jadell

Yes.

The response is to an article about low carb diets sending diabetes patients into "remission". It's hard not to make the connection.

Type 1 and Type 2 are completely different diseases. They present similar symptoms -- which is why they're both called "diabetes" --, but their underlying causes are different.

Many T2 patients can control their blood sugar with diet.

No T1 patients can. It has nothing to do with "discipline", it's an autoimmune disease. It's actually a bit insulting to suggest it's somehow "their own fault."

I'm glad you found a diet that works for you, makes you feel healthier, and has improved you QoL.

But it's not a panacea, and it's certainly not a cure for type 1 diabetes.

From last year (July 2019), and no follow-up. As someone who has to deal with T1D every day and carefully monitors news about research, I guarantee you no endocrinologist is counseling their patients to try this. Cutting carbs can lead to less need for insulin, but it's not a cure for T1D.

All I want is something that lets me get an RSS feed of Instagram accounts I follow, by giving nothing except the URL or username. I've tried 4 separate services that all work at first, then -- a week, a month, an indefinite time in the future -- stop working and never resume again.

I'd be very interested to see how long this actually lasts. It's easy to keep what is essentially an ungoverned commune going for a "long music festival" length of time. Let's see how well it works over the course of months/years once tragedy of the commons kicks in and whatever "governing council" emerges suddenly realizes the only way to actually enforce rules on everybody...is with force.

Plus, something like this seems ripe for "mob justice" when someone with contrary opinions decides they'd like to live in the "freedom zone". Wasn't there just a video circulating of a guy being run out of town because they crowd didn't like what he was saying? Who in this utopia decides which opinions are/aren't allowed and how do they enforce that? What happens when an innocent person gets accused of a crime, but since there's no legal system (without the threat of force to back it) the majority decides to take their own justice?

The alternatives would be the government not giving people a reason to riot.

If we're at the point of debating which weapons are or are not allowed to be used on a civilian population, then the government has already failed in its most basic responsibilities.

Teachers' unions don't even have the power to get budgets big enough for teachers to not have to buy their own school supplies for students. Talk to me when police unions are weak enough that we can cut police department budgets back so much that police have to buy their own bullets and riot gear.

One of the big problems is that processes and tactics that might be reasonable for a huge city like NYC or LA get picked up by smaller cities that probably don't need a more militarized police force. There's no reason East Podunk Noweheresville PD needs military-grade tactical gear and armored personnel transports.

The types, frequency, and severity of crimes are different in different sized communities. The tactics and responses should be different. But somehow, policy-makers and police chiefs see something happening in NYC and think, "Yeah, we need that here to."

In tech, people say "You are not Facebook, you are not Google, you are not Amazon. The solutions that work for them and the huge scale at which they operate are going to be overkill, or flat-out not work at all, for your 10k user start-up." And yet, people expect the tactics of a PD in a city like New York to work in a city like Raleigh, NC.

That may be Republicans' fear (I don't think it is, but for the sake of argument.)

I doubt any Republican using that argument can point to a portion of the Constitution that says "less informed citizens can be arbitrarily denied their right to vote." And they can't because the Constitution is pretty clear that every citizen has the right to vote (excepting with due process) without qualification.

There are instances of people initially thought of as simply witnesses to a crime becoming suspects and then being charged with that crime (or an associated crime.) The point of these videos is that in almost no case does talking to the police help you.

It's less about compassion and more about risk. Risk in the sense of the physical danger an officer goes into, but also in the sense that we are removing protections for the officer and holding them to a higher standard.

If we're saving it for later (but for some reason don't want it on Earth) we should just launch it into orbit around the Earth. Why waste the fuel to send it outside Earth orbit just to need it back later. Even if we wanted to use the materials somewhere else in the solar system, just park it in orbit around Earth until its time to move it.

> Its huge advantage is that it's built on the assumption that the user is trusted and the code isn't. In contrast most operating systems are designed on the assumption that code is absolutely trusted, but the user isn't.

It's not necessarily an advantage, it's just a different threat model. An OS is protecting against an attacker already having access to the system (whether physically or over network.) The assumption is that the system is working properly and it's the operator that is malicious.

For the browser, the assumption is that the operator is working properly, but the systems they will be accessing are malicious.

The browser security measures are like a guard at the castle gate, allowing or preventing people from entering. The OS security is like locks on the doors inside the castle so that only people with the right keys can get into various protected rooms.

Both are necessary because they're preventing different things (access to the system vs. access once you're already inside the system.)

Same. A site having a feed is much more likely to get consistent recurring traffic from me than a site I can only consume via social network posts.

Nitpick: pretty sure Slashdot predated Google reader by almost a decade.

Yes there is: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2020/s89

Maybe in the first 6 months or so after writing it.

After that, I occasionally go back through old code asking "what have you done for ME lately?" and an eye towards dragging it behind the toolshed and going "Ole Yeller" on it.

My code has to continually prove its worth to me, or else it's gone. Code is a liability.

True. We haven't confirmed a single other one yet, which is why actually finding one will be probably the most significant discovery humans ever make.

But I would imagine that an interstellar civilization that has discovered thousands of life-bearing planets would start to develop some criteria about what type of life is interesting or not. It could just be that nothing on Earth meets the criteria to be interesting.

Not unless it's released. Anything anyone creates is automatically under copyright whether they declare it or not. Of course, most people making amateur porn probably won't defend their copyright in court, which is de facto the same thing.

And the reason they didn't become huge problems like corona is because those warnings were listened to and proper responses were put in place. Our intelligence agencies also shared that info with the rest of the world, so other countries could also be prepared and prevent the spread. None of that happened with corona.

There's an old joke about sysadmins that when they do their jobs correctly, they never get any credit because nothing is ever noticed going wrong.

Health crisis response is the same way.

Does anyone know how this works with other utils that use SSH protocol, like rsync? What about tunneling other services to or from a local host? I'd love to have fewer hosts to maintain and a smaller network/attack surface, but we use SSH for more than just gaining commandline access to our instances.

Just recording those things isn't sufficient. What if the person hasn't read the archive? What if they don't have the capacity to understand what they are reading in the archive?

It's an old saying, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you." And that's what Chesterton is ultimately driving at: don't reform something if you haven't taken the time to understand why it is the way it is. Documentation helps, but is not sufficient.

Did they make the text-banking app for Buttigieg, or merely sell them SaaS? Biden, Clinton, other Dem campaigns, and the DNC have all used Shadow's software.

Yes, as much as I can. And I click through articles to reward sites that provide one. If a site doesn't provide one, I may hit an article or two, but I'm much more likely to just get a summary from social media.

If you train your security on parallel lines, and I come in with circles, I've just defeated your security. Machine learning only learns how to categorize things into predetermined categories. If I come in with a novel category it's never seen before, the best it can do is guess, and most likely, it will be worse at guessing than random chance.

Like any good security protocol, this wouldn't be the only line of defense. A combination of adversarial clothing, makeup, hair style, and accessories would be used. And constantly evolving, making countermeasures harder. Security is always reactionary, you can't defend against an attack you've never seen before.

> If that's the case, then folks should be focused on making it easier to get state ID and widen the class of IDs that can be used (state ID/voter ID card/passport/driver's license).

Yes, exactly. And that should be done before we require those IDs in order to vote.

Yes, but let's make sure IDs are easily attainable and that every eligible voter already has one, and then let's make them required to vote. Doing the last step without the prerequisites isn't going to increase democracy, it will only suppress already marginalized groups of voters.