blame_lewis

Mostly Electron. I don't like it either, but Electron is a fact of life now.

While you don't have to join in on that as a developer, you still have to be aware that 95% of users will have no idea that their instant messaging application uses 800mb of RAM to idle, or whether that's a bad thing.

Yes, but in the real world there are a lot of opportunities for implementation failure.

AES is one of the few that has a pretty good shot at it, yeah. SHA-2 has had its margin eroded significantly over the last 10 years. I'd feel nervous about using it in security-critical applications now, never mind 20 years down the line.

ECB is insecure regardless of which cipher you use. There's no excuse for using it in production applications.

http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html

AES is one of the few that I'm pretty confident will be around for a while. RSA already has a lot of caveats to its use and they will undoubtedly grow. In my completely uneducated opinion, it's even odds on RSA vs ECC first.

I don't think that's an unpopular opinion. 20 years is a long time in cryptography, and it'll be surprising if more than a handful of current cryptoprimitives live that long.

They can easily be remotely disabled if there's any suspicious activity, ie to any other server than the telemetry backend.

I've noticed that Coke Zero bottles that were left out in the sun lose most of their sweetness and taste awful. Maybe there's some photosensitive compound in the sweetener.

There are IoT SIMs available on most major carriers, which are intended for economical occasional low-data usage on large numbers of devices. They're popular in GPSes among other things.

5G is looking to reduce the cost of them further as LPWA is a key part of the standard.

> In my experience with language design, a little bit of syntactic sugar can have transformative results.

Promises/async functions in JS and C# do absolutely nothing that you couldn't do without them. But they've had a structural effect on the average developer's ability to write scalable code.

Googling for "julian assange paranoid" will give you some examples. I'm hesitant to point the finger at a specific example, because I wasn't thinking of one in particular.

> I seem to recall a whole bunch of people arguing that Assange wasn't going to be extradited to the United States once they extracted him from the embassy.

At the time a fairly extensive collection of polemic was written that liberally used the word "paranoid".

The argument from his opponents seems to have mostly shifted towards "yeah, but he deserves it".

In many interpersonal relationships, a trauma response causes you to become more liable to ending up in the same situation, not less. Do not underestimate how many people end up reliving their trauma over and over because they can't overcome that response.

This looks absolutely brilliant.

I'm pretty sure there is more extensive literature involving the exact types of degradation that is characteristic to the disease, but I do not think I'm competent to cite it correctly.

I'd imagine this process isn't so great for diagnosis given that it's mostly been observed in people with decades of uncontrolled disease behind them.

Asterisk. I meant in the long term. In the very short term, hospital can be an option, but asylums no longer exist in first-world nations.

Our treatment systems simply do not currently have an effective long-term way of handling patients that outright refuse to take their medication.

In practical terms, these days most people in that situation end up in prisons instead.

> I am very hesitant to use this when a drug can be prescribed (with knowing bad side effects) can be applied. It can seriously mess someone's life up.

This is why it's so important to understand that psychiatric treatment must be a collaborative process. The prescribing physician is only making decisions with the consent of the patient, because the patient is the one who has to choose to actually take the medication anyway.

Those decisions are made based on the patient's description of their experience of the disease. A medication can only push you in a certain direction, and when trying to find the right direction, all the clinician has to go by is what the patient says they're experiencing.

If your psychiatrist is simply telling you what your problems are, and prescribing you medications without your say in anything, then what you are receiving is not treatment. And it will, as you say, seriously mess [your] life up.

Thank you for that! I hadn't seen it before.

I'm a little nervous about the idea of coming to conclusions about individual outcomes based on national surveys of self-reported diagnoses. It seems like there are vast opportunities for outside factors to mislead attempts at analysis.

For example, the proportion of people who were misdiagnosed to start with; the increased openness over time when it comes to accepting or speaking about the diagnosis; the improvement in mental health resources meaning more diagnoses; the possibility that patients decompensate and lose insight or reject diagnoses over time; etc etc.

If you're thinking "that sounds like a No True Scotsman", you're right. The disease is clearly progressive for some people. Declaring that people who don't demonstrate that progression don't have the disease is semantically useless but may be clinically useful.

This is a really dangerous and misleading way to look at bipolar.

The disease proper of bipolar disorder is progressive and degenerative. This progression is accompanied by structural changes in the brain [1] as well as biological changes in the body [2].

If someone had the syndromes of manic or depressed symptoms in response to a medication, that does not prove either way that the person actually has the progressive and degenerative disease that can induce those syndromes spontaneously. If withdrawing the medication completely solves the problem, it simply indicates that they don't have the disease.

The sentiment of "we're all a little crazy" is very old, and very dangerous to go around repeating. There's a specific threshold where things suddenly get orders of magnitude more fucked up, and anyone who has crossed this threshold will know how damaging it is to treat these diseases as if they're just an extension of normal human experiences.

If you have this disease, you need to halt the degenerative process. I've taken my meds every single day for the last 14 years because I know what will happen if I stop. I have friends and family that went down that road, and it isn't pretty.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160531104421.h...

Australia speaking. We get a buttload of spam calls from China (in Chinese, no less).

There's evidence that classical (5-HT2a agonist) psychedelics can have a permanent impact on a person's openness score (as part of the Big 5): https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/unique-everybody-els...