doesnotexist

> The amount raised contained numerical references to marijuana and oral sex: $420.69 million raised from 69 investors. An article published by one of FTX’s investors, Sequoia, called that fundraising a “meme round,” referring to the embedded jokes.

Is Sequoia going to need to rebrand itself after this? Sure does raise some questions about their judgement and professionalism. Hey Investors, we're raising a round of almost half a billion dollars and the theme is...

Looks interesting, but it'snot clear on how they protect metadata from the STUN/TURN part of webrtc. Potentially its use of the Multi-Party Relay that insulates peers from those services knowing anything about the peer. Some interesting points were from the article:

- Booth leverages the same INVISV Multi-Party Relay (MPR) architecture that we also use to provide Internet privacy for Relay users. Using an MPR, users’ network identities (IP addresses) are masked from the cloud server that they connect to. https://invisv.com/articles/relay

- Booth is designed to use meeting “booths”, where the booth link is randomized for each meeting. Likewise, Booth users don’t need to reveal their names to the server. ... (Note that Booth relies on browser support for Insertable Streams/Encoded Transform, which is limited to Chrome-based browsers at this time.) In addition to this end-to-end encryption, Booth also employs additional outer layers of encryption as described in the MPR architecture.

Needs this music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEyEkbOlMfA&t=690s

I generally agree that it's unlikely we'll see any serious accountability. However:

> - The only group who could really hold Twitter accountable are shareholders, but why should they care if the public and Congress don't? The money will roll in either way.

This might be what does it because is it true that the money is and will keep really rolling in? Twitter doesn't pay a dividend and is it reasonable to expect that the company's stock value should increase that much going forward?

Twitter's gross profit numbers aren't as large as you'd think given the household name recognition of the brand. You might be as surprised as I was to discover that meme-stocks like AMC and GameStop are approximately the same size as Twitter in terms of gross profit. Perhaps Twitter is just as much of a big name but ailing dinosaur as those businesses? Or if you want to make comparisons within social media, isn't it surprising that Snap's ~$2.8 billion cap gross profit is right up there with Twitter's ~$3.2 billion. How did that happen? It is also interesting that snap's market cap is only 2/3rds of Twitters despite a much closer delta between the two companies reported profits.

On the whole, things aren't looking too good for the social media right now, take for example facebook losing active users YoY. I often wonder what zeitgeist web properties are going to be remembered as a BIG thing that receded in popularity in the course of about a decade, say like bell-bottom denim jeans from the 60s or disco music from the 70s. Could it be social media for the 2010s?

Anyhow if they aren't paying dividends and they aren't able to keep growing at pace with expectations what exactly are they delivering in terms of value to shareholders?

Given that the allegations are about defrauding shareholders by actively deceiving them and sweeping things under the rug. Twitter's shareholders might be better off revolting against the current leadership to recoup their loses than to look the other way and let this slide.

"The web app was so sensitive in nature I can’t really even describe the contents, but it was a big find by itself."

Maybe that's true, and certainly the vulnerabilities described in more detail are already quite a big deal, but the author probably should have omitted the above quote from their post as it leaves the reader with some suspicion that perhaps this is a bit of a "Fish Story" (fisherman exaggerating the size of the fish they caught) https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fish%20Story

First off, I'm not taking anything at face value. My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google. As to your statements, I'm sorry but that just isn't how any of this works. Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Not to mention competition among companies and academic researchers.

Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts.

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...

What are you talking about? You do know the vaccines were granted full FDA approval? How do you think that occured?

"Full approval is granted when, over time, the FDA has amassed even more scientific evidence to support use of the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that the benefits of the vaccine are greater than its risks, and that the vaccines can be manufactured reliably, safely and with consistent quality."

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...

Look at this ultra top secret data I found by typing "covid 19 vaccine clinical trials data" into google:

https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-resu...

wait till you type in "covid-19 vacccine risk benefit analysis" You'll be entered into a secret society with knowledge that has been kept from the sheeple.

Pure garbage masquerading as science.

Take a look at the kinds of claims the paper makes at first. Then stop for a second. Now imagine how someone doing real science might try to prove such a claim. Now scan the paper looking for any thing even remotely reminiscent of evidence for the claim and you won't find it.

Also consider this nugget: "The increasing evidence that the vaccines do little to control disease spread"

According to this, there were 11,000 Covid-19 vaccine papers published in 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-xA

On balance where do you suspect the evidence falls?

Nvidia

Have you read this blog post by Josh W. Comeau outlining his experience with Talon for a developer workflow?

https://www.joshwcomeau.com/blog/hands-free-coding/

> in 2015, the CC organization released the current licenses, Version 4.0, including a “cure provision” that gives people who make attribution mistakes the legal right to a 30-day grace period after notification of the error to make it right.

This cure provision is a good start but doubtful that it's the full patch. I wonder if there is some way to upgrade to a more "barbed-wire" provision that puts these troll firms at greater liability themselves or in some way increases the burden/cost to these automated legal threat extortion farms.

I am super excited about the multi-tenant use case supported by tag pruning. Great work!

For me, it's been that I am unable to download books to the kindle app on my computer

Can also confirm that the kindle app is failing for me and has been for the past few hours.

From their contributing page: https://remix.run/docs/en/dev/contributing

> "We need you to "sign" a contributor license agreement (CLA) first that assigns us ownership so we are able to include it in this software. We don't yet have a CLA, but we are working on it and we will be able to accept your contributions as soon as we do."

Apparently, requiring a CLA isn't as uncommon as I initially thought, but I'm still curious why some projects require this but others do not. What about their business model / licensing choices necessitate a CLA?

