defaultname

I have never bothered digging into it, just noticed a pretty irritating rise in bot gates after enabling IPv6 through the router (though it could be entirely coincidental). I of course still have an IPv4 address.

Walmart uses a litany of external services, presumably including real-time threat/bot analytics. For instance AdobeDTM, which does indeed serve via ipv6. It seems possible that IPv6 could be playing a part regardless of the status of the base site. These bot gates aren't at HTTP responses, but are in client interrogations and javascript triggers while interacting with the page.

I (the guy two comments up) am in Canada through another provider. Whether the address range just isn't as well known and documented on whitelists, or one of my neighbors (IPv6 wise) runs botnets, there is no doubt that it is treated as much more suspicious traffic when I'm going through IPv6.

And this is well known in the industry. The IPv4 world has had enormous mapping and trust ratings and understanding -- coupled with a scarcity that gives range owners or operators a higher incentive to care about what happens on it -- while a lot of people are still completely in the dark about IPv6 and still treat it like some scary unknown.

My ISP assigned my home an IPv6 address, but the net result is that I get captchas and bot checks endlessly. Even a simple grocery order on Walmart's website yields a dozen "Are you a robot" interruptions during a session.

This is the person who did the astonishing internal combustion engine and camera entries with the same dedication to detail.

https://ciechanow.ski/internal-combustion-engine/

https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/

They do fantastic work.

It's a general comment relating to the general discussion of how law-breaking a peoples are. Maybe don't take every comment personally?

Not only was my comment in no way an ad hominem, it's pretty ironic that you attempt one to denigrate.

"Look at San Fran. The DA won't prosecute shoplifters, yet people walk out stores without paying under the statutory threshold. You going to try to say that the law makes even a lick of sense when you get degenerate circumstances?"

Let's just focus on this nugget-

-the DA made no such claim

-the threshold in San Francisco is actually LOWER than Texas. So much was made about that when people were truly clueless about what they claimed

-in reality there are almost no prosecutions because the activist police force simply doesn't bother responding

Police nationwide tend to be pretty far to the right (see the NYPD having a barely above 40% vaccination level right now as a good benchmark of that, which as an aside vaccination should absolutely be a requirement for their job), and they like to intentionally do a really shit job if it achieves their talking points.

The guys rushing into stores and filling garbage bags? Yup, the police should be arresting them. That they don't has nothing to do with the DA.

>The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him

They were overt, literal, indisputable financial crimes. Not sure why you decided to scare-quote that.

Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous.

>I guess in this Cancel Culture era

Give it a rest.

There is a truth that if you are a criminal you probably shouldn't draw attention to yourself. If you're a drug dealer, don't wear a bunch of jewellery and drive a unique car. If you're someone running a ponzi scheme, don't be a public troll, desperately seeking attention.

There's always a logical fallacy in this sort of argument-

a) There are loads of extremely specific laws for various very specific problems. e.g. Taking obsidian from an obsidian flow federal park, for instance.

b) Ergo everyone commits crimes!. We're all criminals, they just selectively choose what to enforce!

b) doesn't follow at all. The vast majority of people will never even be in a situation where it was possible to commit the overwhelming bulk of laws on the book. And that never would regardless.

FWIW, criminals think everyone is a criminal. Tax evaders think it's just normal. Thieves think everyone steals. Etc.

He committed pretty egregious financial crimes. They didn't have to "dig" far.

People do understand that most people aren't hiding major felonies or securities fraud, right? Most of us aren't evading taxes. We aren't running ponzi schemes. We aren't defrauding lenders. You can scrutinize the situation of the vast majority of people and come up with nothing beyond maybe a tag taken off a mattress (har).

Somehow in the (post) Trump era we have loads of people who really, truly believe it is some sort of injustice when people get scrutiny for the crimes they are actually committing.

What possible value is there in holding a farmer's lifestyle as a model or contrast for knowledge workers? Are work/life balance concerns not a problem because someone somewhere collects eggs at 5am and vegetables at 8pm?

Further, suicides and other mental health issues are endemic among farmers. And I'm pretty sure work-life balance is an endless concern for those so engaged.

No, I didn't confuse them. How, exactly, does a nuclear power plant design prevent being offline?

You understand they have to take the plant offline to do major maintenance, even refuelling, right? In April, 75% of New England's nuclear power plants were offline, for instance, most unplanned.

When a single plant costs billions of dollars and becomes a significant or overwhelming contributor to an area's power mix, it can be a problem.

"France has no plan on replacing them is mostly caused by political "no-decision"."

Bullshit. Nuclear died outside of China because it was oversold and an economic calamity. You can't even install nuclear without massive government subsidies (not least a huge liability waiver where the state basically takes on all liability, not done for any other energy source). The cost to build, operate, retrofit and decommission is always massively over the expected, and it has only gotten worse.

There are places where nuclear is by far the best option, and its extreme costs and safety needs are acceptable. There are many others where it just never yielded the promise.

