensions.

The answer from a public health perspective is to get as many shots in as many arms as fast as possible, as long as they have low rates of severe side effects and are reasonably effective. However I agree that it sows distrust to not be honest & upfront about the fact that it's highly unlikely that all vaccines are actually equal, and that we simply don't have the data to know exactly how they differ. That could easily be followed up with a "once we figure out which ones are actually better we'll give additional vaccines and/or booster shots to those that drew the short straw".

Pretending they are all equal is only going to further erode trust when we inevitably figure out how they're not actually equal.

Data from the study released this week (of frontline healthcare workers vaccinated in December) showed that the mRNA shots had a high efficacy just two weeks after the first dose, likely higher than the efficacy of the J&J shot.

Just a single data point from one study, but I raise it only to point out that it may in fact not be the case that the J&J shot provides better immunity vs two weeks after the first mRNA dose.

Just this week we also saw data from Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccine rollouts to frontline healthcare workers in December (at a time of peak infection and emerging variants) that touted 80% effectiveness after a single dose, 90% after two doses. I'm struggling to find a reason not to interpret that as further evidence that the mRNA vaccines are in fact more effective than the J&J shot.

Medical workers take precautions better than the general public, maybe? But they're also far more exposed.

The parent was not commenting on morality and only pointed out that Reagan was correct about the strike being in violation of Federal law ("correct" is one of the many meanings of the word "right").

And yet you are right about it being legal at the time. The word has multiple meanings, one of which is as a synonym for "correct". This is how it was used in the context above as the commenter made no reference to morality.

It's not "doing a lot of heavy lifting" to use the word unambiguously in one of its many defined meanings. Clearly the parent was referring to Reagan being correct about the illegality of the strike (given that they cited the specific statute), not speaking about any moralistic righteousness.

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Agreed. On my iMac Pro, both AirPods and AirPods Pro had serious reliability issues. Occasionally during calls I would end up having skipping audio issues, and my bluetooth magic trackpad would also stutter when these issues were ongoing. Sometimes the bluetooth driver would seemingly crash, everything would reconnect, and it would be fine.

The workaround I discovered was that if I plugged in my bluetooth trackpad via USB during a call, these issues would basically never happen.

Not to mention all the other general issues with them failing to stay connected to my Mac, or failing to connect initially. These issues also happened on multiple MacBook Pros, including new top-of-the-line 16" models. Whereas I have basically zero problems with AirPods on my iPhone or AppleTV.

In short: the macOS bluetooth stack has some serious shortcomings that aren't present in iOS.

I agree that it's unfortunate that the initial attachment to phone numbers has thus far made Signal harder to use for dissidents in many countries. But I can also understand that there are legitimate constraints that led them to go this route initially (abuse & spam prevention come to mind).

I can also acknowledge that it's a universally good thing that they are moving in a positive direction here, and I do not hold it against them for being unable to solve all problems for all people at the same time.

NSLs are a problem generally, but I have a lot less concern in Signal's case because they have no data, and they'd have to be forced to make significant software modifications to enable targeted interception of messages. This is something I expect they would be motivated to fight, more so than any for-profit company might.

Let's acknowledge and appreciate progress where it is being made.

They've actually said publicly that they're working on making it possible to use Signal without a phone number, via usernames. Here's a recent hint at that: https://twitter.com/signalapp/status/1347248608660185089

What happens when a whistleblower or dissident wants to use Signal? Should they be forced to cough up a payment with a traceable credit card or app store account in order to use it?

For that reason alone I think it's important for the service to be free. Though I would perhaps support some reasonable free usage limits if needed to prevent abuse.

Thanks for the idea, I also took the opportunity to donate a nice chunk in support of a service I use often and want to continue to exist.

>The attack was against AT&T, there was zero public interest in the information from a whistleblower perspective, the victims were customers of AT&T, a telecommunications provider.

You think there's "zero public interest" in knowing that a large US corporation, with private information about a significant fraction of the American public, has neglected their obligations to protect that private information? And that they've ignored all pleas to treat the vulnerability with the seriousness it deserves?

>Also, Weev is open and proudly a Nazi, so the optics of bringing him up while defending the rights of a Fascist website isn't great.

How are his political leanings relevant to the question of whether accessing this data would constitute a crime?

People have been sent to prison before for nothing more than fetching publicly available web pages by incrementing numbers in a URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev

Or perhaps they left California for Texas because they didn’t approve of the policies that have made CA a worse place to live, but their vote is in the minority in CA and so they can’t realistically do anything about how broken and dysfunctional the government and policies there are?

Speaking as a lifelong Californian who just moved to Austin, and has had to explain this to the few people who espouse the "don't turn Texas into California" trope.

Even if the content of the leaks was fake, which we have no evidence to indicate and none of the key actors have really claimed (as opposed to the story about how they were obtained), it would still be legal to publish it because the public officials involved mean it has a clear public interest.

There’s the possibility of civil damages if it amounts to defamation, but that’s quite a standard to reach. Such damages would fall on the publisher of the story, the NY Post, but not a platform like Twitter (per section 230 safe harbor immunity). There is no legal gray area here.

This is the same reason why those who publicized the now widely rebuked Steele Dossier are not facing legal consequences for it (including Twitter), nor should they.

Of course your original comment said nothing about the accuracy of the reporting and instead only made the claim that there was a legal gray area around publishing hacked materials like these, which is simply not true.

No, if if the content is true and in the public interest, there is really no question about the legality of publishing it in the US: it is 100% constitutionally protected.

Twitter’s initial justification for removing the “hacked” material is completely at odds with their past decisions to leave up hacked/illegally obtained materials like the Snowden docs, Trump tax returns, Panama papers, etc. Of course they have since changed their stance.

Microsoft is a member of the RIAA, so that would be an odd lawsuit: https://www.riaa.com/about-riaa/riaa-members/

I think that comic understates the amazingness of the adaptation.

The honeybees don’t just swarm the hornets, they will actually retreat into the hive and allow the hornets to enter, then trap them inside while they roast them to death. All of this works because the honeybees can vibrate themselves to a temperature just warmer than the hornets can tolerate, which is also just less than the bees can tolerate. Just one or two degrees celsius of tolerance is the difference.

Hopefully no Asian giant hornets ever evolve a slightly higher temperature tolerance!