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

Yeah I think everyone feels icky about 'curl https://.. | sh' but to what degree is doing so any more insecure than other "normalized" software distribution practices? See also: https://twitter.com/moyix/status/1451318133021675520

I wonder if that connects at all to the pink beam of light that Philip K. Dick wrote about in VALIS, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valis_(novel)

Their FAQ gives a sketch of how they detect AV events on Mac OS:

Q: Why does it take OverSight, a few seconds to display the webcam/mic usage notification?

A: There is not easy way to determine what process is using the webcam or mic, when either is activated. Worse, there is no direct indication that a new process is accessing an existing a webcam session. Thus OverSight has to perform various tests and has to poll the system (only when the camera/mic is active) in order to determine what process(es) is/are accessing the device. This takes a few seconds...mahalo for your patience!

It's entirely misleading. They don't write 87% of patients tested positive before or early on in their admission. Even, the headline is written to convey the opposite. What they are doing is breaking it into two numbers that are each less than 50% to obscure the magnitude of the sum and then lumping the second number (patients who tested early in their admission) with those who tested positive later. It's easy to overlook that testing positive in the first 2 days of admission includes people who test positive at t=0 of their hospital admission, people who did not get tested prior to arriving at hospital. It's more amazing that 44% tested positive prior to arriving at hospital!

But all of that is besides the point because the reported statistic wasn't even labelled or reported by the original source (the NHS) as "covid as cause of admission." The stat is labelled "covid positive admissions" which is not logically equivalent to "covid, as primary cause of admission" The article does mention this distinction but they've already led readers on by framing things and setting the scene for FUD/ suspicion toward public health institutions. Knowing how many patients that were admitted and were covid positive is a useful statistic to be tracking on it's own right without necessarily attributing the admissions to covid. I'd imagine the report that they plucked this single statistic from from is filled with lots of other data which may include numbers that more closely track attribution of the admission to covid. The article implies that bad decisions are being made on account of this single statistic, which is hard to believe or should be better supported in the article's reporting if that is the intended takeaway.

Also, consider the usage of the word "leaked" in the article and reconcile that with the statement "the leaked statistics come from NHS daily situation reports" I'm not even sure what they mean by leaked, do you? The NHS is not the GCHQ, their data isn't exactly classified top-secret. The entire article is written to leave readers with the impression that the wool is being pulled over their eyes by public health institutions. It plays into paranoia and distrust toward government and public institutions.

They don't really explain much about that 13%. So it's a bit misleading. How many of the 13% tested positive on day 3 for example. Testing positive on day 3 would still lead one to believe they had contracted covid prior to admission and covid illness could be contributing factor to their admission or even the primary reason. It seems more that the article wants to give the impression that the 13% entirely is comprised of post-admission covid positive being retroactively recategorized as covid admission. That may be true for some portion of the 13% but we have no way to know from this reporting. It's ironic that an article criticizing categorization/attribution being overly broad to do exactly that with the minority percentage that it hangs the entire thrust of its point upon.

Didn't The Telegraph endorse Boris Johnson? I'm not super well versed in UK politics, but as Prime Minister Boris Johnson is also the "Leader of the Conservative Party" right? And the Tory party merged with another party to form the Conservative party so are they now a wing or subset of the Conservative Party? Is Boris Johnson in the Tory subset?

Misleading article since as they state "44 per cent involved people who tested positive in the 14 days before hospital entry. A further 43 per cent were made within two days of admission". Thats 87% are positive within 2 days of start of admission but the article is very blustery about the non-common case that people test positive after discharge for some non-covid admission reason.

Congratulations on the launch! This is a very cool company based on a wonderful open source project, tantivy, sorta modernized lucene written in Rust. Must say I am super pleased with the documentation, it so easy to get started using tantivy just output json and start indexing searching anything you want!

Dijkstra had a unique format for his undergraduate class where the entire grade basically came down to an interview at the end of the semester. During which he asked you to work out a solution to a problem in front of him one on one. A friend had the most memorable interaction with him during the interview/final exam. Dijkstra explained the problem and they began furiously writing out a solution in pencil getting a few lines into the proof before realizing they had made a mistake and began to erase what was written. Dijkstra responded "tsk tsk tsk, you are a rash mathematician" and advised the student to "Use a pen instead of pencil it will encourage you to spend more time with your thoughts before writing."

A couple years later I saw a quote that reminded me of that interaction and it goes “I mean, if 10 years from now, when you are doing something quick and dirty, you suddenly visualize that I am looking over your shoulders and say to yourself "Dijkstra would not have liked this", well, that would be enough immortality for me.”

Dijkstra's ghost haunts us all.

So these are for sale on AliExpress which I've found to be higher friction than other open marketplaces (ebay/amazon/etc). The last time I tried to buy something there, my checkout was interrupted by a notification asking that I submit ID and other info for screening to proceed, which I found surprising since I was buyer not a seller and was purchasing some rather mundane item, cables or jumpers, I can't remember. In the end, the result was I didn't complete the order because it didn't seem worth the trouble. Additionally, I'm a little hesitant to buy some items on AliExpress because I worry they suffer from the same counterfeit issues as other open marketplaces due to poor oversight over sellers. Except for on AliExpress I have even less of a sense of how to distinguish between sellers with established reputations or otherwise. Does anyone have any tips for how to best use AliExpress?

Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to more ambiguous conclusions:

"My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics."

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv...

"The Kory et al. preprint ignores the basics – there are no criteria for inclusion, studies have different mixes of treatment and control and different standards for describing treatments compared with ivermectin and mixes of treatments including ivermectin. These factors alone make the value of their meta-analysis doubtful. However, their evidence base is my major concern as it has been widely reported on social media without the wider (and more technical) context of how meta-analysis ought to be performed"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/public...

Ahem, I prefer beanie propeller hats.

Call me old fashioned but I don't source my medical evidence from two creators on youtube.