"Germany is not going back to coal, I never said that ;)"

That is the root of this thread that you jumped into, making several seriously wrong claims that you either just shifted goal posts or edited out along the way.

The economics of wind, solar, gas, and nuclear are very well documented and known. Making a robust grid is well known.

"That's when I realized"

You understand how utterly ridiculous this sounds, right?

"That's when I realized that spacecraft should be made out of aluminum foil"

>So close to 2 to 3x more than wind turbines and solar panels

This is a pretty facetious comparison. You install solar knowing that the sun won't shine all the time, and turbines that the wind won't blow. No one installs it expecting 100%. The cost to install is low.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is a massive capital expenditure. When nuclear is down, that is a major problem because you don't overbuild. An unplanned outage can be a disaster.

This whole conversation is a bit rich given that many of France's reactors are nearing EoL and France has no plans on replacing them.

Regardless, I soundly and overwhelmingly debunked the nonsense that Germany "went back to coal" so now it's on with strawmen and shifting goal posts. Such is always the nature of any discussion involving the magical panacea of nuclear.

> France is sending around 2 to 4 GW of electricity (so mostly nuclear) to Germany all the time

False. In reality Germany often has a trade surplus with France. See, every country has multiple interconnects, and various areas send and receive power. On the whole, Germany sends more power to France than France sends to Germany. Which makes sense -- France's total power production is far below its peak power demand, and as is the nature of nuclear power, plants are very often offline. But sure, one area of Germany imports from France while another area exports to France...that isn't notable.

You're regurgitating ridiculous pro-nuclear propaganda. Telling that your argument has completely shifted between posts.

"Germany didn't "removed fossil fuel""

Who are you quoting? Further, Germany started their nuclear decommissioning in 2011. Natural gas + coal + lignite is *WAY* below that level now.

>And in the end the result is https://www.electricitymap.org/map 5 to 10x more CO² impact than France per kwh, even with 2x the nuclear plants setup in France (60GW of nuclear in France against 60GW of wind turbines and 60GW of solar panels in Germany).

Germany had a much dirtier power profile before they started decommissioning nuclear reactors. They have a much, much cleaner profile now, even if it still isn't as clean as France's. The "went back to coal" nonsense is ridiculous noise.

EDIT: I would love to know what's going on in the minds of people who downvote comments like this. Just upset with fact and reality?

Fossil fuel's use in German power production is falling faster than their nuclear mix is. They never "went back to coal". In reality renewables now account for almost double nuclear's output at its peak.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...

Germany is absolutely a great example, even if it somehow became the target for the weird cadre of nuclear boosters.

TikTok doesn't promote this "legend" whatsoever. Indeed, 99% of the time I've read about TikTok's algorithm, it has been naysayer conspiring about how it's an evil addiction engine.

I've seen zero articles technically praising TikTok.

Like everything, it probably isn't for everyone (as an aside -- it seems like a considerable portion of TikTok's base now are middle aged...they aren't targeting any particular demographic), but personally I get a wonderful selection of FYP videos. I only use the app every week or so, but when I do it is one of the most interesting, entertaining digressions available.

>they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit

Pedantic, but anyone can file a lawsuit about almost anything, regardless of proof or standing or lack thereof. The barrier to doing so is negligible. It would get dismissed at the earliest consideration, but the point is that the filing of a lawsuit means incredibly little.

You have "Castle doctrine" because it was deemed politically beneficial to a politician at some point. That same politician that would happily turn your neighborhood into a strip mall through eminent domain if that was beneficial for them. You have banks literally foreclosing on the wrong homes, or through simple errors, making people homeless in the process, and those same politicians are "so sad".

If you're in a Western nation and you "make" money, it is very much a partnership with the state, and your ability to "make" money would very likely disappear without the state. For someone to go on about "their" money has no correlation with actual reality, and I'd encourage them to ply their trade in Somalia. I'm sure the income tax rates are great.

I know you're being facetious and I chuckled, but it's pretty amazing to see sites fall over under even a moderate load in 2021. A simple Go web server running on a pretty low-end machine can handle an HN-sized torrent with ease, even before sticking a CDN in front of it.

That doesn't disprove that "two disparate people who have never communicated coming up with the same idea for something".

It's entirely possible, if not probable, that there was independent efforts to build out "role-based" communications. Some employee comes along and says "Look, I've already developed an app do you want to buy it?". They talk with him and decide that what he has built isn't worthwhile and move on. Suddenly he thinks he has intellectual ownership over the entire premise (hence the hilarious $1B claim).

It doesn't work like that. Indeed, stories like this are why many firms simply don't want to listen to any pitches, because people often have a pretty outsized notion about their "inventions".

Again, maybe they really did rip off his idea. Maybe in 2016 they really had no idea of broadening their communications approaches (or I guess narrowing in this case). His lawyers can demand the pertinent records and that's what a court case is for. But just seeing this reminds me why I'm very clear in a lot of situations that I don't want people's ideas/inventions, because in almost every case they've been considered but now the person thinks they invented it and have ownership over it.

Alternately he had an idea simultaneously with others having the same idea [1]. An obvious idea. It's entirely possible that his pitch and purported meetings had nothing to do with the eventual app. It's why many firms and creative groups have a strict "don't tell us your `ideas'" policy.

In this case his idea was "role-based" communication. He came up with this (2016) as Slack and other role-based solutions were storming across the market.

[1] - a common problem coupled with advancements in the field/technology often yield many people "inventing" the same thing simultaneously, because it's an obvious next step. It's why we're so negative of the countless useless "on a computer" patents, "on a network", etc.

Isn't it also the case that the Netherlands has vaccinated few of the younger groups, which are the same group that has had an explosion of cases. I can't find the reference right now, but the country rationally focused on older groups. If that's the case, cases may be high with very few deaths.

>I take great issue with you saying 'they claim to starve themselves'.

I'm being pretty overt that when people make that claim they are often being dishonest. They know they are eating too much. There are psychological issues underlying this, but if someone tells you how little they eat yet they're gaining weight, they're likely lying.

> And, despite your claim, there are also demonstrable differences in the base metabolic rate between people.

Nowhere did I contest this. Men have more muscle mass than women and are generally larger. But between people otherwise equal, claims about varying metabolisms are largely bullshit. It is magnitudes less of an influence than it is held as.

I've been cited as a "fast metabolism" examples many times in my life. I skip meals constantly, can manage to go through a movie without eating a bucket of butter-soaked popcorn and a jug of coke, etc. I eschew all of those things. Then there's a bbq and I eat two burgers and the upper BMI people all gather around to tell the tale about how easy it is for me, what with my "fast metabolism". It's horseshit. It's destructive, self-enabling nonsense.

Another guy mentioned that when his belt size starts getting tight he knows it's time to cut back. Precisely my tactic. There have been a few times where suddenly slacks are a little tight and it isn't a signal that I need to buy new clothes or go to the next rung, but instead means it's time that I skip the occasional snack.

The nonsensical "lab animal" argument has been debunked a dozen times. It is bullshit. For animal rights reasons, labs switched to rats and mice being given a perpetual, self-serve diet of food. Unsurprisingly they ended up fatter than mice and rats given portioned foods. When they are given portioned foods...what do you know, they're not fat any more.

"People in the 2000's weighed about 10% more than people in the '80s who ate the same amount of calories, with the same micronutrient distribution, and did the same amount of exercise [1]"

To say that the cited study is laughable gives it far too much credit. For instance it specifically and only considers leisure activities. As to self-described dietary results, the only takeaway is that people are far more full of shit now than then. It is Ginny in the Sopranos boasting about their diet while eating chocolate bars in the laundry room.

It's interesting how gullible people who are otherwise so discerning are when it comes to diet, particularly for dietary excuses. There is no field that has been so rife with study that upsets study, and gross scientific malpractice, as nutrition. But hey, here's one study where they mangled numbers from sets decades apart and drew some viral result. Serious groan.

"That is well known and undisputed."

Unfortunately, loads of people in this very thread are disputing it. This submission is based upon the bizarre hope that there's a mysterious external influence that's actually causing people to gain weight, and not the merely coincidental simultaneous rise in caloric intake.

The psychological element is complex and profoundly difficult. That is without question.

> Anyway, I doubt reduction of calories is how you're going to keep your desired weight

People at a healthy weight consume less calories. Caloric intake has a perfect correlation with obesity. The psychological element is hugely difficult, but the science of "if you eat more you're going to be heavier" is very firm.

The Japanese eat, on average, 25% less calories than Americans. They have an obesity rate of 4% versus 36% in the US. This despite eating loads of "bad" calories like simple carbs (white processed rice).

How does it ignore it while specifically citing it, over and over again?

However the basic reality is that it's a lot easier/achievable to significantly change calories in. Simple keeping your body and brain operating is actually a pretty energy expensive function, such that dramatically increasing your activity is only going to mildly increase your daily energy use.

You can not eat that muffin....or exercise on the stair climber for an hour, for instance. As an aside, loads of exercise equipment and guides effectively lie about this by including basal calories with active calories, grossly overstating the calories "burned" by activities.

So again, exercise. Eat healthy. But most importantly of all, eat less.

It isn't clear at all.

a) Humans are spectacularly efficient at turning solar energy into bioavailable calories. This impacts virtually every animal.

b) Lab and zoo diets have dramatically changed. For instance in the lab there was a change from specific portioned diets to the notion that food should always be provided. Any study that claims that there was some mysterious rise in obesity is simply lying. And again there is a push for controlled, restricted diets because having sedentary rats and mice who can eat whenever they want is yielding unhealthy subjects.

c) The study this article links was lead by a guy who is an advisor to Coca-cola, Kraft, Frito-Lay, the Restaurant Association, among others. It is a profoundly corrupt industry, and yeah the notion that some mysterious unknown cause is to blame is convenient in that situation.